I am a bit confused as to what it is or isn't. Further, I wonder about the reason why quantum physics is often forced into a box labeled 'common sense'. What is common sense and what not? A demarcation problem which finds its origin in our Western philosophy of materialism and our social environment which feeds on it. As we grow, we end up being a product of such a world, and thus we are entirely conditioned creatures in how we perceive the "outside world", and we 'choose' socially pre-selected bounderies for conceiving this reality. Quantum physics never changed the way people look at the world around them. Is it the weirdness which is incompatible with the ability and nature of our sensory organs, or are we simply too conditioned by a still ever ruling Newtonian concept of reality? And should physicists, who know better than anyone the fundaments of all this science, play the role of a warning and conservative parent, or not? I don't think there is a healthy balance in this now. Of course, there are many reactions to this. Forums are a great place for witnessing these - as you all know Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - but also the media plays an ever growing role. Look at the movie "what the bleep do we know" - it clearly shows us how divided, both the public and the scientists, are. It is interesting to see how this issue causes lots of debate everywhere. There is hardly any effort in analysing this social phenomenon ... or was I just unable to find it? It's difficult to name it also: Is it a religion vs. science clash? That would be too specific and superficial in my opinion. It is clearly more than that: it involves different philosophies, performing the task of 'opinion carriers'. Even though you will mostly find the same bunch of philosophies associated with the same groups (atheïsts, religeous, etc), there can be other less common varieties. Because the latter is less socially induced, and more the result of personal effort and engagement, less pronounced by its very nature, it remains a minority, incapable of changing the course of this debate(s) that goes ad infinitum. I intended to just ask some stuff about the copenhagen interpretation, but apparently, I added this intro now. That is not to say that next things have nothing to do with what I just said, on the contrary: It partly illustrates the points I'm making here. And I'm just interested to know what lives on this forum. Don't be upset if any of the above (or below) appears uncoherent, or contains flagrant faults. I'm an archaeologist with an unusual interest for human nature and behaviour and how this originates. I try to read a lot about ... a lot. And I probably have an opinion about too many things - I just can't help it. But it's also my experience that you take great leaps of understanding by discussing stuff from time to time with others, instead of just keep reading books on your own. So ultimetaly I always hope to reach that goal. To try to make things clear: I am not confused about the origin of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. In the link below it is well explained how it came into existence. But confusion arises when it comes to the wave-function collapse and its nature (symbolic or real). as I said, this link provides some indepth information: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ It states: apparently, Bohr believed that as observers we are limited in understanding reality (through experiment) and that this is the reason why contradictions have appeared between quantum physics and classical physics. And Bohr himself (and as in the "Copenhagen interpretation") only gave a symbolic meaning to the wave function collapse: So far, so good. Next, I take a few quotes from this article: http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html A certain Stenger explains that quantum physics is often abused in the context of spiritualism. The outcome of experiments and reality in general, and the meaning of the wave function collapse, are claimed to be connected with the influence of conscious observation (people like Alan Wolf, Hameroff ...). The intend is to show the reader that common sense is still applicable to quantum physics, and that it really embraces a materialistic view on reality. He also (without specifically refering to it) talks about the Copenhagen interpretation: He briefly explains the phenomenon of wave function collapse (commentary of the picture): and then he shows how 'nonlocality' is really not necessarily that strange (second picture): Somehow the creation of particles out of vacuum is more common sense than a quantum leap. I don't know which view is favoured by physicists, but I do know that both - quantum leap and the zero point energy (vacuum) - are entirely concepts of quantum physics itself which are certainly not to be found in classical physics (and thus not common sense?). Energy can be borrowed from vacuum as long as it is returned in some way (here the other electron is annihilated by the positron - thus, returning its energy to the vacuum, hence, everybody is happy and no law of conservation was broken). So I don't see why he has to favour that explanation above quatum leap. As many others, he has difficulty with superluminal signals - yet we all know that quantum physics is uncompatible with relativity. So, what is the problem? And why opposing two different concepts of the SAME theory? And why wanting to try, again and again, forcing 'common sense' onto the interpretation of the nature of subatomic systems? Clearly, if the majority could, they would all change the situation and take Newton's mechanical clockwork universe back in the game. Now they give 'symbolic' meaning to mathemetical tools (such as the wave function collapse) saying that: But hey, this "mathematical constructuct" is also ... "the most accurate theory we have to describe the world" (you can find such statements anywhere). Clearly, one has to choose a