3 ms·

No, they're "dragging their feet" because it's impossible to test, it's unfalsifiable.

by alar44 4y ago

benreesman 4y ago
Superposition collapse is impossible to test by definition of not including the observer in the system. If we just admit the possibility that the math was right all along we win, the math works, and we lose “I am a unique, distinct entity.” I’m on team math.
- IdealeZahlen 4y ago
  That's math;not physics. You need experiments in physics.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    Can you explain the experiments and physics that justifies physicists beliefs in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM?
    - IdealeZahlen 4y ago
      Experiments justify 'predictions' of certain mathematical models, not 'interpretations'. As for a belief in interpretations, it's more of a philsophy, and Feynman said just 'shut up and calculate'.
      - ncallaway 4y ago
        I agree that interpretations of QM are currently in the realm of philosophy, but (and, at the risk of being a fool in saying this) I disagree with Feynman when he says “shut up and calculate” [1]. I tend to lean towards Sean Carrol’s approach of the interpretation is important and we should spend real effort thinking about the different impacts of different interpretations. After all, Einstein didn’t get to general relativity just by calculating. It first required deep thought and consideration to decide what to calculate. And I’m not convinced that the interpretations will forever remain in the realm of philosophy (though, I accept I could be totally wrong about this). [1] I don’t really disagree with Feynman on this. I think it’s perfect advice for people getting started in really learning QM (which is beyond where I am!). Being very familiar with the mechanics and being able to calculate fluently are probably a good starting point for people learning QM. But I do think that it’s worth experts in the field spending some time beyond the mathematical fundamentals.
- tempe1h1 4y ago
  > we lose “I am a unique, distinct entity. I agree with this sentiment. quantum mechanics (stemming out of statistics mechanics) start from regarding all particles as indistinguishable. IMO, this theory is more mathematics than it is physics. Given a wide enough application, humans end up ourselves as particles, essentially we are commoditifiying our individuality.
omnicognate 4y ago
And because if every outcome happens the probabilities of those outcomes are meaningless, and those probabilities are the predictive content of a quantum mechanical theory. It's an "interpretation" that requires you to ditch the entire value of the thing you're "interpreting". You don't need to know anything about QM other than that it has been empirically tested and is probabilistic in nature to reject the many worlds interpretation on this basis. Each time I mention this online I state it more confidently, in the hope that some day someone will Cunningham's law me and change my mind. If I haven't committed some gross misunderstanding it's disappointing that so many physicists fall for such obvious bunk. I've already seen the attempted arguments listed at [1] and none of them are remotely convincing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Probability_and_the_Born_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Pro...
- benreesman 4y ago
  Hey if you’ve got David Deutsch dead to rights you should book a meeting and have him hand you his Fellowship in the Royal Society. I’m not a physicist but I am an interested layman, I’m pretty sure I’ll catch wind of the Nobel Prize you’d win for proving him wrong about everything.
  - omnicognate 4y ago
    This isn't some unique insight of mine. There's a section about it in the wikipedia page for MWI, which I linked in my comment. Everett himself referenced the problem and attempted, unconvincingly, to argue around it in his original paper. The mystery to me is why the obvious flaw in the idea hasn't killed it dead for so many smart people, such as David Deutsch. Instead they engage in bizarre logical contortions to try and recover the Born probabilities and some shadow of a meaning for them. If you think there's some actual merit in their attempts, listed at the wiki link I pasted, I'm all ears.
    - benreesman 4y ago
      Right, it’s well known that if you’re committed to getting probabilities out of amplitudes things go off the rails. Everett himself couldn’t go the full way. Fully deterministic, you see the part of the wave function that you see. You’re entangled with the apparatus. Deutsch, and his protege Marletto go the whole way: no free will, no arrow of time, no subjective human experience at all. Now? No measurement problem. No interpretations of collapse. These people have decided that the subjective experience of observing an experiment is of secondary importance to clean math. I appreciate that “you and I don’t exist in any way we’d recognize it” is a big pill to swallow, but I find the idea that humans looking in microscopes mutates the universe a bigger pill.

