3 ms·

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 righ

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.

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.