I don't at all understand what you're saying. Could you take some very simple example and demonstrate what you mean?People get hived off into separate subjects and forget the basics. For the conservation of energy to be a consistent and whole paradigm, the collapse of the wave function is necessarily governed by/coalesces with the transfer of energy, otherwise, there would be no rules; there would be no physics. Forget observers and god. It is energy that is the god of this situation in all its forms. Once energy is transferred, the waveform necessarily collapses. This is almost a physical tautology. The wave function is simply pregnant with energy, but is unable to deliver it in that form. Only when an interaction with the wave function is completed, does the energy become realised, and get transferred to make a causal effect on the rest of the Universe. Basic, huh?
Maybe some "Aspect style" experiments can be carried out on the "shape" of this interaction?
Don't you really need a time machine to do this experiment? So you can shoot the SAME electron each time and see a diffraction pattern.I'm sorry to be picky but it seems that experimental support for the electron case is not strong. In this paper**, the authors say
Note, they do not say 'interference pattern'. This helps to debunk a persistent quantum myth.
**Controlled double-slit electron diffraction
That would give the same outcome everytime - groundhog electrons.Don't you really need a time machine to do this experiment? So you can shoot the SAME electron each time and see a diffraction pattern.
Are you satisfied with the word "explained" in the above sentence?The pattern observed in electron double slit experiments, whether you use the words "interference pattern" or "diffraction pattern" to describe it, is explained by quantum interference between components of the electron wave function coming from each slit.
I don't think so since the electron path is unpredictable so running same one over and over should be the same as running different electrons one after another. It's not about slight differences in initial conditions, that's Chaos, it's more fundamental.That would give the same outcome everytime - groundhog electrons.
Actually, using a wave packet to model the electrons takes into account the inevitable inaccuracy in the initial conditions.
An excited atom emits a photon and the electron descends to a lower orbital, removing energy from the atom into the photon (or it's wave function.) This energy is stored in the wave function of the photon (for where else can it reside as the wave function spreads out and evolves over time?) Now, this atom was on the surface of a star, and the wave function (carrying the energy) spreads out through the Universe, subtending a considerable volume of likely interactions. The wave function interacts with another atom, exciting it (this time in my retina) and, on its decay, and I "see" the light owing to the collapse of the wave function within the atom in my eye. This means the little green man 500 light years away cannot see the photon now, even though he is "equidistant" from the star's atom.I don't at all understand what you're saying. Could you take some very simple example and demonstrate what you mean?
(I start with an off topic parenthetical comment: you're a smart and educated guy and I think that if you were offered 100 grand to write how I would respond to your question you would most likely succeed.)Sure, why not?
The fact that he is in my sig doesn't mean I accept him as an authority on everything.Your signature hero, R.F., says
On what basis? On the basis that you know electricity is required for the toaster to work and it has to be plugged in to get electricity. But how do you know that? On the basis of a comprehensive theory that is ultimately based on Maxwell's Equations. And what are Maxwell's Equations? They are mathematical rules that tells you how to predict how electromagnetic fields, charges, and currents behave. Just like Newton's Laws, which you said were not explanations, but just mathematical rules.If asked my girl friend why my toaster wasn't working and she said, "Because it's not plugged in." That would be an explanation and I would understand.
In other words, you are not satisfied with the word "explained". You would prefer the word "predicted". I have no objection to the word "predicted".So I think you see my reticence with the word "explained". I would have used "predicted".
Feynman has explained many things and I think he is a great explainer. But he says he has no explanation for the double slit or the correlations when measuring entangled entities. So I think he is making a distinction.However, in this particular case I agree with what I think he is saying, although what I think he is saying might not be what you think he is saying. I think he is saying that there isn't actually any difference between "predicted" and "explained"--if you have a model that makes good predictions, that's the best you can do. Trying to look for an "explanation" in addition to that is a fool's errand.
I showed her your response and she (being no physicist) asked if Maxwell's Equations were good to the last drop.On what basis? On the basis that you know electricity is required for the toaster to work and it has to be plugged in to get electricity. But how do you know that? On the basis of a comprehensive theory that is ultimately based on Maxwell's Equations. And what are Maxwell's Equations? They are mathematical rules that tells you how to predict how electromagnetic fields, charges, and currents behave. Just like Newton's Laws, which you said were not explanations, but just mathematical rules.
I don't agree with that. As @Zafa Pi said, you can describe things arbitrarily accurately by having lots of tables.The aim of the natural sciences is not to "explain" anything but to "describe" quantitatively and as accurately as possible phenomena in Nature and to compare the "descriptions" to quantitative and accurate observations.
Often in science, having a very accurate description of some phenomenon is the beginning of the quest for a satisfying theory, not the end. The spectral lines of hydrogen were described very accurately by the Balmer series, prior to quantum mechanics. The point of the Bohr model was not to get a more accurate description, but a way of deriving the Balmer series, which was already known. The point of Heisenberg's and Schrodinger's work on QM was to get a less ad-hoc and more general way to get the results of the Bohr model. The Lorentz transformations and I think even the E = mc2 of SR were known before Einstein. The point of his investigations was to understand how to reconcile Newtonian physics with the constancy of the speed of light, not to give a more accurate description of how energy and momentum relate to velocity.I don't agree with that. As @Zafa Pi said, you can describe things arbitrarily accurately by having lots of tables.
The idea that the point is accurate description is not the reason anyone actually becomes a scientist. Kids ask: "Why does the moon go through phases?", they don't ask: "Exactly how many hours are there between successive full moons?" What the kid wants is understanding, not accurate predictions.
To me, making accurate falsifiable predictions is the way that we test our understanding of nature---it isn't a goal in itself, or at least, it's not the only goal. I'm talking about "goals" in the sense of "why anyone wants to study science, in the first place".