No, it's unknown. Try reading up on it.Atla wrote: ↑November 19th, 2019, 1:45 pmYou have simply refused to acknowledge the experimental results. The world DOES behave in the Schrödinger cat's way.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).
An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
No, it's not unknown. Every experiment ever shows that it behaves that way.
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
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.
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
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..
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
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".Atla wrote: ↑November 19th, 2019, 2:01 pmEvery 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..
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.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
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.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
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: 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".
Dumbing down QM theory will not provide a better way of thinking about it.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.
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
It's not "dumbing down", it's thinking about it in a new way, one that seems more intuitive.Felix wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2019, 4:56 pmQuantum 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: 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".
Dumbing down QM theory will not provide a better way of thinking about it.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.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
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.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: An Intuitive model of Quantum Mechanics
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023