4 ms·
Describing measurement as "entangling your brain" is a particular viewpoint that is not widely accepted. Most physicists would agree that the LHC's particle col
by millstone 10y ago
Describing measurement as "entangling your brain" is a particular viewpoint that is not widely accepted. Most physicists would agree that the LHC's particle collision data constitute measurements, even though most of those results have never been looked at by a human.
Measurement is at its most mysterious in the MW interpretation, because measurements are probabilistic and probabilities are hard to get out of a purely deterministic theory like MW.
- deciplex 10y agoIt's not clear what point you're trying to argue. Yes, the particle collision data constitutes a measurement in the sense that it is entangled with whatever medium the data is being stored on (and, in practice, a while lot else), even if a human hasn't looked at it yet. Measurement as we usually mean it when talking about this stuff in the context of QM means a human looking at a thing, but sure that need not always be the case. I mean if you want to split hairs we can go back and forth all day, but that doesn't strike me as an interesting or enlightening avenue of discussion.