No......it's amazing that there's JUST one.......which means we got in just under the wire. It means there were JUST enough elements present and JUST enough potential compounds......and THAT is fine-tuning.
Tell me, when a guy wins the lottery, do you immediately assume that he cheated, or that God had a direct hand in his winning?
Because your argument applies there. Since only one ticket in a million won, clearly he got in under the wire, and the lottery was fine-tuned for him to win.
It's simple fact that many of the laws of physics don't apply to quanta.
Oh, certainly our models of relativity don't describe quantum behavior.
But to take that fact and proclaim that quanta don't obey the laws of physics is simply idiotic. You've confused the laws of physics with our understanding of them. You've confused the map with the territory.
And now that I point this out, you're so embarrased that you accuse me of "babbling." Typical. Either that, or you're simply unable to understand the distinction between the model and the reality. Your loss.
1. The rules of quantum mechanics tell you statistically where the particles will hit the screen, and will identify the bright bands where many particles are likely to hit and the dark bands where few particles are likely to hit. However, for a single particle, the rules of quantum mechanics cannot predict where the particle will actually be observed. What are the rules to determine where an individual particle is observed? 2. What happens to the particle in between the time it is emitted and the time that it is observed? The particle seems to be interacting with both slits and this appears inconsistent with the behavior of a point particle, yet when the particle is observed, one sees a point particle. 3. What causes the particle to appear to switch between statistical and non-statistical behaviors? When the particle is moving through the slits, its behavior appears to be described by a non-localized wave function which is travelling through both slits at the same time. Yet when the particle is observed it is never a diffuse non-localized wave packet, but appears to be a single point particle.
The Copenhagen interpretation answers these questions as follows:
1. The probability statements made by quantum mechanics are irreducible in the sense that they don't just reflect our limited knowledge of some hidden variables. In classical physics, probabilities were used to describe the outcome of rolling a die, even though the process was thought to be deterministic. Probabilities were used to substitute for complete knowledge. By contrast, the Copenhagen interpretation holds that in quantum mechanics, measurement outcomes are fundamentally indeterministic. 2. Physics is the science of outcomes of measurement processes. Speculation beyond that cannot be justified. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position" as meaningless. 3. The act of measurement causes an instantaneous "collapse of the wave function". This means that the measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function, and the wave function instantaneously changes to reflect that pick.
I don't see anything like what you say the interpretation is. Feel free to cite your own source, please.
Of course, there's every possibility that the Copenhagen Interpretation is outright wrong, according to recent experiments by Shahriar Afshar:
quote:Waving Copenhagen Good-bye: Were the founders of Quantum Mechanics wrong?
Shahriar S. Afshar - Harvard University Physics Department Associate
Violation of Bohr's Principle of Complementarity in an optical "which-way" experiment: Wave-particle duality has been a persistent enigma in the history of optics for more than two thousand years. With the advent of Quantum mechanics and following the famous Bohr-Einstein debate, Niels Bohr put forward his celebrated Principle of complementarity (PC) which allows presence of sharp wave-like and particle-like behaviors, only in mutually exclusive experiments. In a welcher weg or "which-way" experiment we can obtain perfect knowledge about the origin and path of quantum particles (particle-like behavior), but this action must lead to a complete destruction of the interference pattern (wave-like behavior). I will report a novel quantum optical "which-way" experiment, currently being duplicated at HEPL, which violates the predictions of PC. It seems that we can now finally settle the Bohr-Einstein debate in favor of Einstein! If time permits, we can also run a demonstration of the experiment after the seminar.
cookies will be served.
mm, cookies. Out of curiosity, does this constitute evidence that Bohr was wrong for the other thread? Lessee...
quote:It seems that we can now finally settle the Bohr-Einstein debate in favor of Einstein!
Why, I do believe it does. I must apologize; I was aware of this experiment the whole time, and I could have saved us all a great deal of time by bringing it up before, but I was having no success finding the literature on the experiment until I literally stumbled across it.