Solving the Measurement Problem: Imagine Yourself in a Room

[hagopbul]

i tried to explain for some one how we can solve the measurement problem and i went like this

imagine your self in a room and in this room you don't have any sense so you can't see hear touch smell or even taste

but you have a prob attached to your brain but if you don't do the measure you won't be able to know about a man that he is in the same room with you [or woman] so for you

the person for you are possibly in any were in the room in the same time because you can't see him or feel him

so he/she is probably in every where for you
you can't know where she is without doing the test

and this is the same for the atom if i do the test measure i will be able to know all the functions of it [location ,…etc]

and the reason is so obvious it is too small for us even for the smallest instrument.

is it good

 

[olgranpappy]

i tried to explain for some one how we can solve the measurement problem and i went like this

imagine your self in a room and in this room you don't have any sense so you can't see hear touch smell or even taste

but you have a prob attached to your brain but if you don't do the measure you won't be able to know about a man that he is in the same room with you [or woman] so for you

the person for you are possibly in any were in the room in the same time because you can't see him or feel him

so he/she is probably in every where for you
you can't know where she is without doing the test

and this is the same for the atom if i do the test measure i will be able to know all the functions of it [location ,…etc]

and the reason is so obvious it is too small for us even for the smallest instrument.

is it good

IMHO, no.

 

[Dmitry67]

This description is instrumental "is too small for the smallest instrument"
The problem with the measurement is much deeper.

 

[Dadface]

I think analogies can sometimes be useful aids to understanding.I can sort of see where you are going with yours but perhaps you may wish to clarify it and develop it further.

 

[hagopbul]

IMHO, no.

why no?

 

[f95toli]

why no?

Several reasons. The most obvious being that we don't know what a measurement "is" (there is a mathematical definition, but it is not at all obvious how that translates into what we do in experiments), or even if there is such as thing as a distinct measurement "operation". We DO know that is it far more fundamental than it just being about experimental limitations (the "size of the probe" etc).
Hence, the the basic premise of the explanation -that we know how to solve the measurement problem- is flawed.

 

[kote]

i tried to explain for some one how we can solve the measurement problem and i went like this

imagine your self in a room and in this room you don't have any sense so you can't see hear touch smell or even taste

but you have a prob attached to your brain but if you don't do the measure you won't be able to know about a man that he is in the same room with you [or woman] so for you

the person for you are possibly in any were in the room in the same time because you can't see him or feel him

so he/she is probably in every where for you
you can't know where she is without doing the test

and this is the same for the atom if i do the test measure i will be able to know all the functions of it [location ,…etc]

and the reason is so obvious it is too small for us even for the smallest instrument.

is it good

I would say... not quite, but for a different reason. You are explaining a situation where there is a definite person there with a definite location, and you are just unsure of where the person is. This implies local hidden variables. Local hidden variables have been disproven.

There are a few different possible descriptions of what actually happens that depend on your assumptions.

 

[SergioPL]

and this is the same for the atom if i do the test measure i will be able to know all the functions of it [location ,…etc]

and the reason is so obvious it is too small for us even for the smallest instrument.

is it good

The quantum model explains that every particle behaves as a wave and its wave function collapses when you try to catch an observable. Since you can get more than an eigen value the observable would have a standard deviation and this brings to the Heisenerg's Uncertainty principle that states that no instrument would be able to measure position and speed perfectly for any particle.

 

[hagopbul]

I would say... not quite, but for a different reason. You are explaining a situation where there is a definite person there with a definite location, and you are just unsure of where the person is. This implies local hidden variables. Local hidden variables have been disproven.

There are a few different possible descriptions of what actually happens that depend on your assumptions.

no i am not

i am saying there is 2 humans one is me and the second are in the room but i can't see him

not that i am not sure where he is or not if i do a test i will see him
no test he is not in a specific location
there is a possibility that he is in any where