No, they're "dragging their feet" because it's impossible to test, it's unfalsifiable.

by alar44 4y ago

No, they're "dragging their feet" because it's impossible to test, it's unfalsifiable.

Superposition collapse is impossible to test by definition of not including the observer in the system. If we just admit the possibility that the math was right all along we win, the math works, and we lose “I am a unique, distinct entity.” I’m on team math.

IdealeZahlen 4y ago
That's math;not physics. You need experiments in physics.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  Can you explain the experiments and physics that justifies physicists beliefs in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM?
  - IdealeZahlen 4y ago
    Experiments justify 'predictions' of certain mathematical models, not 'interpretations'. As for a belief in interpretations, it's more of a philsophy, and Feynman said just 'shut up and calculate'.
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      I agree that interpretations of QM are currently in the realm of philosophy, but (and, at the risk of being a fool in saying this) I disagree with Feynman when he says “shut up and calculate” [1]. I tend to lean towards Sean Carrol’s approach of the interpretation is important and we should spend real effort thinking about the different impacts of different interpretations. After all, Einstein didn’t get to general relativity just by calculating. It first required deep thought and consideration to decide what to calculate. And I’m not convinced that the interpretations will forever remain in the realm of philosophy (though, I accept I could be totally wrong about this). [1] I don’t really disagree with Feynman on this. I think it’s perfect advice for people getting started in really learning QM (which is beyond where I am!). Being very familiar with the mechanics and being able to calculate fluently are probably a good starting point for people learning QM. But I do think that it’s worth experts in the field spending some time beyond the mathematical fundamentals.
tempe1h1 4y ago
> we lose “I am a unique, distinct entity. I agree with this sentiment. quantum mechanics (stemming out of statistics mechanics) start from regarding all particles as indistinguishable. IMO, this theory is more mathematics than it is physics. Given a wide enough application, humans end up ourselves as particles, essentially we are commoditifiying our individuality.

omnicognate 4y ago

And because if every outcome happens the probabilities of those outcomes are meaningless, and those probabilities are the predictive content of a quantum mechanical theory. It's an "interpretation" that requires you to ditch the entire value of the thing you're "interpreting". You don't need to know anything about QM other than that it has been empirically tested and is probabilistic in nature to reject the many worlds interpretation on this basis. Each time I mention this online I state it more confidently, in the hope that some day someone will Cunningham's law me and change my mind. If I haven't committed some gross misunderstanding it's disappointing that so many physicists fall for such obvious bunk. I've already seen the attempted arguments listed at [1] and none of them are remotely convincing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Probability_and_the_Born_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Pro...

benreesman 4y ago
Hey if you’ve got David Deutsch dead to rights you should book a meeting and have him hand you his Fellowship in the Royal Society. I’m not a physicist but I am an interested layman, I’m pretty sure I’ll catch wind of the Nobel Prize you’d win for proving him wrong about everything.
- omnicognate 4y ago
  This isn't some unique insight of mine. There's a section about it in the wikipedia page for MWI, which I linked in my comment. Everett himself referenced the problem and attempted, unconvincingly, to argue around it in his original paper. The mystery to me is why the obvious flaw in the idea hasn't killed it dead for so many smart people, such as David Deutsch. Instead they engage in bizarre logical contortions to try and recover the Born probabilities and some shadow of a meaning for them. If you think there's some actual merit in their attempts, listed at the wiki link I pasted, I'm all ears.
  - benreesman 4y ago
    Right, it’s well known that if you’re committed to getting probabilities out of amplitudes things go off the rails. Everett himself couldn’t go the full way. Fully deterministic, you see the part of the wave function that you see. You’re entangled with the apparatus. Deutsch, and his protege Marletto go the whole way: no free will, no arrow of time, no subjective human experience at all. Now? No measurement problem. No interpretations of collapse. These people have decided that the subjective experience of observing an experiment is of secondary importance to clean math. I appreciate that “you and I don’t exist in any way we’d recognize it” is a big pill to swallow, but I find the idea that humans looking in microscopes mutates the universe a bigger pill.