Interesting paper on QM in Scientific American

[bhobba]

I found the following interesting:
https://ctrk.klclick1.com/l/01KG5PPJ0FMG5PHBSE7YST7PXZ_12

I have no idea if you need a subscription to Scientific Amacan because I have one (not as big a fan as I once was, but its digital edirion is dirt cheap).

If you do let me know and I may be able to see if somthing can be done.

Thanks
Bill

 

[.Scott]

ctrk.klclick1.com

And you want to keep track of how many PF'ers are following your link?
I am guessing you are referencing this article. It opened for me without any paywall interference.

 

[PeroK]

I found the following interesting:
https://ctrk.klclick1.com/l/01KG5PPJ0FMG5PHBSE7YST7PXZ_12

I have no idea if you need a subscription to Scientific Amacan because I have one (not as big a fan as I once was, but its digital edirion is dirt cheap).

If you do let me know and I may be able to see if somthing can be done.

Thanks
Bill

What did you find intersting about it? It seemed to be the useful pop-sci. The ending is:

“The lesson may be,” de la Hamette says, “that we should not have forgotten the observer.”

In what universe has the observer in QM been forgotten?!

 

[Morbert]

"Inserting the observer into the Schrödinger equation, it seems, allows transformative new perspectives on century-old questions."

Von Neumann effectively did this almost a century ago in his Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

Nevertheless, It is a fundamental requirement of the scientific viewpoint -- the so-called principle of the psycho-physical parallelism — that it must be possible so to describe the extra-physical process of the subjective perception as if it were in reality in the physical world — i-e, to assign to its parts equivalent physical processes In the objective environment, In ordinary space. [...] In particular we saw in the four different possibilities in the example above, that the observer in this sense needs not to become identified with the body of the actual observer: In one instance in the above example, we included even the thermometer in it, while in another instance, even the eyes and optic nerve tract were not included. That this boundary can be pushed arbitrarily deeply into the interior of the body of the actual observer is the content of the principle of the psycho-physical parallelism — but this does not change the fact that in each method of description the boundary must be put somewhere, If the method is not to proceed vacuously, I.e., if a comparison with experiment is to be possible. Indeed experience only makes statements of this type: an observer has made a certain (subjective) observation; and never any like this: a physical quantity has a certain value.

I.e. While there is an observer-observed divide, the physical system of a human observer can always be placed on the "observed" side of the divide.

Apparently my most heterodox view is that the measurment problem has largely been solved for decades.

 

[pines-demon]

When I first started in PhysicsForums I used to just post links of articles I found interesting. Every time I got various messages telling me "what is interesting??", "do you have a question about it?" and "are you just link dumping articles?". So please consider telling us something personal about you and the article.

 

[WernerQH]

Perhaps the only interesting (?) fact was that the birth of wave mechanics was 100 years ago.