|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 30, 2018 2:21:13 GMT
First, let me state I am not necessarily defending the CI. Though there are inconsistency and absurdity byproducts of the interpretation, it is quite literally impossible (at this point) to disprove. It's absurd to assume quantum processes as we 'understand' them (I say that loosely) didn't occur until we were capable of observing them. Errr, yeah it kinda does. At the very least Copenhagen implies that something in the interaction causes the wavefunction collapse: that "something" could be size, randomness, or consciousness (see, eg, von Neumann–Wigner). In all versions, though, Copenhagen treats us "special" by treating us differently than the particles we're observing/interacting with. If we're in the same state of superpositioning as the particles, then that implies entanglement and decoherence with no wavefunction collapse. The observation is part of wave function collapse, not the cause. Wave function collapse is a mathematical phenomena. If we set an instrument to make an observation and we return an hour later to collect the data, is the instrument 'special'? What most don't understand is that Schrodinger loathed the CI and after reading the EPR paper was inspired to assemble his famous cat experiment to actually ridicule the CI. Incidentally, this was the germ of the many worlds interpretation, which can theoretically coexist with the CI and in doing so negate any 'special' qualities attributed to the individual making the observation. You don't need to disprove hypotheses that add complexity to a formulation that already predicts your results. You simply dismiss them until additional evidence is provided that makes them more likely. CI is to QM as God would be to... well, any scientific theory. First, you can't say that observation isn't the cause of the collapse because that's part of the controversy with collapse interpretations: what causes the collapse? There are absolutely versions of collapse that argue that consciousness (or the act of conscious observation) causes the collapse; I referenced one (von Neumann–Wigner).* Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "collapse is a mathematical phenomena." There's nothing in the math of QM that models the actual collapse. What you have in QM math is the deterministic model of the wave function's evolution (Shrodinger Wave Equation); you have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which models the limits of our accuracy in measurement with regards to momentum and position; we have the Born Rule, which tells us how to derive the probabilities that a measurement will give us a result; and if you may want to include Bell's Theorems that show no hidden variables can maintain locality with collapse. The wave function collapse is an assumption, a postulate. Scientists see the superpositioning, they measure, they see no superpositioning, they assume the superpositioning--the other states--just disappeared. It's basically magic. Or, they could assume the observer obeys the same quantum laws as particles, that everything is in a state of superpositoning, and measuring is just an interaction that entangles their various states with the various states of what they're observing, and the states decohere according to the Shrodinger Wave Equation and there's no collapse. By doing that they also maintain determinism and locality. *For a handy reference, see this chart. Just align by "collapse," and for those that say "yes," see what they say about the observer role. Some, including Copenhagen and Wigner, are causal. But we didn't, and don't... even Einstein said so, that wave function does not provide a complete description of physical reality. If the CI is 'stupid', it is likely for the shortcomings (incompleteness?) of wave theory itself. But we did and do. There's no reason the wave function can't be a complete description of physical reality.* Einstein didn't say so, he just assumed (like most others) that there were hidden variables that would square QM with the determinism and locality of General Relativity without resorting to the many-worlds implication of Shrodinger's Wave Equation. Einstein died over a decade before Bell's Theorems ruled out that possibility. I'd be very interested in knowing what Einstein would've thought in the wake of Bell and Everett. *The only lingering mystery in assuming the wave function is a complete description of physical reality is: where does the Born rule come from? In collapse theories, it's merely assumed to be inherent in the wave function, but if it's not it's not clear how it would be possible to derive the Born rule from Shrodinger's Wave Equation. Though there's been various attempts made at explaining it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 14:10:17 GMT
First, let me state I am not necessarily defending the CI. Though there are inconsistency and absurdity byproducts of the interpretation, it is quite literally impossible (at this point) to disprove. It's absurd to assume quantum processes as we 'understand' them (I say that loosely) didn't occur until we were capable of observing them. The observation is part of wave function collapse, not the cause. Wave function collapse is a mathematical phenomena. If we set an instrument to make an observation and we return an hour later to collect the data, is the instrument 'special'? What most don't understand is that Schrodinger loathed the CI and after reading the EPR paper was inspired to assemble his famous cat experiment to actually ridicule the CI. Incidentally, this was the germ of the many worlds interpretation, which can theoretically coexist with the CI and in doing so negate any 'special' qualities attributed to the individual making the observation. You don't need to disprove hypotheses that add complexity to a formulation that already predicts your results. You simply dismiss them until additional evidence is provided that makes them more likely. CI is to QM as God would be to... well, any scientific theory. First, you can't say that observation isn't the cause of the collapse because that's part of the controversy with collapse interpretations: what causes the collapse? There are absolutely versions of collapse that argue that consciousness (or the act of conscious observation) causes the collapse; I referenced one (von Neumann–Wigner).* Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "collapse is a mathematical phenomena." There's nothing in the math of QM that models the actual collapse. What you have in QM math is the deterministic model of the wave function's evolution (Shrodinger Wave Equation); you have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which models the limits of our accuracy in measurement with regards to momentum and position; we have the Born Rule, which tells us how to derive the probabilities that a measurement will give us a result; and if you may want to include Bell's Theorems that show no hidden variables can maintain locality with collapse. The wave function collapse is an assumption, a postulate. Scientists see the superpositioning, they measure, they see no superpositioning, they assume the superpositioning--the other states--just disappeared. It's basically magic. Or, they could assume the observer obeys the same quantum laws as particles, that everything is in a state of superpositoning, and measuring is just an interaction that entangles their various states with the various states of what they're observing, and the states decohere according to the Shrodinger Wave Equation and there's no collapse. By doing that they also maintain determinism and locality. *For a handy reference, see this chart. Just align by "collapse," and for those that say "yes," see what they say about the observer role. Some, including Copenhagen and Wigner, are causal. But we didn't, and don't... even Einstein said so, that wave function does not provide a complete description of physical reality. If the CI is 'stupid', it is likely for the shortcomings (incompleteness?) of wave theory itself. But we did and do. There's no reason the wave function can't be a complete description of physical reality.* Einstein didn't say so, he just assumed (like most others) that there were hidden variables that would square QM with the determinism and locality of General Relativity without resorting to the many-worlds implication of Shrodinger's Wave Equation. Einstein died over a decade before Bell's Theorems ruled out that possibility. I'd be very interested in knowing what Einstein would've thought in the wake of Bell and Everett. *The only lingering mystery in assuming the wave function is a complete description of physical reality is: where does the Born rule come from? In collapse theories, it's merely assumed to be inherent in the wave function, but if it's not it's not clear how it would be possible to derive the Born rule from Shrodinger's Wave Equation. Though there's been various attempts made at explaining it. Great stuff, I wish to add more to this discussion later... yet I don't see how any of your post above implies that the C.I. suggests we are special, which was the specific matter you entered with... or so I thought.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Mar 30, 2018 22:25:54 GMT
"...the answer is downtown, George, the answer is downtown!!!"
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 1:37:09 GMT
You don't need to disprove hypotheses that add complexity to a formulation that already predicts your results. You simply dismiss them until additional evidence is provided that makes them more likely. CI is to QM as God would be to... well, any scientific theory. First, you can't say that observation isn't the cause of the collapse because that's part of the controversy with collapse interpretations: what causes the collapse? There are absolutely versions of collapse that argue that consciousness (or the act of conscious observation) causes the collapse; I referenced one (von Neumann–Wigner).* Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "collapse is a mathematical phenomena." There's nothing in the math of QM that models the actual collapse. What you have in QM math is the deterministic model of the wave function's evolution (Shrodinger Wave Equation); you have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which models the limits of our accuracy in measurement with regards to momentum and position; we have the Born Rule, which tells us how to derive the probabilities that a measurement will give us a result; and if you may want to include Bell's Theorems that show no hidden variables can maintain locality with collapse. The wave function collapse is an assumption, a postulate. Scientists see the superpositioning, they measure, they see no superpositioning, they assume the superpositioning--the other states--just disappeared. It's basically magic. Or, they could assume the observer obeys the same quantum laws as particles, that everything is in a state of superpositoning, and measuring is just an interaction that entangles their various states with the various states of what they're observing, and the states decohere according to the Shrodinger Wave Equation and there's no collapse. By doing that they also maintain determinism and locality. *For a handy reference, see this chart. Just align by "collapse," and for those that say "yes," see what they say about the observer role. Some, including Copenhagen and Wigner, are causal. But we did and do. There's no reason the wave function can't be a complete description of physical reality.* Einstein didn't say so, he just assumed (like most others) that there were hidden variables that would square QM with the determinism and locality of General Relativity without resorting to the many-worlds implication of Shrodinger's Wave Equation. Einstein died over a decade before Bell's Theorems ruled out that possibility. I'd be very interested in knowing what Einstein would've thought in the wake of Bell and Everett. *The only lingering mystery in assuming the wave function is a complete description of physical reality is: where does the Born rule come from? In collapse theories, it's merely assumed to be inherent in the wave function, but if it's not it's not clear how it would be possible to derive the Born rule from Shrodinger's Wave Equation. Though there's been various attempts made at explaining it. Great stuff, I wish to add more to this discussion later... yet I don't see how any of your post above implies that the C.I. suggests we are special, which was the specific matter you entered with... or so I thought. Thanks. Well, I entered into this discussion saying “it kinda does.” There are versions of Copenhagen that do treat us as special, and versions that don’t. In the original version the observer role is causal.
|
|