I'm bored so ask me anything.

[Dane_McArdy]

Which is exactly my point, to observe we must add an element to the experiment. A camera, a microphone, photons, our senses, something must be added to detect or measure the result.

If I run the experiment in that video, with the metal balls, I get the same result as if I do it while standing in the room, or not standing in the room. I don't need to observe to get the same results.

Hitting an electron with a photon is NOT observing, it's interacting. You have altered the behavior of the electron. You have not just merely observed it.

And by interacting, you alter.

The word causing the problem is observe. What is more accurate, is interact.

[Vardak]

If I run the experiment in that video, with the metal balls, I get the same result as if I do it while standing in the room, or not standing in the room. I don't need to observe to get the same results.

Hitting an electron with a photon is NOT observing, it's interacting. You have altered the behavior of the electron. You have not just merely observed it.

And by interacting, you alter.

The word causing the problem is observe. What is more accurate, is interact.

With electrons you observe nothing by standing in the room. If it were possible to SEE the electrons your eyes would have to receive light reflected from their surface. If light is reflected, then the electrons have interacted with that light energy. Therefore, it is impossible to observe without interaction.

<edit> it is similarly impossible to interact without altering.

[Alavatar]

Did you know that the Eqyptians had electricty? They actually used acid and dissimilar metals to plate things, which requires electricity. And here we are, several thousand years later, saying "They were so close to a fantastic technology".

In the next thousand years will humanity look back at the 21st century and say our technology was "so close" to some great breakthrough? I think so.

Dane, many experiments have to be "interacted with" in order to observe results. Saying that interacting with the subject being studied invalidates the experiment is a false conclusion.

In biology the easiest way to find data is to add specific chemicals to the subject. If the subject reacts to the chemical (by turning colors in simple biology) then data can be acquired.

By shooting metal balls are you not interacting with them? You have to apply the force in some way. And light (photons) is bouncing off them which allows the experiment to be recorded/observed. By your definition those photons are altering the behavior of the metal balls.

Also, many conclusions are derived from altering things. "If I do this, then this happens. If I do this instead, then this happens. That means this."

[Dane_McArdy]

With electrons you observe nothing by standing in the room. If it were possible to SEE the electrons your eyes would have to receive light reflected from their surface. If light is reflected, then the electrons have interacted with that light energy. Therefore, it is impossible to observe without interaction.

<edit> it is similarly impossible to interact without altering.

My point exactly.

The act of observing the electrons isn't changing their behavior, therefor causing the multi-state to collapse and form the expected pattern. The interaction of the photons on the electrons is changing the pattern.

Therefor, we can't assume that the first pattern we get is because the electrons are everywhere and nowhere at the same time, they are in all locations simultaniously.

They are acting in a manner that we can't observ, and the only way we can observe them is to alter thier behavior.

So, we still don't know how electrons behave in an unaltered state because currently, we can't observe them without altering their behavior.

So the big piece of missing information, how do electrons behave when not subjected to an introduced element, in this case, photons.

[Dane_McArdy]

Dane, many experiments have to be "interacted with" in order to observe results. Saying that interacting with the subject being studied invalidates the experiment is a false conclusion.

The experiement is to observe the behavior of both when shot out of a cannon through either one or two slots in a wall, and the pattern they create.

In the first experiment, nothing is introduced after the balls are shot through the cannon.

In the second with electrons, we have to hit the electrons with photons after they have been shot out of the cannon, but before they pass through the slots.

Since we can't observe electrons without using photons, we don't know how electrons behave without doing this. We can only make a guess. So we can't say that the photons don't or do effect the behavior of the electrons.

And there for, the experiment doesn't give us a better understanding, it shows what we don't know.

[Vardak]

Sound is nothing more then sonic vibrations in the atmospheric medium and hearing it doesn't change it's nature.

So, we still don't know how electrons behave in an unaltered state because currently, we can't observe them without altering their behavior.

So the big piece of missing information, how do electrons behave when not subjected to an introduced element, in this case, photons.

Which brings us right back to the begining. We cannot know what the nature of sound energy is unless we measure it, to measure it we must interact with it.

[Dane_McArdy]

Which brings us right back to the begining. We cannot know what the nature of sound energy is unless we measure it, to measure it we must interact with it.

Which brings me back to my point. Something can exist without being measured or interacted with by man to be what it is.

The nature of sound energy doesn't need us to exist. Therefor, yes a sound is generated when a tree falls in the woods and there is nothing around to interact with that sound.

[Dane_McArdy]

Ok, while fun, I've run my course on this subject. I'm not going to continue it on my end.

But talk amongst yourselves.

[Vardak]

Which brings me back to my point. Something can exist without being measured or interacted with by man to be what it is.

The nature of sound energy doesn't need us to exist. Therefor, yes a sound is generated when a tree falls in the woods and there is nothing around to interact with that sound.

Man, no. Something to interpert the vibrations as sound, YES.

I still don't need that hug.

[Alavatar]

The experiement is to observe the behavior of both when shot out of a cannon through either one or two slots in a wall, and the pattern they create.

In the first experiment, nothing is introduced after the balls are shot through the cannon.

In the second with electrons, we have to hit the electrons with photons after they have been shot out of the cannon, but before they pass through the slots.

Since we can't observe electrons without using photons, we don't know how electrons behave without doing this. We can only make a guess. So we can't say that the photons don't or do effect the behavior of the electrons.

And there for, the experiment doesn't give us a better understanding, it shows what we don't know.

Light consists of photons. We cannot observe the metal ball without light (i.e. photons) bouncing off of it. The same with any visual observation.

Insert the word "anything visually" for "electrons" in your sentance and you get the following:

"Since we can't observe anything visually without using photons"

Which brings me back to my point. Something can exist without being measured or interacted with by man to be what it is.

The nature of sound energy doesn't need us to exist. Therefor, yes a sound is generated when a tree falls in the woods and there is nothing around to interact with that sound.

Wrong. Sound requires a receiver. The "nature" of the energy that you keep referring to is just vibration of matter. If there is no receiver to interpret the vibration as "sound" then the vibration is merely matter moving and energy transferring kinetically.

[Raath]

Cataclysm:

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[Dane_McArdy]

Please refrain from addressing me about those conversations, as it's not really fair to keep asking or addressing comments about them to me, when I have said my piece.

[Gypsy_Mouse]

Cataclysm:

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

??

[Dane_McArdy]

??

Ooo excellent!

[Vardak]

Please refrain from addressing me about those conversations, as it's not really fair to keep asking or addressing comments about them to me, when I have said my piece.

I see no one addressing you, I do see some responses to your final comments. Are you posting this just to cause touble?

[JayDubya]

Cataclysm:

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

What do you mean, African or European?









































WEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!@!!!!!!!!11!1!!!!!1! 1!

[Dane_McArdy]

I see no one addressing you, I do see some responses to your final comments. Are you posting this just to cause touble?

Since I have taken my point of view out of the conversation, there isn't any reason for anyone to continue addressing my point of view. To quotes someone and respond, is addressing that person. More so when someone responds by saying they are wrong.

I'm done with the conversation, everyone else is welcome to continue discussing their point of view with each other.

It's that simple.

[Dane_McArdy]

Why did God kill my cat?

[Vardak]

Why did God kill my cat?

Cause you were mean to me in that last post

[Dane_McArdy]

Cause you were mean to me in that last post

No just factual, and my cat died several months ago.