I Can we truly ignore the existence of quantum objects between measurements?

[lucas_]

We always think in terms of isolated particles. It's better to analyze it with solids.

If wave functions were just calculational tools. Molecules like the following still interact by wave functions, right?
So how can it be calculational tool? And if it is, then what model do you use to describe the interaction of molecules without any concept of wavefunctions?

 

[PeterDonis]

We always think in terms of isolated particles.

Who is "we"? What is your justification for this statement? Many physicists spend lots of time looking at quantum models of things other than isolated particles.

It's better to analyze it with solids.

To analyze what?

Molecules like the following still interact by wave functions, right?

No; "interact by wave functions" makes no sense. Wave functions describe states of quantum systems (or ensembles of such systems, or knowledge about such systems, depending on which interpretation of QM you adopt). Interactions are described by (parts of) Hamiltonians.

 

[lucas_]

Who is "we"? What is your justification for this statement? Many physicists spend lots of time looking at quantum models of things other than isolated particles.

We, meaning the many participants in this forums who spent decades debating the meaning of wave functions.

To analyze what?

No; "interact by wave functions" makes no sense. Wave functions describe states of quantum systems (or ensembles of such systems, or knowledge about such systems, depending on which interpretation of QM you adopt). Interactions are described by (parts of) Hamiltonians.

I see. So Hamiltonians can't be treated as just statistical tools? So the H20 molecule interact by hamiltonians and can exist without any wave functions? But in molecular analysis. I always see wave functions described.

 

[PeterDonis]

We, meaning the many participants in this forums who spent decades debating the meaning of wave functions.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need more than your unsupported word for this. Can you give links to specific threads?

So Hamiltonians can't be treated as just statistical tools? So the H20 molecule interact by hamiltonians and can exist without any wave functions?

You seem to be confusing the mathematical models with the things being modeled. Hamiltonians (and wave functions, for that matter) are parts of mathematical models. Real quantum systems aren't Hamiltonians or wave functions. They're real atoms or molecules or solids or whatever.

 

[lucas_]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need more than your unsupported word for this. Can you give links to specific threads?

Recent Threads like "Qbism vs Copenhagen". "Realism from locality". These mostly involved few particles that can't be seen. So let's deal with stuff like water that can be clearly seen.

You seem to be confusing the mathematical models with the things being modeled. Hamiltonians (and wave functions, for that matter) are parts of mathematical models. Real quantum systems aren't Hamiltonians or wave functions. They're real atoms or molecules or solids or whatever.

So in interpretation where wave functions were just calculational tools. The atoms or molecules have beables or exist independent of observation? For isolated particles like electron in double slits. We don't know how the electron "move" between emitter and detector. If they were just calculation tools, some treat the electron as not-existing before measurement. Bohr declared that in the absence of measurement to determine the properties of particles, the properties don't exist.

This is why it's better to analyze solids where you can't assume they don't exist between measurements. If properties of H20 don't exist between measurements, then the water can just disappear.

So Copenhagen doesn't apply in the case of water molecules, but only double slit particles or few things you can't see? If not. How do you apply Copenhagen in the case of water molecules? Bohr sounded like the particles don't have to exist before measurements (he emphasized we only have access to observations). So how can water molecule don't exist before measurements?

You may say not to confuse math models with objects. But in the double slit experiments. Copenhagen says to just focus on measurement. They can't literally model how the electron appear between measurements (hence the formalism about denying reality vs denying locality, etc.).

 

[PeterDonis]

Recent Threads like "Qbism vs Copenhagen". "Realism from locality". These mostly involved few particles that can't be seen

So do lots of experiments: all of particle physics, much of chemistry, a good part of biology.

let's deal with stuff like water that can be clearly seen.

This is certainly part of science, but it's extremely unrealistic to expect science to limit itself to this. If you don't like discussions here at PF on things that can't be seen, you're welcome to not participate in them. You're also welcome to start threads to discuss specific experiments on stuff that can be seen, with appropriate references.

 

[PeterDonis]

So in interpretation where wave functions were just calculational tools. The atoms or molecules have beables or exist independent of observation? For isolated particles like electron in double slits. We don't know how the electron "move" between emitter and detector. If they were just calculation tools, some treat the electron as not-existing before measurement. Bohr declared that in the absence of measurement to determine the properties of particles, the properties don't exist.

This is why it's better to analyze solids where you can't assume they don't exist between measurements. If properties of H20 don't exist between measurements, then the water can just disappear.

So Copenhagen doesn't apply in the case of water molecules, but only double slit particles or few things you can't see? If not. How do you apply Copenhagen in the case of water molecules? Bohr sounded like the particles don't have to exist before measurements (he emphasized we only have access to observations). So how can water molecule don't exist before measurements?

You may say not to confuse math models with objects. But in the double slit experiments. Copenhagen says to just focus on measurement. They can't literally model how the electron appear between measurements (hence the formalism about denying reality vs denying locality, etc.).

What all this boils down to is, you don't like not knowing what happens to quantum objects like electrons between measurements. Welcome to QM. But you also propose basically ignoring all such objects and only doing physics on stuff that can be seen. That, as I said in my previous post, is extremely unrealistic.

Since you are not asking any question but simply asserting your idiosyncratic and unrealistic opinion, this thread is closed.