Graduate Is theory of measurement an oxymoron?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Demystifier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurement Theory
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of measurement in physics, particularly in quantum mechanics, and whether it can be defined scientifically or is inherently philosophical. Participants argue that the measurement problem reflects differing interpretations among physicists and philosophers, suggesting it may not be a scientific issue but rather a philosophical one. The distinction between measurement as an axiom versus measurement as an interaction raises questions about the compatibility of these approaches in quantum mechanics. Some contributors assert that the need for a quantum theory of measurement stems from inconsistencies in classical theories, while others emphasize that the imprecision of the measurement concept requires philosophical interpretation. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the ongoing debate about the foundations of quantum mechanics and the role of measurement within it.
  • #31
Hmmm it looks like, nature doesn't actually consist of quantum systems but rather uses the quantum math for self-organizing - so our childish approach "What's it made of?" gets stuck in a contradiction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Elias1960 said:
There was the monstrous moonshine conjecture, also known as 196884 = 196883 + 1.

Essentially, it was nothing but the hypothesis that there is some deep connection between the j-function from number theory and the Monster group.
At that time it was just that it wasn't mathematics but just a piece of data coupled with a philosophy of what it might possibly mean.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
No! It was actually very precise.
Elias1960 said:
There was the monstrous moonshine conjecture, also known as 196884 = 196883 + 1.

Essentially, it was nothing but the hypothesis that there is some deep connection between the j-function from number theory and the Monster group. Vague enough?
 
  • #34
If there are no particles as such, there are no discrete things per se(in and of themselves). How can measurement be an oxymoron if measurement is fundamental to the nature of said discrete things? This is bad philosophy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
7K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 249 ·
9
Replies
249
Views
13K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K