Recent content by VALENCIANA

I love Jim Hasty´s explanation.

Regarding the double-slit experiment, I wonder why Richard Feynman had this concept: From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment "Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible […] to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of...

The worst thing about Iranian leaders is that their word is worth nothing. They signed the agreement and already backed on many points which they say they will not comply with. Obama says that even so, no agreement would be worse. Why? What can really change?

If I say that decoherence is an irreversible loss of information, then in the double-slit with erasure when initially decoherence has occurred with the measurement, and then after erasure of the information the state is again as it was at the beginning , how can this occur if the initial...

Bill, you say that all that QM is is an observation which is an interaction. How do you exactly define "interaction" ? What interacts in QM?

What you say is very interesting Phinds, but could you expand a Little more? So the picture is not about waves and particles but about wave properties and particle properties at the same time? Does this also mean that the concept of real wave and real particle belong to Newtonian physics?

Sincé I am not a physicist, but study a lot of quantum physics of my own, I hope you excuse my incomplete knowledge. I have been thinking about the following: If a picture of a simultaneous wave-particle was taken, doesn´t that contradict the fact that waves actually don´t exist, they are...

What I mean is that there shouldn t be any difference between a wave function collapse in the brain and body when we are awake than when we sleep. From an objective point of view, it should be the same.

Do we we know what is exactly the wave function and the collapse (if there actually is a collapse) to differentiate between what happens when we are awake or asleep , or dreaming? Is dreaming very different from reality?

Derek, I get it. Fantastic explanation !

Do you mean that the observer is entangled with the system in a non local way in the sense that when the observer wants to measure there is a measurement in the way in which when one entangled particle is up, the other is instantly down?

Derek: Could you expand a little more on: "The observer is entangled with the system he observes, and not only is he entangled but all possible outcomes are in superposition." ?

That´s really interesting Atyy Thanks for all your explanations.