From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:51:59 -0500, remove wrote:   
      
   > You said that light exists until the photon hits something and is   
   > absorbed.  What photon?  I thought you said you understood the duality   
   > of light.  Obviously you don't.   
      
   Well, the "duality" is that sometimes it's a wave, and sometimes it's a   
   particle.   
      
   We call those particles "photons".   
      
   You can treat it as a metaphor if you like, as I did, since I was using it   
   in an informal conversation.   
      
   > You deride and belittle others for believing in a God that has no proof   
   > and say you believe in science which has proof.  I give you proof and   
   > either you don't understand it or you run from it trying to move the   
   > argument into shallow water so you can form an argument you can debate.   
      
   You've offered nothing like proof so far, just the same assertions over   
   and over.   
      
   > Try to focus on the argument and no go off somewhere else.   
      
   Funny, given that you've failed up until this post to answer any of my   
   points.   
      
   > Bells theory proved that any deterministic theory which preserved   
   > "locality" would have certain consequences for measurements preformed at   
   > a distance from one another.  Thus the correlation between the sets of   
   > events is much stronger then any "local" deterministic theory could   
   > allow.  Whats more, this stronger correlation is PRECISELY that which is   
   > predicted by quantum physics.   
      
   So far so good.   
      
      
   > I know of no threat to Bell's work.   
      
   Nor I.   
      
   > Therefor   
      
   Therefore.   
      
      
   > You can not have the comfortable Newtonian world where everything that   
   > happens is predictable   
      
   A minor point; but as I've already told you Newtonian physics is not   
   always deterministic.   
      
   > and where one measurement site could not affect another set of   
   > measurements being preformed light years away, at a distance that a   
   > light-signal could not bridge.   
      
   That's "Einsteinian", as in Einstein Podalsky Rosen paradox.   
      
   > Let me place this in simpler terms .......   
   >   
   > In order to have an objective universe you must preserve "locality".   
   > What locality means is that what you observe must remain separate and   
   > distinct from what I observe far far away.  So far away that a beam of   
   > light would take time to reach my observation point.  So it has been   
   > proved, quite often because of the consequences thereof, that your   
   > observation affects my observation at a distance.   
      
   Affects, yes, that's what Bell and Aspect showed; but not in any   
   meaningful way.   
      
   "Locality" is effectively preserved because you cannot transfer   
   information in this way, and hence cannot violate causality.   
      
   > So no objective universe exists.  You can look up the proof on Goggle if   
      
   Google.   
      
   > you want.   
      
   When it's peer reviewed, perhaps.  Till then it's just the ramblings of a   
   few random nutters.   
      
   > I have no interest of arguing basic facts that are quite well documented   
   > and argued over many many years ago.  You come up with an argument that   
   > is pertinent and that is your own I will debate otherwise I have little   
   > interest.   
      
   Your argument is flawed, as I show above.   
      
   > Your views are sixty years out of date.   
      
   I think not.   
      
   > BTW I failed to mention that I took Quantum in Collage   
      
   You "took quantum in collage".   
      
   Woo, scary.   
      
   I'd be more scared if you'd demonstrated any understanding of it. I'm   
   guessing you didn't complete the course. What happened, did everyone   
   disagree with you?   
      
   > and was friends   
   > with a particle physicist.  It was very difficult to get him to make any   
   > statement about the universe.   
   > So a electron is a standing wave?   
   > Well that is one way to describe it.   
   > How do you describe an electron?   
   > That depends on what I'm trying to do at the time. How many ways can an   
   > electron be described? Quite a few.   
      
   So what, I've seen similar from other physicists.  The problem they, and   
   apparently you, face is understanding the maths intuitively - if you just   
   work with the maths, everything comes out right - it's when you try to   
   apply ordinary intuition that things fall apart (the wave-particle duality   
   is usually quoted as an example of this).   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)