Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Francois Tremblay · 03-06-2002, 08:37 PM

Gell-Mann has a good point in that lecture. To speak of a state with observers is very limited, since the universe lacked observers for we presume a long period of time. Furthermore, it is the case that vast expanses of the universe are unobserved. Therefore there has to be a more general explanation of which the Copenhagen Interpretation (if true, which I doubt) is a specific case.

bluefugue · 03-06-2002, 08:41 PM

Quote:

why isn't the cat considered an observer to its own existence

I've been wondering that for years. Perhaps the experiment should be renamed "Schroedinger's inanimate prussic acid detector," but it doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it?

Ernest Sparks · 03-10-2002, 09:03 AM

Quantum mechanics is actually the proud holder of the record for the best agreement between theory and experimental evidence ever found

I would correct this to say "Quantum Electrodynamics is actually the proud holder...."

That is the Dirac Equation, not the most obvious of postulations in modern physics, and in particular its perturbative solution in power series that wows the computed value competition judges. the question is: 'why does it work so well? The question of 'what does it all mean?' is something else.

a joke told by Fred Hoyle:

A physics student went to one of those weird parties where you are apt to run into any sort of whatever. This student met an electron at this party and engaged in conversation.

"You are really an electron?"

"Yes."

"Please answer a question I have been wondering about. Do you guys(gals?) really obey Dirac's equation completely?"

"Who the hell is Dirac?"

Ernie

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ernest Sparks ]</p>

AdamWho · 03-10-2002, 09:55 AM

I think that "the observer" in QM has led to so many misunderstandings and quack-physics theories. When Bohr (it think) said "observer" he didn't mean a conscience had to be the observer. Particles "observe" each other whenever they interact because interaction limits the number of possible states the particles can be in.
If you flip a coin and catch it before seeing if it is head on tails, then the state of the coin is indeterminate but it is not changing states in your hand. The interation with your hand has already determined the state.

Physics analogies can only go so far, and the "observer" analogy in QM has created its fair share of new-age quantun-conscience advocates. Even among prominent physicists...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2002, 08:37 PM	#11
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	Gell-Mann has a good point in that lecture. To speak of a state with observers is very limited, since the universe lacked observers for we presume a long period of time. Furthermore, it is the case that vast expanses of the universe are unobserved. Therefore there has to be a more general explanation of which the Copenhagen Interpretation (if true, which I doubt) is a specific case.

03-10-2002, 09:03 AM	#13
Ernest Sparks Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Portland, OR USA Posts: 1,248	Quantum mechanics is actually the proud holder of the record for the best agreement between theory and experimental evidence ever found I would correct this to say "Quantum Electrodynamics is actually the proud holder...." That is the Dirac Equation, not the most obvious of postulations in modern physics, and in particular its perturbative solution in power series that wows the computed value competition judges. the question is: 'why does it work so well? The question of 'what does it all mean?' is something else. a joke told by Fred Hoyle: A physics student went to one of those weird parties where you are apt to run into any sort of whatever. This student met an electron at this party and engaged in conversation. "You are really an electron?" "Yes." "Please answer a question I have been wondering about. Do you guys(gals?) really obey Dirac's equation completely?" "Who the hell is Dirac?" Ernie [ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ernest Sparks ]</p>

03-10-2002, 09:55 AM	#14
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	I think that "the observer" in QM has led to so many misunderstandings and quack-physics theories. When Bohr (it think) said "observer" he didn't mean a conscience had to be the observer. Particles "observe" each other whenever they interact because interaction limits the number of possible states the particles can be in. If you flip a coin and catch it before seeing if it is head on tails, then the state of the coin is indeterminate but it is not changing states in your hand. The interation with your hand has already determined the state. Physics analogies can only go so far, and the "observer" analogy in QM has created its fair share of new-age quantun-conscience advocates. Even among prominent physicists...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.