Comment Re:Flock of Starlings (Score 1) 172
"Wrong. Not all interactions collapse the wave function, and that's one of the great mysteries still being explored."
That's faith in mysteries not proof.
No it's not, it's a perfectly factual statement.
It's magnetic influence is dependent on its spin, and thus it already determined because it has an influence before you detect it.
No. You can establish the location of an electron - detecting it - without determining its spin.
"Your reasoning seems to amount to "
You misrepresent the explanation.
You haven't offered any explanation. Of anything.
" But it won't be long before someone comes up with a simpler one that better fits the observations"
Indeed, and that simpler equation will meet opposition from believers in the old equation. That's you.
How can it "be me"? You haven't offered a simpler explanation for me to consider. Your "simpler explanation" - which apparently amounts to a simple pig-headed insistence that there are hidden variables, in direct contradiction to oft-repeated experimental results - has no evidence in its favour. Simple it may be, but it also has to explain observations. Hidden variables can not account for what is observed.
You have not debunked my simple thought experiment.
Your thought experiment doesn't need debunking, because it doesn't actually make any difference to what has already been observed in reality. Your vague thoughts about half-bricks don't make any difference to the observed facts, which, so far, are only explicable by theories which include quanta of light.
The problem here is a theory is either "right" or "is right but needs tweeking"
No. A theory is either proven false, or not yet proven false. If you think you're the guy to prove quantum theory false, go for out - but given the apparent level of your understanding of physics and the scientific method, I won't be holding my breath.