New edgy thread

This is like someone who has never spoken Aramaic, coming back after 7 minutes of briefly skimming through an acient text and telling us:* "like I said, it's just all nonsense, it's not a real language, the words don't even make sense"*.

:P

When you say you are not convinced, can you be specific, what part of the theory do you find unconvincing.

there was no theory. it just showed what happened. nothing else.

What is 'the thing' ?

dam, i dont know. whatever the electrons are capable of i guess. if the electrons are capable of acting like waves when they are watched, then that is still what they are and what they do. they just didnt know it before.

How did the observation influence the outcome ??

that is the question isnt it. of course i dont know the answer, do you? but it doesnt change my point that if electrons are capable of acting like particles and waves, then thats what they are and what they do. if you watch them or not doesnt change the fact that they are capable of acting like particles and waves. its just changes how they act while you are watching. which is what i was saying somewhere up there^^^, its not the observing that causes the change just that in observing, you observe the change.

what i find unconvincing is the idea that observing changes the fundamental potential of the outcome. that by not observing you limit the only possible outcomes to 1 and 2 and 3, and by observing, the possible outcomes completely change to include 4 and 5 and 6. why is it not possible that the potential outcomes are 1- 6 already, and that we only really ever see 1 - 3 but when we observe, we see the 1 - 6 occur.