tangible attitude or just be honest and say: I hate quantum physics and its weirdness and I wish it didn't exist at all" ...or just been born in another century. Bohr explains this "mathematical reality" matching experiments outcome yet challenging 'common sense', by implying that we are just plain limited in our role as observers. I think that is also really weak. It is not even a logical position to hold on considering the fact that physics is none other but experiment and maths. And yet, afterwards, he did try to convince Einstein with the EPR paradox situation that it was needless to think of two seperate particles as long as they were not observed (since they didn't really 'exist' uptill measurement). Apparently, Bohr set the trend for quite a childish attitude towards the interpretation of quantum physics, confusing later generations as well. Maybe the ghost of Newton appeard at night at his bed commanding him to keep his common sense (and he sometimes disobeyed)? Of course, that would be a paradox since ghosts and mechanical worlds are a bit uncompatible. Furthermore, nonlocality is still adopted as explanation for the experiment with twin particles. Of course, from a reductionistic view, all this is strange - and that is the view which most physicists seem to maintain - but if you take views such as of David Bohm, which is based on a systems view of reality, then subatomic behaviour is suddenly not so mysterious anymore (some basic information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm) One last quote to add to the copenhagen confusion: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/overview.html (Hameroff) I'm not sure what Hameroff means with that last sentence ... is it a typo and did he mean "inside" instead of "outside"? I suppose so. He clearly talks about a different copenhagen interpretation. The first link I gave, states this about such "false" notions: Apparently, confusion is alive and kicking in the academic world itself. Where is the Newton police? Tatuu tatuuu tatuuu
c'est moi, I agree with the thrust of your post. I have made attempts over the past couple of years to offer some direct fixes with the QM models including the Copenhagen interpretation. John S Bell, in his book of collected papers,'speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics', makes the point that any qm model that is void in "nonlocal force centers" is an incomplete model. Even those professing to follow al;ong with the Bell th4eses forget the importance of including nonlocality in the models used. If you've a mind this is a must book. Here is a recent post of mine regarding two hole diffraction that should unclog some of the log jam caused by modern QM structures. Just a beginning mind you, but a necessary start. [post=969108]Another view of the two-hole diffraction experimental interpretation.[/post] Geistkiesel
c'est moi, AS you can see I am not enamored of the Copen=hagen interpretation. For a number of reasons I believe the current QM model is grossly incomplete and operates to cloud the true picture, or truer picture, of the small world. As all is encompassed in probability fi=unctions of nonphysical entities, there is little hope that QM as we know it will be much more than guaze over the camera lens (a technique used in making aging starlets seems more youthful with a wispy like beauty enhanced by the see through curtain). To assert that knowability of the primary "stuff" is stictly forbidden as imposed by the QM models cuts off discussion of a deeper understanding of the world of quantum stuff. DOn't look, don't tell, just flip your coins and all possibles will be revealed. To get a cleaner look I suggest you get a copy of Feynman's "lectures on physics", Vol III and read chapter 5, which is self contained. You are over qualified to read and understand this chapter which is effectively math simple and picture/diagram rich. After pouring over this chapter I found some startling inconsistencies and logic errors that indicate the nature of the contrived system of which Feynman was a major contributor. If you can get a copy $70 or so new, or any good technical library should have a copy, read this and first, ch 5, and then we can have some truly enlighteninmg discussions. Your physics background is more than adequate for a complete understanding, trust me. However, you must read the chapter V first else I will be bogged down in explaining what you can best determine from your own reading.The gauze of Copenhagen will evaporate, ultimately and you will see the world is not near as probabilistic as dogma would mhave it. Geistkiesel
Okay, i've looked it up ---------------------------------------------------- Auteur Feynman, Richard Philips Leighton, Robert B. Sands, Matthew L. Titel The Feynman lectures on physics. 3 : Quantum mechanics Uitgever Pasadena (Calif.): California institute of technology, Publicatiejaar 1989 ISBN 0-201-51005-7 Fysieke details XII, Var. pag.: fig. Annot. algemeen Commemorative issue --------------------------------------------------------------------- it appears to be in a library i don't know. (My university is scattered in and around a town into so many complexes.) But it does say you can't borrow it (which is odd) so I'll try to take a copy the chapter I think one of the problems is that quantum physics is presenting itself as the most fundamental theory of reality - because it describes the smallest entities of it. Yet, it is not that. It is way too limited. It can't predict the emergent properties and behaviour of complex systems. So I wonder what the validity is of people such as Penrose and Hameroff who have chosen this as a basis for explaining consciousness (Orch theory). Consciousness is a mystery, particle behaviour is .... so the two must be related? Maybe. I think the approach of Pribram and Bohm is much more fruitful in that respect (holonomic brain, holographic universe http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/ ).
