- #1
alfredblase
- 228
- 0
is the idea that collapse cannot be defined as something that occurs, generally known and accepted?
thx
thx
Last edited:
alfredblase said:is the idea that collapse cannot be defined as something that occurs, generally known and accepted?
alfredblase said:If I were to present proof that rules out the possibility of a superposition of states that collapses into a well defined, real state upon some kind of "measurement" or "observation", would I be doing something new, or not generally known/accepted by the physics community?
alfredblase said:If superposition is not a fundamental description of reality, then according to the copenhagen/orthodox interpretation, neither is the HUP.
So according to orthodox/copenhagen view, the universe is not neccessarily non-deterministic? So the orthodox/copenhagen view tells us that a particle DOES have a definate momentum AND position but that we can never find out because we will always affect one if we measure the other?
vanesch said:based upon what axiom system ?
vanesch said:Copenhagen is weirder than that ! It tells you that the concept of momentum, or position, or whatever other description of an ontology of the particle does not make sense, and that the only thing that does make sense as a logical description of the particle is the measurement outcome, when you actually perform it. At that moment (during a special, undefined process called "measurement") it makes, during an instant, suddenly sense to say that a particle has a position OR a momentum OR whatever you measure. And then it "disappears again in its ontologically meaningless quantum world", and the only thing you're left with is a formula, which is the wavefunction and its evolution, but which is NOT saying what's going on, but is just a tool to calculate the outcomes of the NEXT measurement. But it is postulated that it is fundamentally impossible to say what is actually going on. It is called a positivist viewpoint (logical positivism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism), in which you do not make any hypothesis about a non-observed ontology, but in which you jump from observation to observation.
In Copenhagen, on the other hand, there IS an ontology attached to the classical, macroscopic world (in which objects DO NOT have a quantum description, but only a classical description, which is supposed to be exactly true). The quantum objects "hit" the classical world during "measurements". As these "hits" by quantum objects onto classical objects introduce random forces, the classical world gets "noise terms" in its equations, hence becomes stochastical. And a classical apparatus amplifying that noise is a measurement apparatus.
My personal opinion on this is that this sacrifices too much, namely the idea that the quantum world is fundamentally ontologically undescribable. Hence my preference for MWI.
alfredblase said:I begin with the assumtion that superposition is a fundamental description of reality.
vanesch said:Well, if you state that you ALREADY assume that macroscopic systems have a quantum state (a vector in Hilbert space: the entire construction of the Hilbert space is nothing else but a consequence of the superposition principle). Then indeed, you end up in MWI.
Collapse theory is the idea that a civilization or society can experience a sudden and catastrophic collapse, leading to a significant decline in population, resources, and societal structures.
The main causes of collapse can vary, but some common factors include environmental degradation, resource depletion, economic instability, social and political unrest, and external pressures such as war or invasion.
While it is difficult to predict and prevent collapse, some steps can be taken to mitigate its likelihood. These include sustainable resource management, addressing social and economic inequalities, and implementing policies to address environmental issues.
Scientists study collapse through various disciplines such as archaeology, history, sociology, and environmental science. They analyze past collapses and use models to understand the potential for collapse in modern societies.
There is no definitive answer to this question, as collapse is a complex and unpredictable phenomenon. While some believe that collapse is inevitable for all civilizations, others argue that it can be avoided through proactive measures and societal changes.