Originally posted by: Freethinker112
CI says that property makes sense only within the context of measurement. EPR said that the properties exist objectively even when not being measured but I think it was Bell who falsified that, right?
There is no need to "recollect" tidbits like these from memory when information is freely available all over the web.
Originally posted by: Freethinker112
But can this be extrapolated from atomic sized things to macroscopic objects like moon? Moon doesn't just vanish because we are not looking at it. It contains materials older than humanity, so it existed before we were here to observe it. Also, we can still feel the gravitation effect and tides when not looking at the moon.
1. Extrapolation implies that we are trying to estimate values outside a known data range. There is no unknown data range in this context. If you disagree, please let me know why.
2. The macroscopic properties of matter, be it solids, liquids or gasses, are completely depend on the microscopic particles ("atomic sized things" as you eloquently put it) composing it. If you disagree, please let me know why.
3. A wave function, described by Schrodinger's equations, is the most complete description you could give to a physical system be it moon or any other entity that you could think of. If you disagree please let me know why.
4. The moon's wave function is in a superposition of several different possible eignestates. If you disagree please let me know why.
5. The relation between the wave function and the underlying reality (ex: "spherical object reflecting light") is dependent on which interpretation (semantic explanation of mathematical equations as outlined by Schrodinger) of Quantum Mechanics one would want to go with. If you disagree please let me know why.
6. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If you disagree please let me know why.
7. Per Copenhagen Interpretation, a wave function appears to collapse (one single possibility emerging from several different possibilities) only after an interaction with an observer. If you disagree please let me know why.
8. If there were no observers, there would be no collapse which means it is meaningless to ask anyone to pick one possibility out of several different possibilities. If you disagree please let me know why.
Which is why I said, the answer to the question of what exists (existed) before an observation is made is fuzzy at best.
We could also discuss the other popular interpretation (Many worlds interpretation) but that would be more shocking than the Copenhagen interpretation, trust me.
To sum up, the math behind Quantum Mechanics is fool proof. The interpretation of what the math means is what is up for discussion.
comment:
p_commentcount