World Science Scholars

1.6 Discussion

discussion Discussion
Note

Discussions are a place where registered users can click on Reply to share their ideas and questions that follow from the material we’re covering. All users can view the conversation and indicate their like or dislike for a specific comment.

Viewing 9 reply threads
    • There are other interpretations of quantum mechanics with different explanations for the physical meaning of superpositions. What do you think of the prevailing view that human observation makes reality definite? How might you challenge this view?

    • It seems, on opening the box with the cat, that photons interact with the superposition to give a definite state of alive or dead. We can investigate whether introduction of a stream of only neutrinos into the box would give a definite state (detected by presence or absence of sounds from the cat or its tripping on something).

    • If the question is about how consciousness seems to play a role, I think that’s nonsense. Consciousness is just a way for us to come in possession of an information and become aware of it, but that information we get has already happened “objectively” – it was given by a physical interaction.

    • If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it or hears it did it actually fall? – very Zen! But I could always go for a walk in the woods and take a look, but I don’t believe that my observation would have had any actual influence.

    • Intuitively, pilot wave theory just makes more sense to me.

    • As consciousness is my only interface with the physical universe, I cannot deny that it may have unfathomable effects. Perhaps like a video game or the ads/cft 2d control mechanism, reality only rezzes up when I’m there to observe it. This was an excellent course. Very thought provoking. Thank you.

    • I have never been comfortable that somehow a human observation “collapses” the wave function. Just a matter of human perception perhaps? What if it is observed by something else – something we are unaware of that may be incapable of understanding, say an insect. Does it still become definite? It seems it is only definite within the ability of the perceiver.

    • Panpsychism “may” be the answer.

    • The prevailing view of reality asserts that, things are “real” only when they are observed, without an observer we cannot talk about a “reality”. However we learned from Einstein’s theory of special relativity basically there may be two different “realities” of the same phenomena, depending on the frame of reference. It is true that “frame of reference” refers to an observer. And “quantum superposition” cannot be observed directly in that sense. However, it is observed in an indirect manner, by the double slit experiment and interference patterns of emitted light. In the “measurement effect problem”, the problem is not that the superposition cannot be observed directly, or we can measure the would-be “directly observed state” only as a set of probabilities. The problem may be that we don’t focus on “the effect of observation”, by asking “Why do we observe a particle instead of a wave?” or “Could this be about our state of observation, our expectations, our cognitive facilities”? However, these questions trascends the defined boundaries of physics and calls for the attention of neuroscience, biophysics and biochemistry, quantum chemistry as well.

      • If a particle is steady (not in motion), floating somewhere, does it make sense to talk about superposition and probability of finding the particle in a place x or y?
        If a particle is in continuous motion, why does it make sense to use probability to estimate/calculate its position? If it is in constant moving, it doesn’t have a position, but a trajectory, a path, therefore wouldn’t it be wrong to talk about and calculate a position?
        When you say that the electrons are in quantum superposition states, are you talking about the single specific electron? How sure can we be that we are observing the same electron?

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend