The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
It doesn't try to define what really happens, it doesn't assume that wave functions are 'real' or even that they evolve. All it says is that if you measure a system at time t, the probabilities of the different outcomes are the real part of etc.
The fact that states can be in various baroque non-local superpositions before the interaction doesn't change this. The probabilities will still be consistent and computable.
What none of them address is the (not quantum-mechanical but probabilistic) problem of actuality (which of the actual histories is realised), which is basically the (probabilistic, not quantum mechanical) problem of assigning a probability to a single event.
"It's random within probabilistic constraints" seems to be all that QM can tell you.
There may be a theory which defines the ontology in more detail. But QM doesn't seem to be it.
The only difference between an observer and a non-observer is that the observer is consciously aware of a measured value. But that doesn't define the value.
What's annoying about QM is that it tries to conflate different issues. There's a difference between the physical interaction needed to make a measurement and the mental process of experiencing the measurement. There's also non-locality, which supposedly makes everything very spooky and has somehow - for some reason which has never been properly explained, because it's not really needed - been linked to mental experience, even though it's completely distinct.
Micro to macro amplification ('measurement')
'It's all one' woo woo
are all different. I'll take the middle two. I won't accept the other two until someone does an experiment in which two observers measure two contradictory observables from the same quantum system at the same time.
Remember Bohr's "no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon".
That's almost makes sense, but doesn't, because in the limit it says that nothing in the universe exists unless it's observed. Which seems unlikely - otherwise you're back to solipsism again, with every possible wave function in the entire history of the universe converging on your viewpoint.
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 3 21 comments
by eurogreen - Jun 28 23 comments
by gmoke - Jun 28
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 27 1 comment
by Oui - Jun 25 12 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 16 10 comments
by Oui - Jun 17 62 comments
by Oui - Jun 15 8 comments
by Oui - Jul 56 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 321 comments
by gmoke - Jun 29
by eurogreen - Jun 2823 comments
by gmoke - Jun 28
by Oui - Jun 2714 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 271 comment
by Oui - Jun 2512 comments
by Oui - Jun 1762 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1610 comments
by Oui - Jun 158 comments
by Oui - Jun 1210 comments
by Oui - Jun 89 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 79 comments
by Oui - Jun 775 comments
by Oui - May 29164 comments
by Oui - May 22128 comments