0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

You and I both know there is a certain number of atoms always anchored to spacetime.

Eddington pointed out about 100 years ago that if a student of physics fell through an intact floor and rematerialised in the room below, he would not consider it a miracle but merely one of the less probable solutions to a multivariable equation.Alas, this obvious and profound observation seems not to have reached the elementary school syllabus yet, though it is plain that the regular contributors here understand it. What baffles me is why those who don't, frequently accuse us of sharing their delusions.

Anyone who remembers "The Fly" will recall the problems of reassembling atoms in their original order. Indeed the fact that a double slit transfer redistributes stuff into a transform of the slit convoluted with the incident beam, suggests that the probability of recombination in a recpognisable order is even less than Eddington implied. But that classic film ignored the fundamental conservation of matter - the fly could not be more massive than the original, nor could Bart Simpson, in the famous spoof remake, get any smaller. So no long finger, unless some orther bit is sacrificed..

Observation is a property of spacetime. Stuff on our scale has never turned into a matter wave. There is a divide between spacetime and qm waves, apparently it's the number of atoms involved.

If matter waves can pass a slit smaller than the object they represent ..they are not physical they are waves of variables/information. The uncertainty principle is uncertain(fuzzy) because the objects has only been granted partial spacetime. Observation/Spacetime is what makes matter waves swap to physical objects. QM waves don't have time, gravity, or 3D. If QM waves are information the divide is how much information an object contains.

Observation/Spacetime is what makes matter waves swap to physical objects. QM waves don't have time, gravity, or 3D. If QM waves are information the divide is how much information an object contains.

Quote from: pittsburghjoe on 16/06/2019 18:02:00"If matter waves can pass a slit smaller than the object they represent ."... then sieves don't work.But, they do.

"If matter waves can pass a slit smaller than the object they represent ."... then sieves don't work.But, they do.

The point of this thread is for objects larger than a single atom that can still swap to matter waves.

Atoms bouncing off each other collapses their waves.

Why can't you grasp that tunneling is even more evidence that matter waves are not physical?