[Stormkeeper]

Am I the only one who thought MW1 = Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare?

I thought it was that too.

[The E]

This is relevant.

[General Battuta]

argh kimiko is so hot

But see my problem with that **** (and with the Copenhagen interpretation, and with any interpretation that requires a conscious observer) is that particles are constantly 'observing' each other. The system as a whole can never be isolated enough to be coherent because even if the cat is inside the box all the quanta that make it up are getting all busy with each other.

Plus saying that a human is a 'conscious observer' and a cat isn't invokes dualism and that ain't science honey.

and yes i know the schrodinger's box is a metaphor buuut

[Topgun]

argh kimiko is so hot

But see my problem with that **** (and with the Copenhagen interpretation, and with any interpretation that requires a conscious observer) is that particles are constantly 'observing' each other. The system as a whole can never be isolated enough to be coherent because even if the cat is inside the box all the quanta that make it up are getting all busy with each other.

Plus saying that a human is a 'conscious observer' and a cat isn't invokes dualism and that ain't science honey.

and yes i know the schrodinger's box is a metaphor buuut

Unless there can only be one observer for every universe but thats metaphysics territory.

[General Battuta]

argh kimiko is so hot

But see my problem with that **** (and with the Copenhagen interpretation, and with any interpretation that requires a conscious observer) is that particles are constantly 'observing' each other. The system as a whole can never be isolated enough to be coherent because even if the cat is inside the box all the quanta that make it up are getting all busy with each other.

Plus saying that a human is a 'conscious observer' and a cat isn't invokes dualism and that ain't science honey.

and yes i know the schrodinger's box is a metaphor buuut

Unless there can only be one observer for every universe but thats metaphysics territory.

Yes, yes it is. And it's what I really dislike about discussing QM without using math, because that's basically just religion.

[Bobboau]

or the central plot point of Noein...

[Topgun]

The universe is just full of weird ****

[General Battuta]

The universe is just full of weird ****

Yes, but it is full of mathematically defined weird ****, and the definition of 'observer' you are using is not one of them.

Conscious beings are not observers.

[Bobboau]

what is the mathematical definition of "observer"?

[General Battuta]

what is the mathematical definition of "observer"?

From the new-mostly-abandoned Copenhagen interpretation, an explanation that it's simply a placeholder for an outside system interacting with the quantum state, whether a human being or a billiard ball (in fact it's the act of interaction that's important, not the interactor):

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.
—Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

In modern QM the act of observation is no longer considered to be of any importance since the 'observer' - whether human or any other system - is also a quantum system and what results is simply a vast entangled quantum system.

[Pred the Penguin]

Am I the only one who thought MW1 = Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare?

I thought it was that too.

Add one to that....

[Bobboau]

an outside system interacting with the quantum state, whether a human being or a billiard ball (in fact it's the act of interaction that's important, not the interactor):

ok, so could an "object" (anything consisting of more than one molecule) observe it's self? what differentiates the observer from the observed? how do we know we are not in a super-state and will only have our wave functions collapse when some scientist in France takes a measurement of some subatomic particle which therefore interacts with his instrument which then interacts with him and his lab which then interacts with the planet which then interacts with everything on the planet?

[General Battuta]

an outside system interacting with the quantum state, whether a human being or a billiard ball (in fact it's the act of interaction that's important, not the interactor):

ok, so could an "object" (anything consisting of more than one molecule) observe it's self? what differentiates the observer from the observed? how do we know we are not in a super-state and will only have our wave functions collapse when some scientist in France takes a measurement of some subatomic particle which therefore interacts with his instrument which then interacts with him and his lab which then interacts with the planet which then interacts with everything on the planet?

Nobody knows, because the actual, elegant mathematical part of QM doesn't include any kind of provision for waveforms to collapse; that's a feature tacked on by necessity in a kind of hackish way, and nobody really understands it. This is why multiple different interpretations (Copenhagen, many-worlds, instrumentalist, the awful awful awful consciousness causes collapse) exist.

[watsisname]

So why is the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics "mostly abandoned"?  What problems does it suffer from?

I'm currently taking an introductory course in Quantum Mechanics so much of this stuff is still rather new to me.

[General Battuta]

So why is the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics "mostly abandoned"?  What problems does it suffer from?

I'm currently taking an introductory course in Quantum Mechanics so much of this stuff is still rather new to me.

Well TBH I'm not sure myself. I've read it's fallen from primacy. It may be that physicists have simply gone back to the 'shut up and calculate' instrumentalist approach, which makes no interpretation at all.

The problem with all the interpretations is that so far they cannot be distinguished testably. It's not even clear what they mean.

[watsisname]

So if I understand correctly, it sounds like it's not so much that the interpretation is "wrong" as it is that it's not a good scientific practice to be looking at these quantum mechanical principles in a non-mathematical way in the first place?

[General Battuta]

So if I understand correctly, it sounds like it's not so much that the interpretation is "wrong" as it is that it's not a good scientific practice to be looking at these quantum mechanical principles in a non-mathematical way in the first place?

It's...well, to my understanding, basically the question of which interpretation of QM you endorse right now is one of hunches and belief, rather than evidence.