0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
By definition a point has no zero dimensions so whatever you multiply it by you still get zero
then thinking of those 'electrons' photoed at Lunds university.
yea Lightarrow, that's the one Old now, but somehow still breathtaking in its simplicity. What is it they have on their film?
In one way a very solid support for the idea of electrons, as having a shape and a 'solidity', but thought of the other way, as a probability? I know one can 'make it' both ways, but it still blows my mind.
To me it has a lot to do with time, we live in in time and time is defined by outcomes, even when we find it not to change there has to be outcomes.
Ir's like shades of reality Good name for a book btw.
The one we're in defined by outcomes, the other theoretical as there is no way for us to measure inside it. We need time for all measurements. Looked at that way the electron had to be measurable, as per Lund, but won't change the other definition in where it only exist as a probability.
Would you agree that our time of observation defines a shape? Chiral?As if time decides.
It's about shapes, actually. Started to wonder about the way we used to look at atoms, etc, as some spherical objects. then thinking of those 'electrons' photoed at Lunds university. Then thinking of that electron as consisting of a 'probability cloud'. Then thinking that if I use magnifying as some standard for what is 'real', would it all dissolve?=and yes, what is the most probable shape we will see, assuming we 'back up' from that dissolving reality.