|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
wave function collapse
#22363518 - 10/11/15 02:12 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The wave function of the universe ultimately does not break down. From the level of the quantum realm, everything remains entangled and the wave function is an objective information function guiding quantum states. The collapsing occurs when, in Schrödinger's words, we ask a discontinuous question. Whenever we measure a physical attribute of a particle (such as mass, energy, time, position, momentum, spin, etc.), we are plucking out one single measurement out of an evolving system. We have the illusion of the wave function breaking down from some purportedly objective superposition into a definite outcome for the observer. I feel that the picture is somehow more complicated, and in fact over half of the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics being supported today posit no collapse of the wave function. It just so happens that the Copenhagen interpretation has been the mainstream one.
What are your thoughts?
"Our mind, by virtue of a certain finite, limited capability, is by no means capable of putting a question to Nature that permits a continuous series of answers. The observations, the individual results of measurements, are the answers of Nature to our discontinuous questioning." --Schrödinger
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
My thought is that interpretations are a matter of philosophy, opinion and aesthetics, not science.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: wave function collapse [Re: DieCommie]
#22365253 - 10/11/15 08:09 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You're right; I sympathize completely with that stance. On the other hand, one of them is right (and will become scientific)... 
Fun to speculate in the meantime, imo.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
.
Edited by DieCommie (11/13/16 10:10 AM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: wave function collapse [Re: DieCommie]
#22369951 - 10/12/15 06:56 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
And that is pure, distilled Copenhagen interpretation. What you have laid out is an interpretation as well -- the interpretation of no interpretation. As you say, 'just shut up and do the math.' You may dismiss dissatisfaction of this view as philosophy, but I am of the opinion that, whatever we say, we cannot meaningfully do away with at least some philosophy. The lack of philosophy is a philosophy as well.
Furthermore, what you have said would have ultimate validity if there is not to be any future theory beyond quantum mechanics. I find it laughably arrogant that anyone would assume there can never be a theory beyond quantum mechanics. It would still be right -- as an approximation -- but we would understand more of nature. There has always been a next theory, and there always will be. So to take this Copenhagen stance willfully denies the enigma that I feel as humans we should want to explain. There are other interpretations that try to do this, and while it is philosophical, it is indeed also a matter of science -- if you're not a Copenhagenist.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
And that is pure, distilled Copenhagen interpretation.
No its not. See this quote from Griffith's famous quantum text;
Quote:
This raises a profound question: Did the physical system "actually have" the attribute in question prior to the measurement (the so-called realist viewpoint), or did the act of measurement itself "create" the property, limited only by the statistical constraint imposed by the wave function (the orthodox position) - or can we duck the question entirely, on the grounds that it is "metaphysical" (the agnostic response)?
The Copenhagen interpretation is the orthodox position. The point you advocate for is the realist position. The point I am advocating for is the agnostic position.
No interpretation is needed if you can speak the language. Sometime you try to translate something into your native tongue and you just can't, something gets lost in the interpretation. That is the danger of interpretations and why we should forget them. There is no reason to expect that the behavior of the universe is rationalizable within our personal mental framework, so we shouldn't act as though it is.
I wonder, why is the interpretation and reformulation of quantum theory so compelling to you? Why not make similar arguments to try to distinguish between Newtonian mechanics formulation vs the Euler-Lagrange mechanics formulation? Ill tell you why I think you, and others, are so hell bent on quantum's formulation - because what it entails undercuts (or substantiates) your personal philosophy and worldview. Without this passion for vested interest we might as well debate whether solving a PDE or minimizing the action is the "correct" way to look at classical mechanics. Of course neither is "correct", that word doesn't apply to interpretations.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: wave function collapse [Re: DieCommie]
#22370293 - 10/12/15 08:02 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I wonder, why is the interpretation and reformulation of quantum theory so compelling to you? Why not make similar arguments to try to distinguish between Newtonian mechanics formulation vs the Euler-Lagrange mechanics formulation? Ill tell you why I think you, and others, are so hell bent on quantum's formulation - because what it entails undercuts (or substantiates) your personal philosophy and worldview.
Well, it's fascinating to me and I admit I definitely see parallels between elements of my personal philosophy and quantum theory. I freely admit that. I know that's not scientific, but I have respect for the science and so what? I don't claim to know what's really going on any more than anyone else does, tbh. Unlike you, I see no problem with this if I don't claim anything demonstrably false about quantum theory. The different interpretations are fun for me and I would point out, very important to a lot of very impressive people. So why spoil the fun?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Fun for the religious and mystical who only seek to substantiate their personal worldview often entails misery for everybody else. By tainting science with mysticism you undermine its power, a power that the poor and needy could desperately use to improve their lot and a power that the thoughtful and wise could insightful use to guide understanding of the universe.
No, you won't see me patronize mystics just for the fun of it. It is self serving, dangerous and bad for humanity. I say take your interpretation and beliefs to the magical mystery form with the rest of the self serving mystics. Leave science to the seekers.
What the seeker seeks, the finder finds.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: wave function collapse [Re: DieCommie]
#22370397 - 10/12/15 08:20 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Who said anything mystical? I know for certain that there are professional, prominent scientists who would not begrudge me the way you have, especially given that I have made no false statements about quantum theory as such, and remain within the confines of accepted interpretations. So that's fine.
We disagree. So what?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
I won't deny others are more polite than I. So what?
You make these posts to push your self serving agenda and opinion, they are not made in good faith and I reply accordingly. You are not the first mystic that I treat rudely in this forum, and you won't be the last.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: wave function collapse [Re: DieCommie]
#22370464 - 10/12/15 08:27 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well, you may have observed arguably mystical posts in the past by me, but where in this particular thread did I do anything mystical at all? I never left the bounds of what a lot of people would call legitimate science. Just because you feel this way does not mean others don't feel differently with legitimacy, or that you are right by default. So come on.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
A lot of people call creationism legitimate science. I do not. Nor do I consider arguing for different interpretations that make no difference to any observation withing any theory legitimate science.
These days the Popper way of looking at the philosophy of science is the standard. It's not without criticism but in a casual discussion like this it is what should be appealed to. Your topic fails to meet the bar in that your proposition/hypothesis is not falsifiable. Thus, roughly speaking, it is not legitimate science.
Also, I would suggest that these questions you are asking here are not nearly as prevalent or important to real scientists as pop culture makes them out to be. Yes, there are a few vocal and famous people that push out books and videos on this stuff. Compared to the whole of science, or even the whole of physics, they represent a near negligible minority.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: wave function collapse [Re: DieCommie]
#22370630 - 10/12/15 08:49 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well, there's no longer any point to this.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
|