Evolution of Matter from Quantum World: Macroscopic Scale vs Localized Particles

[nouveau_riche]

how does the matter as it appear on macroscopic scale evolve from quantum world and take form/structure/properties if the particle making it is localized bcoz there is an observer

what i mean is that at large scale we don't penetrate through the matter observing those particles then what is giving matter it's state of being?

 

[nouveau_riche]

no answer yet.
is there something wrong with question or the answer needs metaphysics?

 

[Varon]

how does the matter as it appear on macroscopic scale evolve from quantum world and take form/structure/properties if the particle making it is localized bcoz there is an observer

what i mean is that at large scale we don't penetrate through the matter observing those particles then what is giving matter it's state of being?

I think observers don't have to be humans. Even molecules can be observers. So in a piece of wood. Each molecule can be an observer of the neighbor hence collapsing it.

Also due to Decoherence (just google this). If you can somehow shield an objective against Decoherence. If Bohr were right and there was no Many Worlds, then the object would just shapeshift or vanish. If you can theoreticfally shield a big object like some battleship from Philadelphia shipyard from Decoherence by maybe some kind of special magnetic field that can erase the coherence data (an entangler decoupler), then you can make the battleshield invisible making successful this hmm... Philadelphia Experiment.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I think observers don't have to be humans. Even molecules can be observers. So in a piece of wood. Each molecule can be an observer of the neighbor hence collapsing it.

Also due to Decoherence (just google this). If you can somehow shield an objective against Decoherence. If Bohr were right and there was no Many Worlds, then the object would just shapeshift or vanish. If you can theoreticfally shield a big object like some battleship from Philadelphia shipyard from Decoherence by maybe some kind of special magnetic field that can erase the coherence data (an entangler decoupler), then you can make the battleshield invisible making successful this hmm... Philadelphia Experiment.

...what?! Is this about the 'Philadelphia Experiment"? That was a decent movie

 

[maverick_starstrider]

how does the matter as it appear on macroscopic scale evolve from quantum world and take form/structure/properties if the particle making it is localized bcoz there is an observer

what i mean is that at large scale we don't penetrate through the matter observing those particles then what is giving matter it's state of being?

I'm afraid your English is very broken, which is probably why this thread went so long without being answered. Perhaps you could try to describe your question in a different way (or try and run things through a native speaker).

 

[Varon]

...what?! Is this about the 'Philadelphia Experiment"? That was a decent movie

It's just a joke :) Well. But if you can disengage a macroscopic object against decoherence and Bohr was right. Isn't it you can make it theoretically appear and disappear like quantum particles?

 

[nouveau_riche]

in simple words...

what is observation in context to quantum?
is it different from measurement?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

in simple words...

what is observation in context to quantum?
is it different from measurement?

No. an observation and a measurement are generally the same thing. However, an OBSERVABLE is something different, and that relates to the math of Quantum Mechanics. I would also point out that there are many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that do not have "measurement paradoxes" and don't give any special power to observers.

 

[nouveau_riche]

No. an observation and a measurement are generally the same thing. However, an OBSERVABLE is something different, and that relates to the math of Quantum Mechanics. I would also point out that there are many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that do not have "measurement paradoxes" and don't give any special power to observers.

then why does act of measurement gives particle a definite axis of spin(knowing the fact that particle has probability to spin around certain axis governed by probability function of spin)?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

then why does act of measurement gives particle a definite axis of spin(knowing the fact that particle has probability to spin around certain axis governed by probability function of spin)?

Does it? Or does a measurement merely change the information WE have about the spin of the particle? As I said, there are interpretations that do away with the measurement paradox entirely (my favorite being Aharanov's time-symmetric interpretation).

 

[nouveau_riche]

Does it? Or does a measurement merely change the information WE have about the spin of the particle? As I said, there are interpretations that do away with the measurement paradox entirely (my favorite being Aharanov's time-symmetric interpretation).

it do give it a definite spin,measurement actually collapses with the wavefunction of that particle to do so

 

[maverick_starstrider]

it do give it a definite spin,measurement actually collapses with the wavefunction of that particle to do so

As I said, wavefunction collapse is an artifact of CERTAIN interpretations, like the Copenhagen interpretation. Other interpretations, like Time-Symmetric, don't have this effect. They don't have a measurement paradox.