blike Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Copernhagen Interpretation Many World Interpretation Pilot Wave Interpretation Time Reversibility Transactional Interpretation Other -> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 after reading the links you PM`d me, I`de have to vote "Other", to me it just seems that we don`t have a full understanding of the nature of photons. all the rest is pure speculation, maybe one of them is correct? maybe non are? but they ALL say that we just DON`T know OTHER for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Same here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 I like the Copernhagen interpretation, but only because it appeals to me, not because of any sort of evidence. Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is a bit creepy though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Wheelers would certainly "explain" alot of phenomenon if it were to be correct, everything from telepathy to telekinetics and I`m sure some relious events caused by "God" from the "will" of the persecuted people, the list`s endless really I`ll stick with what I know and what I don`t know, at least any part can be proven/disproven descisively Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aommaster Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Excuse me guys, but, what is a school of thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 it`s another expression to say "Way of thinking" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Could you please (one of you who knows) give a quick little sentence defining each? I've probably heard them all before at some point, I just don't recognize them by name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest me6 Posted May 15, 2004 Share Posted May 15, 2004 Other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aommaster Posted May 15, 2004 Share Posted May 15, 2004 Could you please (one of you who knows) give a quick little sentence defining each? I've probably heard them all before at some point, I just don't recognize them by name. Yeah, it makes it pretty complex not to know what each one means Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted May 15, 2004 Share Posted May 15, 2004 Yeah, it makes it pretty complex not to know what each one means Not so much I do know what each means, but I don't know how they have been labeled. I would guess that the "many worlds" one is the one that says each action creates a seperate universe for all the possible consequences. The "time reversibility" I would think is the one that says if the universe stops expanding and starts compressing, time will run in reverse and everything will play out backwards. I'm open for definitions of any of the other ones, or corrections to the ones above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted May 15, 2004 Author Share Posted May 15, 2004 See here: http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm and then: http://higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aommaster Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 According to te descriptions, I tend to follow MWI! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 I like the Copenhagen Interprtation, but Pilot Waves has this strange appeal also. It's really tough to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 Time reversibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 after reading the links you PM`d me' date=' I`de have to vote "Other", to me it just seems that we don`t have a full understanding of the nature of photons. all the rest is pure speculation, maybe one of them is correct? maybe non are? but they ALL say that we just DON`T know OTHER for me [/quote'] Agree 2 a T. Other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geistkiesel Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 after reading the links you PM`d me' date=' I`de have to vote "Other", to me it just seems that we don`t have a full understanding of the nature of photons. all the rest is pure speculation, maybe one of them is correct? maybe non are? but they ALL say that we just DON`T know OTHER for me [/quote'] Interesting post. Feynman texbook "Lectures on Physics" is replete with sayings like" We just don't know" hundreds of them. Afte a bit I began to believe him. Those that idolze RF are bowing to a confessed idiot. No I am not over reacting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Either Bohm or Feynman. I'd flip a coin but the outcome might not be reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geistkiesel Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Same here.Same here. __________________ Dave Mathematics Forum Moderator "The only thing wrong with immortality is that it tends to go on forever." - Herb Caen "The reason Mother Nature included time in her creation was so everything wouldn't happen all at once." Anon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProphet Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Since we are talking QM:s way of inteperating it.. I'll definatly have a go with Bhor! i love Feynman: but in some of his theorys is just too spaced out just like MW... Down from that i'll have some coines bet on String theory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Interesting post. Feynman texbook "Lectures on Physics" is replete with sayings like" We just don't know" hundreds of them. Afte a bit I began to believe him. Those that idolze RF are bowing to a confessed idiot. No I am not over reacting. you may have point IF I`de ever said that I`de read any of his stuff, fact is, I haven`t ever my reply was purely personal opinion, and not based on any biased teaching(s) from others, I for one Personaly don`t know or understand everything about the Photon. my post still stands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senexa Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Time Reversibility. I think Feynman was essentially on target, except for separating time and space into separate axes. If you visualize time/space as a Mobius, the Diagram makes grand sense and is elegant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now