I think this article by David Mermin is worth pondering. What do you think?
http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/lectures/Mermin%20longer.pdf
This question is about the interpretation of Borh about the quantum mechanics.
But this is only an interpretation, really we not can say this for the macroscopic systems where the quantum properties not can to be observed
Good question Victor!
When one is not looking at it, some one else may be looking at it thus proving its existence which can be verified either by looking at it oneself or by believing in the reports of another, who has seen it existing.
You may see my publications in this regard: "Are quantum states subjective?" and "Psychophysical Interpretation of Quantum Theory" where this issue is addressed.
But more is to be done in future.
Regards
Rajat
@Akira, Julio, V. Fulcoii, Prajat: thank you for your answers. I have tried to figure out what exactly the idea behind Copenhagen interpretation, but it seems that Mermin's analogy put the idea on condensed way. It seems that this analogy pulls out the dichotomy between objective reality and observer-dependent reality at their extreme. I got a quite similar analogy: provided that reality is determined by the observer, then imagine you and your friend are located in a room where there is nobody else. So, when you close your eyes then your friend disappears immediately in front of you, is that true?
General Philosophy :"What we perceive, what we have become"
The analysis and the observation gives us actual understanding about the facts. If we cant observe any thing at some place, means its not there but if we can somehow measure, then we will say, yes something is there. but still we can't ignore things which are beyond our approach. because they are playing a crucial role in nature. I will say " An invisible particle has same value in nature as a planet in universe"
suppose noone electromagnetic-receiving-system is receiving a photon from tha source: no one , absolutely. 2 u think that tha source is still emitting em energy toward the empty-infinite space?
@Akira: thank you for answers in this thread, and i agree with you that Schrodinger's wave equation is not only inconsistent but it is also unrealistic, because k is a variable unlike in classical wave equation. Please check George Shpenkov in this researchgate, he proposes classical wave equation to describe all atoms. I think i already sent you my review on this matter. Best wishes
@Akira: thankmyou for your answer. With all my respect, i think you are a smart logician but perhaps you should read more on history of modern physics. It is well known that Schrodinger did not invent the probabilistic interpretation of his wave equation. It is Max Born who injected the probabilistic view, which Schrodinger opposed until his death. Schrodinger's view is that all is just wave, and that is why he invented his Cat paradox around 1935 with intention to debunk the probabilistic view. Check any quantum book. Or if you prefer a original paper, here is the link to his 1926 paper: http://web.archive.org/web/20081217040121/http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Schroedinger/Schroedinger1926c.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20081217040121/http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Schroedinger/Schroedinger1926c.pdf
@Akira: to quote your words "what Schrodinger objected was Heisenberg's matrix theory..." I think we should discern between our interpretation and what the history was. According to his own paper, Schrodinger was able to prove the equivalence between his wave mechanics and Heisenberg-Jordan-Born's matrix mechanics, and he went on to get it in print. See the review paper included here.
http://www.psiquadrat.de/downloads/muller97a.pdf
@Akira: as far as i know, Schrodinger interpreted de Broglie's phase wave as a real wave, so in this respect their interpretation of QM is more deterministic, unlike Born-Heisenberg who think QM as probabilistic. I will send you via email a paper by Max Born to prove that it was Born who injected the probabilistic interpretation of QM, which Schrodinger disagreed. And as a matter of record, in 1954 Born got his Nobel prize exactly for his statistical interpretation of QM.
@Akira: what i mean with equivalence is: Schrodinger proved that there is correspondence between his wave mechanics and matrix mechanics. It does not mean that i agree with his proof, because i think a proof of equivalence between two invalid theories do not make them right. But i do not think that all QM hypothesis is trash, at least i can accept Bohr's old QM where he conjectured orbital quantization, and also de Broglie's matter wave seems quite acceptable. The question is how to make his matter wave to correspond with physical wave. If you think of it deeply, then the only choice is to return back to the classical wave equation. Interestingly, George Shpenkov is able to derive periodic table of elements from the classical wave equation. So i think at least he is on the right track. The other QM is merely questionable at best. Best wishes
@Prof. Akira Kanda: i just found a recent paper discussing possible test of Dynamical Reduction Models of QM. Perhaps you can write up a short commentary to detect any flaw of logic in sch a test..?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.04462
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles