Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOuch ouch ouch. It is clear that I do not have a strong
This experiment cannot be carried out, for it is not well-defined.
From the perspective of any single observer, a quantum event can only be observed once. The second observation made must be of a different event.
The quantum notions of Event and Observation come in unique pairs.
enough grasp on the definitions to ask questions.
🙁
I will read on it and try again at a later time.
Do you know of any 'Quantum for Dummies' websites?
Nemesio
Toe -
Both are just models: neither is "right"
So what is "right"?
My point is that there is no absolute "right" that humans can know except for the existence of ourselves and the existence of our perceptions. All we can do is make models based on our observations. This is true of everything.
All the equations, laws and so on are models: they are not descriptions of what the universe is.
A model is a description, and a description is a model. Please suggest a description that is not a model.
The attempt to understand the model is interesting as it often shows weakeness in that model, or leads to further refinement of the model
This is because the description is weak, and needs refinement. It's still a description.
it does not lead to understanding of the universe itself
Once again. What do you mean by "understanding of the universe"?
The model is not extendable beyond its application to quantum events: phrase it using a macroscopic thing like a cat and it doesn't make sense.
As I've already shown, yes, it does make sense. QM cleanly approaches classical mechanics when macroscopic objects are being observed. This is because classical mechanics are an approximation of QM that is good only for macroscopic objects.
There is no "wave/particle duality". Both are just models: neither is "right".
The wave model is flawed. The particle model is flawed. The wave/particle duality model of QM is not flawed in the same way. It may be flawed, but if so I am not aware how it is flawed, so it's the best description of the universe that we have.
I was hoping to lance the idea that "because something works it is true" from your mind. I've clearly failed.
You have failed to lance the idea that anything that works has something about it which makes it a good description of the universe, at least partially. That which makes it a good description is the same thing that makes it work.
Originally posted by nemesioThe die example is flawed, nemesio. I don't think it was an appropriate analogy for what you are confused about.
Are we talking about the various experiments about balls on
trains and mirrors reflecting light in spaceships?
I can understand those.
However the scenario presented -- a die being rolled, person A
sees it and person B doesn't therefore it was both rolled and
not rolled -- blows my mind.
'The answer exists! The answer exists!' my mind scre ...[text shortened]... an it didn't have a value.
How does his wave not collapse without his knowing it?
Nemesio
Did what I said make sense? That definite momentum is related to a periodic pattern on a position/probability graph, while a definite position is related to a sharp peak in that same graph? And that it is impossible to have both situations on the same graph? That they are inversely related?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think we have a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.
I'm not a physicist either. I'm a biochemist. At least, that's what my degree is in.
I think you're contributing a lot. Thanks!
We each have our own understanding of quantum phenomena, and a favorite model and terminology that we're used to using to describe it. Yours is probably most accurate from at hard science perspective. Bbarr's probably has more of a a metaphysical aspect, due to his philosophical expertise. Information science is one of my areas of expertise, so I always see the informational aspect of QM as being key to its understanding.
And poor Nemesio the organ player is caught in the middle trying to understand what all the fuss is about, when he can play the organ trusting that the keys will be in the right place without him having to look down and observe them!
I primarily entered this thread to point out that a lack of intuitive understanding standing of QM is nothing to be ashamed of; I don't even think it's something that's possible to fully overcome. I've often thought that learning QM is something of a quantum event itself, in that the more you learn about it, the less you have a comfortable understanding of it.