3 ms·

You're now arguing against claims no one has made, which is apparent from the fact that you seem to only quite very tiny snippets of what's said while ignoring

You're now arguing against claims no one has made, which is apparent from the fact that you seem to only quite very tiny snippets of what's said while ignoring the main argument. You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Jensson 2y ago
Wasn't the argument that two observers can disagree whether a collapse has happened? I offered evidence that they can't, as otherwise they would see different results in the double slit experiment.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  There is nothing in the double slit experiment that makes collapse necessarily an objective reality. There is in fact no way to check if collapse of the wave function has happened or not. I imagine you're thinking of the version of the double slit experiment with a detector installed next to one of the slits, which prevents the interference pattern from forming. However, this only applies for a "measurement device" installed at the slits. That is, a classical system interacting with the photon/electron/etc before it hits the classical screen. But this is not mysterious at all: the classical device causes decoherence of the wave function and thus prevents self-interference of the beams traveling through the two slots. That is true even in interpretations that consider that wave function collapse is not a physical phenomenon, such as Many Worlds. But this doesn't prove much. We already know that a photon hitting an atom doesn't cause wave function collapse, while a photon hitting a detector does. We can say that an atom is not a measurement device and an observer is, but this immediately raises the question of why. Or, we can choose the MWI route and say that the wave function never collapses, and the only difference between an atom and a detector is that we are not entangled with that atom, but we are entangled with the detector. And if so, it immediately follows that if we could get a detector that we are not entangled with, we would not see the same results as we do in the traditional double slit + detector on a slit experiment.

Jensson 2y ago

Wasn't the argument that two observers can disagree whether a collapse has happened? I offered evidence that they can't, as otherwise they would see different results in the double slit experiment.

tsimionescu 2y ago
There is nothing in the double slit experiment that makes collapse necessarily an objective reality. There is in fact no way to check if collapse of the wave function has happened or not. I imagine you're thinking of the version of the double slit experiment with a detector installed next to one of the slits, which prevents the interference pattern from forming. However, this only applies for a "measurement device" installed at the slits. That is, a classical system interacting with the photon/electron/etc before it hits the classical screen. But this is not mysterious at all: the classical device causes decoherence of the wave function and thus prevents self-interference of the beams traveling through the two slots. That is true even in interpretations that consider that wave function collapse is not a physical phenomenon, such as Many Worlds. But this doesn't prove much. We already know that a photon hitting an atom doesn't cause wave function collapse, while a photon hitting a detector does. We can say that an atom is not a measurement device and an observer is, but this immediately raises the question of why. Or, we can choose the MWI route and say that the wave function never collapses, and the only difference between an atom and a detector is that we are not entangled with that atom, but we are entangled with the detector. And if so, it immediately follows that if we could get a detector that we are not entangled with, we would not see the same results as we do in the traditional double slit + detector on a slit experiment.