The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
Mgrinder
Contributor
Posts: 890
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Mgrinder » November 19th, 2019, 1:50 pm

Atla wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:45 pm
Mgrinder wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 3:53 pm


I'm not a supporter of Decoherence theory. I was noting that it seems to claim that collapse happens with measurement and without (unless I am misunderstanding it). So does this interpretation. I agree that Decoherence does not solve much, I suppose I should write that section better.

I know of no experiments that refute the idea that collapses happen "on their own". The idea that collapse only happens upon measurement seems ridiculous, as Schrodinger pointed out in his thought experiment about the cat. The whole idea of "mesurement" is not well defined. It's a real problem this interpretation seems to resolve (if correct). :)
You have simply refused to acknowledge the experimental results. The world DOES behave in the Schrödinger cat's way.
No, it's unknown. Try reading up on it.

Atla
Posts: 204
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Atla » November 19th, 2019, 1:51 pm

Mgrinder wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:50 pm
Atla wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:45 pm

You have simply refused to acknowledge the experimental results. The world DOES behave in the Schrödinger cat's way.
No, it's unknown. Try reading up on it.
No, it's not unknown. Every experiment ever shows that it behaves that way.

User avatar
Mgrinder
Contributor
Posts: 890
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Mgrinder » November 19th, 2019, 1:55 pm

Felix wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 2:24 am
o.k., but I can't imagine how you would measure either the density or threshold values of subatomic wave packets, and if you can't do that, of what use is your theory?
You can't measure them. The point is to develop a model, an interpretation of QM, that is more intuitive. If you can conceive of QM in the way I am suggesting, and if it is consistent with all of the phenomena of QM, then it seems like it is a better way of thinking about it. That's the point.

Your questions indicate you are missing this point. Sorry to put it that way. I appreciate you putting in the effort to engage with me, but it would be great if you could put in the effort to understand the overall goal.

User avatar
Mgrinder
Contributor
Posts: 890
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Mgrinder » November 19th, 2019, 1:56 pm

Atla wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:51 pm
Mgrinder wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:50 pm


No, it's unknown. Try reading up on it.
No, it's not unknown. Every experiment ever shows that it behaves that way.
No they don't. Sorry to put it this way, but try reading another book or something.

Atla
Posts: 204
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Atla » November 19th, 2019, 2:01 pm

Mgrinder wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:56 pm
Atla wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:51 pm

No, it's not unknown. Every experiment ever shows that it behaves that way.
No they don't. Sorry to put it this way, but try reading another book or something.
Every experiment so far was consistent with the superposition idea. If you can isolate a cat from you as an "observer", then until "measured", the cat will be in a superposition of all states at once, from your perspective.
On the other hand no hint at an actual threshold in QM was ever observed. Nor was random collapse obserrved, collapse is always consistent with measurement.
So I don't know what you have read..

User avatar
Mgrinder
Contributor
Posts: 890
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Mgrinder » November 21st, 2019, 6:48 pm

Atla wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 2:01 pm
Mgrinder wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:56 pm


No they don't. Sorry to put it this way, but try reading another book or something.
Every experiment so far was consistent with the superposition idea. If you can isolate a cat from you as an "observer", then until "measured", the cat will be in a superposition of all states at once, from your perspective.
On the other hand no hint at an actual threshold in QM was ever observed. Nor was random collapse obserrved, collapse is always consistent with measurement.
So I don't know what you have read..
QM is consistent with "collapse only happens upon measurement", AND is consistent with "collapse happening whenever particles interact as they do when we measure them, except we are not looking".

Until modern times, nobody had ever observed the far side of the moon. It is hidden from view. Was it then in a superposition of states for billions of years until we took a picture of it? QM is consistent with it being in a definite state with no humans ever looking at it, AND with it being in a superposition of states until it was observed in the 20th century.

Since the only thing we know to definitely cause collapse is "human measurement", it's possible the far side of the moon was in a superposition of states until we sent a satellite to the far side to look at it. However it seems really absurd. Fortunately QM is also consistent with the far side of the moon collapsing into a definite state without us ever looking at it.

QM is also consistent with the entire observable universe being in a superposition of states until the first human was born AND consistent with all the particles in the universe collapsing to definite values as they interacted and time went on for billions of years until the first human was born. It might be that the moment the first human ever observed the earth, the Earth collapsed into a definite state, however, it's just ridiculous. Fortunately QM is consistent with both, and pretty much every one believes the more likely option.

Atla
Posts: 204
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Atla » November 21st, 2019, 10:33 pm

Mgrinder wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 6:48 pm
...
AND is consistent with "collapse happening whenever particles interact as they do when we measure them, except we are not looking".
...
The interaction quantum woo was experimentally refuted. In fact QM has shown us that our universe doesn't even have separate parts that could inreact, so it was refuted twice over.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3062
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Felix » November 22nd, 2019, 4:56 pm

Mgrinder: QM is consistent with "collapse only happens upon measurement", AND is consistent with "collapse happening whenever particles interact as they do when we measure them, except we are not looking".
Quantum wave collapse and decoherence are separate issues. There are quantum mechanical theories in which wave collapse has only a symbolic function, in that allows for measurement, e.g., in Bohm's pilot-wave theory.
Mgrinder: If you can conceive of QM in the way I am suggesting, and if it is consistent with all of the phenomena of QM, then it seems like it is a better way of thinking about it.
Dumbing down QM theory will not provide a better way of thinking about it.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Mgrinder
Contributor
Posts: 890
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Mgrinder » November 22nd, 2019, 5:34 pm

Felix wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 4:56 pm
Mgrinder: QM is consistent with "collapse only happens upon measurement", AND is consistent with "collapse happening whenever particles interact as they do when we measure them, except we are not looking".
Quantum wave collapse and decoherence are separate issues. There are quantum mechanical theories in which wave collapse has only a symbolic function, in that allows for measurement, e.g., in Bohm's pilot-wave theory.
Mgrinder: If you can conceive of QM in the way I am suggesting, and if it is consistent with all of the phenomena of QM, then it seems like it is a better way of thinking about it.
Dumbing down QM theory will not provide a better way of thinking about it.
It's not "dumbing down", it's thinking about it in a new way, one that seems more intuitive.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3062
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Felix » November 22nd, 2019, 6:57 pm

As I suggested, there are QM models like Bohm's that consider wave collapse to be a perceptual illusion, which would make your "intuitive" description of it superfluous.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Mgrinder
Contributor
Posts: 890
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Mgrinder » November 28th, 2019, 3:09 pm

Felix wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 6:57 pm
As I suggested, there are QM models like Bohm's that consider wave collapse to be a perceptual illusion, which would make your "intuitive" description of it superfluous.
And Bohm's is better because....???

The flaw of Bohm's model is that it has particles (little tiny balls) as part of its conceptual scheme. I'm pointing out that the whole idea of "particles" is not needed and deeply confusing. Who can conceptualize something that is a wave and a particle at the same time? It's pretty difficult to wrap your head around and is unnecessarily confusing.

Instead, conceptualize it as a instantly reformable wave packet that is all part of "one thing". Far less confusing, and you get rid of the unnecessary idea of a "particle", which you simply do not need.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3062
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics

Post by Felix » November 28th, 2019, 4:05 pm

The point is that your model is based on the assumption that quantum waves actually exist, can form and "collapse." Quantum theory does not presuppose this, so you've painted a portrait of a mythical beast. "Wave collapse" is a colloquial term that physicists will avoid.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Post Reply