Question about quantum superpostion

[Arsenal123]

Hello,
I am writing a paper about metaphysics and was wondering if what I am saying about quantum mechanics is right. I have read pretty many books about quantum mechanics, but I'm not sure if what I am saying is valid.

Here is what I have said about quantum mechanics in my paper. I know it said no homework, but there wasn't really a better place to post this. If its not dead on, that's OK, I just want to know if what I am saying is completely wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Quantum mechanics tells us that the universe is made up of abstractions. On the most basic level, all particles exist only in a state of probability’s, or quantum superposition. Basically when a particle is in a state of superposition, it is everywhere in the universe simultaneously. In addition, superposition comprises all of the possible interactions that a particle can have with all other particles. Since in a state of superposition all particles interact with each other, and all particles are everywhere at once simultaneously, a particle in its natural state of superposition is in constant interaction with all the particles in the universe. So a particle at the most basic level is interconnected with all other particles, and therefore a particle can only be defined by its relation and interaction with all particles.

Matter is normally thought to be made up of small definite marble like components (electrons, protons, neutrons, ect.), and these components are thought to be in one place at a time. The reason for this is because that is how we actually perceive the universe. We create a different universe through our conscience observation. Superposition breaks down when a measurement is made. When we observe something, the wave function, which is a mathematical representation of the superposition sate, collapses. Out of the infinite amount of places a particle could be, only one of its possible positions ends up materializing when we observe it.

 

[Fredrik]

You should start by reading my answer in this thread.

Quantum mechanics tells us that the universe is made up of abstractions.

I don't like this statement. All theories involve "abstractions" in the sense that they all use something mathematical to represent something in the real world. For example, the set of ordered triples (x,y,z) of real numbers can be the mathematical representation of the real-world concept "space". That doesn't mean that a theory that uses this representation says that space is that set. The mathematical "thing" that represents the real world "thing" is just what the theory tells you to use to find the theory's predictions about results of experiments.

On the most basic level, all particles exist only in a state of probability’s, or quantum superposition.

It's unclear what this means. My reply in the other thread might help you find a better way to say what you're thinking.

Basically when a particle is in a state of superposition, it is everywhere in the universe simultaneously.

Not true. First of all, you need to make it clear that you're talking about a superposition of position eigenstates, as opposed to e.g. an energy eigenstate. (The eigenstates of an observable A are the states that correspond to possible results of measurements of A). Second, it makes some sense to say that a particle is at all positions where its wavefunction is non-zero, but the set of all such positions doesn't have to be the entire universe. Third, even though it makes some sense to say that a particle is in many places at once, I don't think it's a good idea to do so. Reasons: a) If that's an accurate description, why is the probability of detection not the same in all of those places? b) There's no good reason to think of a wavefunction as representing all the properties of the system. We know it tells us something about the probabilities of possible results of position measurements, but we don't know that it tells us something about what the particle is "actually doing" or where it's doing it.

In addition, superposition comprises all of the possible interactions that a particle can have with all other particles.

This is wrong.

Since in a state of superposition all particles interact with each other, and all particles are everywhere at once simultaneously, a particle in its natural state of superposition is in constant interaction with all the particles in the universe. So a particle at the most basic level is interconnected with all other particles, and therefore a particle can only be defined by its relation and interaction with all particles.

I think you're confusing superposition with entanglement, and I don't understand how the stuff after the "therefore" follows from the stuff before it. There's some truth to the stuff after the "therefore" though, but it's hard to make accurate statements about such things. There are a few different interpretations of QM (many-worlds, relational, Ithaca) that assert roughly that the universe is a physical system that consists of many subsystems, and that what we perceive as reality is the correlations between the subsystems. It's very hard to make statements about such things that will be understood by the people reading it, so you probably shouldn't.

Matter is normally thought to be made up of small definite marble like components (electrons, protons, neutrons, ect.), and these components are thought to be in one place at a time.

I would rather say that classical mechanics describes particles this way, while quantum mechanics describes them differently.

We create a different universe through our conscience observation.

Please don't bring consciousness into this. Just say that a measurement affects the state of the system because it's an interaction between the system and the measuring device.

Superposition breaks down when a measurement is made. When we observe something, the wave function, which is a mathematical representation of the superposition sate, collapses. Out of the infinite amount of places a particle could be, only one of its possible positions ends up materializing when we observe it.

This is OK. Just don't make too big a deal of the "collapse". It really just means that if you measure the same thing again immediately after the first measurement, the probability of getting the same result is 1.

 

[SprocketPower]

I would have to agree with Fredrik on all points except that for consciousness it should be qualified that it might be a factor but it is not clear it is because it depends a lot on the interpretation.

And to add to the abstractions point, it is not QM that especially or particularly says that the universe is abstractions. We know that matter is a form of EM energy so has a wave nature and all energy is basically kinetic and motion is inextricably linked to space-time and space and time are mental constructs so that motion is also. And Zeno's paradoxes demonstrate the illusion of motion. Especially compelling evidence for the universe as abstract is the holographic model of the brain.

I have a certificate in metaphysics and am a life-time member of the International Society for Philosophers.

Also, if you're writing an essay you should have the spelling right. The plural of probability is "probabilities" and the possessive is "probability's."