Is the Measurement Apparatus made up partly of electrons? Perhaps not.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This thread explores the nature of measurement apparatus in quantum mechanics, specifically questioning whether such apparatus is fundamentally composed of electrons or other quantum entities. The discussion touches on concepts from quantum theory, measurement problems, and the philosophical implications of physical reality versus theoretical constructs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether measurement apparatus, traditionally understood to be made of atoms, could instead be conceptualized as being made of non-physical entities, such as "little pink elephants," if wave functions are not considered real.
  • Another participant suggests that while quantum mechanics treats measurement devices classically, this does not negate their composition of quantum particles like electrons.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that the measurement apparatus can be treated as classical, but this perspective may overlook the quantum nature of its constituents.
  • One participant elaborates on the fundamental composition of matter, asserting that everything is made up of quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons, but acknowledges that this understanding is complex and context-dependent.
  • There is a discussion about the challenges of deriving macroscopic behavior from fundamental quantum descriptions, highlighting the intricacies of theoretical physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of measurement apparatus and its constituents, with no consensus reached on whether it is fundamentally made of electrons or if these are merely conceptual tools. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The conversation involves nuanced interpretations of quantum mechanics and measurement theory, with participants referencing established theories and concepts without reaching definitive conclusions. The implications of treating measurement devices as classical versus quantum are not fully resolved.

  • #31
DarMM said:
The probabilities for the events can be ones corresponding to thermal states. Thermal effects are besides the point though.

Let's take the case of water molecules, H20. Conventionally, we know temperature makes the intermolecular bond forms and breaks and forms so fast at normal temperature..

Is there a way in principle to initiate more order in the intermolecular bonding still at normal temperature (based on your idea or descriptions above)? What extra hamiltonian (in principle) do you need to add in them to do this? (except freezing it or lowering the temperature)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
lucas_ said:
Let's take the case of water molecules, H20. Conventionally, we know temperature makes the intermolecular bond forms and breaks and forms so fast at normal temperature..

Is there a way in principle to initiate more order in the intermolecular bonding still at normal temperature (based on your idea or descriptions above)? What extra hamiltonian (in principle) do you need to add in them to do this? (except freezing it or lowering the temperature)?
My descriptions above have nothing in particular to say about the thermal chemistry of water which will operate as chemists have found.

They concern two things.
  1. That quantum theory rather than directly describing microscopic systems is about describing them in terms of events ##E## representing effects on objects regarded as classical. The algebra of events is then much more general than that in classical mechanics.
  2. That a notion of matter being made of particles (this notion being represented as a certain decomposition of the event algebra) is only one recoverable in certain limits. Thankfully it's an approximation that is often valid.
 
  • #33
DarMM said:
My descriptions above have nothing in particular to say about the thermal chemistry of water which will operate as chemists have found.

They concern two things.
  1. That quantum theory rather than directly describing microscopic systems is about describing them in terms of events ##E## representing effects on objects regarded as classical. The algebra of events is then much more general than that in classical mechanics.
  2. That a notion of matter being made of particles (this notion being represented as a certain decomposition of the event algebra) is only one recoverable in certain limits. Thankfully it's an approximation that is often valid.

If I can show you that that it is possible to initiate some kind of ordering or coherency among individual water molecules without changing the temperature, or showing that it is possible to change the inter-molecular structure of liquid water. Is our QFT or QM still sufficient to describe it by perhaps adding extra hamiltonian of some kind? What must the Hamiltonian be to produce such effects in your descriptions a few messages back? This is the main question of this thread so please address this. Thanks.
 
  • #34
lucas_ said:
If I can show you that that it is possible to initiate some kind of ordering or coherency among individual water molecules without changing the temperature, or showing that it is possible to change the inter-molecular structure of liquid water. Is our QFT or QM still sufficient to describe it by perhaps adding extra hamiltonian of some kind? What must the Hamiltonian be to produce such effects in your descriptions a few messages back? This is the main question of this thread so please address this. Thanks.
My discussion in this thread is not about altering water in some hitherto unknown way. I have no posts about producing effects in water or what Hamiltonians might be needed to describe effects in water nobody as ever seen and I have little to say about such a topic.

The thread seemed to be about @atyy 's reference to the necessity of classical devices in QM, not new and untested ideas about hydrochemistry.
 
  • #35
DarMM said:
My discussion in this thread are not about altering water in some hitherto unknown way. I have no posts about producing effects in water or what Hamiltonians might be needed to describe effects in water nobody as ever seen and I have little to say about such a topic.

The thread seemed to be about @atyy 's reference to the necessity of classical devices in QM, not new and untested ideas about hydrochemistry.

Well. Let's say it's a good example.

We treat water or molecules are like marbles where brownian motions move them. But if they are all quantum objects, perhaps some global quantum effects can be recovered? This is especially if quantum mechanics is not theory of the microscopic as the other thread seems to suggest.
 
  • #36
lucas_ said:
If I can show you that that it is possible to initiate some kind of ordering or coherency among individual water molecules without changing the temperature, or showing that it is possible to change the inter-molecular structure of liquid water. Is our QFT or QM still sufficient to describe it by perhaps adding extra hamiltonian of some kind?

Theories don't have to account for nonexistent events.

lucas_ said:
Let's say it's a good example.

You don't get to just help yourself to fanciful examples.

lucas_ said:
if they are all quantum objects, perhaps some global quantum effects can be recovered?

If you can find experimental evidence of such a thing, we can discuss it. But there's no point in just making up hypotheticals out of thin air.
 
  • #37
This thread has degenerated into speculation and is now closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K