Wave superposition nothing more than abstraction?

[harrylin]

The reason QM is a description of what actually happens is because it is backed up by experiment. How else could you define "description"? [..]

It describes what is observed by measurement - that is, the phenomena or appearances. Just like relativity. However, "superposition" isn't a measurable but as Fredrik indicated, it's part of the math of the theory that is used to make predictions about what can be observed.

 

[BruceW]

So we can only say that what actually happens is what we actually measure in experiments?
And that theory should never be considered to represent what actually happens?
If that's what you were saying, then I guess I agree. Experimental results will always be true, but theories come and go.

Edit: Not trying to hate on theory itself. Even the theories that have been proven wrong (i.e. classical mechanics) are still useful in a certain limit.

 

[harrylin]

So we can only say that what actually happens is what we actually measure in experiments?
And that theory should never be considered to represent what actually happens?
If that's what you were saying, then I guess I agree. Experimental results will always be true, but theories come and go.

Edit: Not trying to hate on theory itself. Even the theories that have been proven wrong (i.e. classical mechanics) are still useful in a certain limit.

Quite so: we may consider that a theory represents what actually happens but others may disagree - especially when conclusions depend on a series of assumptions.

 

[ZealScience]

But what you are seeing might not be the truth. And you have never seen "real electrons" with naked eyes or even with microscopes. So you are inducing the phenomenon via macroscopic truth which might not be applied to or even exactly true. Perhaps, what is true requires mathematical explanation together with well-controlled experiments instead of observations with naked eyes. In addition, there are some classical mechanics which violate our intuition but absolutely true.

 

[BruceW]

If I was supporting the argument that only experimental evidence is truth, then I would say that 'electron' is a theoretical model to explain outcomes of certain experiments. So I wouldn't count an electron as a direct experimental evidence.
Also, I wasn't trying to say that experimental evidence is only things that we can see. A blind person can do lots of different experiments.

One problem with saying 'experimental evidence is truth' is that the experimenter may not write down something that is important in interpreting the outcome of the experiment, and without this, the experimental evidence is not useful. (For an extreme example, if I gave you a list of lengths as the outcome of some experiment, but I didn't tell you what the experiment was on, then it is useless).
I think this is what ZealScience meant when you said we need well-controlled experiments. (i.e. writing down all the important factors in an experiment).

 

[Fredrik]

The reason QM is a description of what actually happens is because it is backed up by experiment. How else could you define "description"?

I wouldn't define it. See post #40.

It's a term that we already understand intuitively, so why should we define it in a way that changes our understanding of the term? Because it's the "scientific" thing to do? I reject that, because we're talking about interpretations of QM, not about science. It doesn't make sense to try to make something that by definition isn't science conform to the standards of science. It also doesn't make sense to define everything. Even in set theory, two things are left undefined (what sets are, and what it means for a set to be a member of a set). Some terms must be left undefined, and this is a good one to leave alone. In my opinion, to leave terms like "description" undefined is the same thing as admitting that we believe that the concept of "reality" is more fundamental than the theories we use to try to understand it. I don't think that should be really controversial.

The reason I said 'best description' is because the theory is very general, and can be used in many different situations. I suppose General relativity would also be a candidate for the honour of 'best description'.

Those two are certainly the only candidates for "best theory". I'm inclined to say that QM is the better one, but I remain unconvinced that it makes sense to say that it describes something. (OK, I think it might make sense to say that it describes a physical system that includes many worlds, but I don't think it makes sense to say that it describes a single universe, not even a fictional one).

 

[wawenspop]

Its the wave function that actually predicts what happens in experiment.
IMO its better to conceptualize the wave function itself rather than continuing with just waves particles neither of which predict results correctly.

That old saying - is a tree in the forest there if nobody is looking at it? For a particle the answer is a definite - NO.
The term 'there' is observed as a de-coherence of the wave function in our space-time. If the wave function of any particle does not de-cohere we do not observe it, it leaves no track. Its waiting behind the scenes if you like to get asked its location by another wave function co-located.

Now, something that leaves no track of where it goes, and is not observed by anything or anybody is not 'there'. It starts out and it arrives as evidenced by observation values. 'There' implies a physical object at an x,y,z,t location. There isn't one, there is a distributed wave function which is certainly not a physical object is it?
Its path? Well, it may have been anywhere that its wave function was allowed to exist, but that does not mean it 'travelled' any path at all. But it did 'pop out' as a value on arrival.

I conceptualize this as something called a particle 'existing' outside space-time (IMO an algorithmic entity) and it simply pops in and out of our reality by giving values through its wave function boundaries when asked by an observing photon or particle (actually the wave function's of those)

I too am a Penrose fan. Is he still active or has he retired completely?

 

[xts]

something called a particle 'existing' outside space-time (IMO an algorithmic entity) and it simply pops in and out of our reality by giving values through its wave function boundaries when asked by an observing photon or particle (actually the wave function's of those)

Would you elaborate a bit more? Seems to be promising quantum ontology...?

 

[JeffKoch]

Don't you think this should be the goal of physics, and not just meta-physics/philosophy? Physics should be about deducing the rulebook of the Universe. Why should we leave out thoughts about "what's physical and what's real?" How else are we supposed to "figure out the mind of God?"...

Oh dear, this veered off into metaphysics and religion days ago, starting really from post #1.

 

[wawenspop]

Would you elaborate a bit more? Seems to be promising quantum ontology...?

I am not allowed to say on this forum because AFAIK nobody is working on it, so it comes under the forums 'personal theories'.


Looking at the entanglement equation there is no distance of separation of entangled particles in it - yet they are linked over great distances (correlation of states). So I invoke a Bohmian-like data-frame rather than Bohm's 'pilot wave'. Then that data-frame works algorithmically
in the 'matrix interpretation' where de-coherence is effected by outputs from registers through the HUP region - BUT this not accepted by the scientific community and has not been proved. I may be deleted for saying it even.

 

[ZapperZ]

Locked, pending moderation.

Zz.