Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

If im not measuring its not there?

  1. Jan 8, 2016 #1
    Without getting too deep into the physics or philosophy of quantum mechanics, and I'm NOT talking about theory (no 'what the equations say') but if I'm not looking at my couch does that it mean at the moment it doesn't exist? Or if I'm not looking at my dad he isn't there but in the form of a wave?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 8, 2016 #2
  4. Jan 8, 2016 #3
    That is the idea I get when I read about some of the interpretations. I'm just a little confused that's why I asked the question.
     
  5. Jan 8, 2016 #4
    Real quantum theories are ultimately about statistics and only are usefully applicable to things and events on subatomic scale.
    The chances of the couch you are sitting on suddenly disappearing are so low that it's unlikely to happen within the lifespan of the Universe.
     
  6. Jan 8, 2016 #5

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No. Its being looked at all the time by the environment. A few stray photons from the CBMR, for example, is enough to decohere a dust particle and give it a definite position.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  7. Jan 8, 2016 #6
    I see basically everything is observing everything, so it is all there but in an isolated system things would work differently
     
  8. Jan 8, 2016 #7

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  9. Jan 8, 2016 #8
    That is cool, so they basically cooled the thing down until there was no or close to zero vibrations left and it all went into superposition. when it is in superposition, what is the material like? do you think it still has mass? can it be moved?

    Also when something is being measured for example Atom 1 measures Atom 2. is the measurement continuous or an on off sequence, so is atom 2 continuously jumping in and out of superposition at a very fast rate.
     
  10. Jan 8, 2016 #9

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I know no more detail that what the article says. But yes it would still have mass and can be moved.

    Its got to do with decoherene. At the lay level here is the book to get:
    https://www.amazon.com/Where-Does-W...p/B001S2QNLO/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

    Thanks
    Bill
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  11. Jan 8, 2016 #10
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  12. Jan 8, 2016 #11

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Without reading what he says, I can assure you in QM time definitely exists.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  13. Jan 8, 2016 #12
    Yes, that website is legit so you can take information from it. I've had email correspondence with Erich Joos some time ago.
     
  14. Jan 8, 2016 #13

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I suspect he is as well, but some things he says such as time doesn't exist are rather controversial to say the least. I am pretty sure what he means is not quite what the prosaic language he uses suggests.

    Time most definitely exists in QM - eg the Schroedinger equation wouldn't make any sense without it.

    He also says:
    Decoherence can not explain quantum probabilities without (a) introducing a novel definition of observer systems in quantum mechanical terms (this is usually done tacitly in classical terms), and (b) postulating the required probability measure (according to the Hilbert space norm).

    That's roughly true - but the devil is in the detail. It's also very interpretation dependant eg it isn't really true of BM which doesn't require a quantum definition of observation - it takes it on board but doesn't require it because objects have properties independent of observation.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  15. Jan 8, 2016 #14
    @bhobba
    this is what it said
    "explains also how the Schrödinger equation of general relativity (the Wheeler-DeWitt equation) may describe the appearance of time in spite of being time-less

    There is no time at a fundamental level"
    @StevieTNZ
    thanks. I think ive still got a lot to learn before I can understand anything from that website without misinterpreting it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Jan 8, 2016 #15
    oh I posted my comment before reading yours Bhobba ignore it lol.

    I belive most of my understanding of quantum mechanics is probably wrong because most of the time I don't understand what people actually mean when they try and explain something. I'm always misunderstanding
     
  17. Jan 8, 2016 #16

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I suspect its this Block-world stuff. Its off-topic here, and rightly so IMHO. I think its basically BS - but Google is your friend, and you can make up your own mind.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2016
  18. Jan 8, 2016 #17
    I'd like to believe time does exist, otherwise how would we experience any changes in the universe.
     
  19. Jan 9, 2016 #18
    If everything is being looked at (measured) all the time by its environment, why does the wave pattern show in the double slit before a measuring device is used? Why is the environment not causing the wave to collapse? Thanks in advance!

    Isnt the OPs opening question the same as Einsteins comment about the moon?
     
  20. Jan 9, 2016 #19
    I remember being told that the double slit experiment Is conducted in way where there is no interference from the environment with the electrons until they are measured but some of the other guys know more than me maybe they can give more detail
     
  21. Jan 9, 2016 #20
    Not sure how that could be done, but you would think Einstein would not make the moon statement if that were the case. He would know it was just a lack of interaction that caused the results of the DS. And isnt that still being debated, and the reason for multiple interpretations? No one is still certain what the cause of waveform collapse is?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: If im not measuring its not there?
  1. Quantum measurement (Replies: 12)

  2. Measurement Theory (Replies: 14)

  3. Unsharp measurement (Replies: 3)

  4. Measuring a qubit (Replies: 5)

Loading...