- #1
benk99nenm312
- 302
- 0
I have a question on collapsing wave functions. Suppose one observes the wave function of an electron. The wave function should collapse, but would it collapse instantaneously? If so, wouldn't this violate relativity?
Fredrik said:There's no way to use wavefunction collapse to send a message faster than light, so there's no violation of relativity.
benk99nenm312 said:I have a question on collapsing wave functions. Suppose one observes the wave function of an electron. The wave function should collapse, but would it collapse instantaneously? If so, wouldn't this violate relativity?
benk99nenm312 said:I have a question on collapsing wave functions. Suppose one observes the wave function of an electron. The wave function should collapse, but would it collapse instantaneously? If so, wouldn't this violate relativity?
feynmann said:Do you believe the moon is Not there if nobody is looking at it?
>>Einstein's ironic statement was "Does the moon disappear when I'm not looking at it?" This was stated in order to show the absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which states that there are no particles in the universe until scientists perform experiments; i.e. the experiments themselves 'create' reality ahead of them, creating an illusion that scientists are exploring a reality that is independent of their mental existence.
feynmann said:Do you believe the moon is Not there if nobody is looking at it?
>>Einstein's ironic statement was "Does the moon disappear when I'm not looking at it?"
Fra said:I hold Bohr's spirit that
"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature"
very high.
The conclusion here is that no matter what "nature is", ALL a real observer can EVER know about this, must be acuqired by means of interactions ~ questioning ~ measurements. So you never get closer to reality than your own perspective. Anything beyond that is IMHO at least, a naive realist ideal that doesn't match the standards of a good theory of science and measurement.
Ilja said:It is a completely different thing to exclude the alternatives from science. That is simply the totalitarian spirit of that time.
Ilja said:This is positivistic theory of science, which has been refuted by Popper long ago. Realism is, instead, the true method of science. We propose theories, as hypotheses how nature really works. From these hypotheses, we derive what can be observed, and compare these derivations with observation. Even if this does not help, if there are different realistic theories able to preserve the phenomena, we have criteria for comparison (simplicity, beauty, explanatory power, internal consistency) which allow to reject some if not most of the alternatives even without support from observation.
Fra said:The problem is that there is no objective measure of simplicity. You can probably make anything simple, by constructing a custom measure.
To me simplicity is closely related to speculation. A simple "theory" is a one which contains a minimum of speculation. To stick to what we know, and not adapt to realist constructs are to me simple, beucase it does away with the redundant baggage.
/Fredrik
apeiron said:It would be possible to take an information theoretic approach here (as Norretranders in his pop sci book, The User Illustion, argued).
Simplicity involves a reduction in the information required to specify a particular theory or law.
E=MC^2 excites people because it is compact enough to fit on a t-shirt. It is simple in an information theoretic sense.
This is of course why we want to go generally from philosophy (much waffling) to mathematics (abrupt equations).
Modelling involves a reduction of information. Of course, models often end up too simple to apply to more than small (particular scale) applications.
But the general point is that modelling theory (the modern stuff post popper, positivism, etc - so Rosen, Pattee, those kind of modern era guys) can operationalise the notion of simplicity.
The collapsing wave function, also known as the "wave function collapse", is a phenomenon in quantum mechanics where a particle's wave function, which describes its probability of being in a certain state, is reduced to a single state when it is observed or measured.
The collapse of the wave function is caused by the interaction between the particle and the measuring device. This interaction forces the particle to take on a definite state, rather than existing in multiple states simultaneously.
The collapsing wave function is significant because it demonstrates the inherent uncertainty in quantum mechanics and the role of observation in determining the state of a particle. It also plays a crucial role in the measurement problem, which is a fundamental issue in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
There are several different interpretations of the collapsing wave function, including the Copenhagen interpretation, the many-worlds interpretation, and the objective collapse interpretation. Each of these interpretations offers a different perspective on the nature of reality and the role of observation in quantum mechanics.
While the collapsing wave function is a commonly accepted phenomenon in quantum mechanics, there is still debate and ongoing research about its exact nature and implications. It is a fundamental aspect of the quantum world, but there is still much to be understood about its mechanisms and consequences.