Why do two people see the same experimental results?

[craigi]

Alright, Socrates. I fell into your trap.

I'm aware of the Socratic method, but my intent wasn't to use it to convince you of the answer to your question. I don't consider it to be a particularly fair method of dialogue. It just turns out that some points are easier to make as questions.

Which brings me to my mistrust of the anthropic principle (sorry for the long-winded discourse). Primitive objects are temporary resting places. They are subject to evolution and revolution. I would not be surprised if the next revolution in physics (quantum gravity?) messed with our current notion of the universe. So, to say "the universe appears shared and independent to humans because it really is" tends to eliminate the possibility of change. Please let me know if I interpreted your invocation of the anthropic principle correctly (although I don't think that is what the anthropic principle says).

As, I think you've already guessed, you've misinterpretation of the Anthropic Principle. You've actually interpreted it as tautology and you're certainly not the first to do so.

I listed those points not because I am a renegade when it comes to the "two observers - one universe" assumption.

It's not clear why you consider that physics makes this assumption. I can think of no laws in physics that treat this axiomatically.

The term "observers" is most prominently used in Special Relatively, which predicts that observers don't actually see the same thing.

It has also been used in Quantum Physics, but as Bill painstakingly points out on this forum, many writers deliberatlely avoid this term, to avoid confusion. That said, QM does still leave the concept of objective realism, as opposed to subjective realism, open to interpretation. That is to say that the QM formalism is agnostic about whether 2 observers see the same thing.

 

[Khashishi]

You and I see the same results of an experiment because the version of You that I see must be consistent with the experimental result which I also see.

 

[craigi]

You and I see the same results of an experiment because the version of You that I see must be consistent with the experimental result which I also see.

I'd say that this is correct, but interpretation specific. It sounds like a mixture of CH and MWI terminology to me.

We could ask why is this the case and under both interpretations, decoherence provides at least a partial answer.

 

[wmikewells]

As, I think you've already guessed, you've misinterpretation of the Anthropic Principle. You've actually interpreted it as tautology and you're certainly not the first to do so.

What form of the Anthropic Principle do you invoke and why did you invoke it?

 

[bhobba]

You and I see the same results of an experiment because the version of You that I see must be consistent with the experimental result which I also see.

This is one of the issues here.

Feynman has commented on this sort of thing. Most certainly everyday experience indicates the world is like that ie observations are the same for any observer, but science does not DEMAND it is like that.

Some people say things must be such and such for science to even exist - scientists however are generally a bit less dogmatic on such things. I know I am.

I am very anti conciousness causes collapse because of its many attendant problems - but a valid scientific theory it certainly is. The world may be like that with its very weird subjectivism - but that is not what science is about - weirdness is not the deciding factor.

Thanks
Bill

 

[craigi]

I am very anti conciousness causes collapse because of its many attendant problems - but a valid scientific theory it certainly is. The world may be like that with its very weird subjectivism - but that is not what science is about - weirdness is not the deciding factor.

Thanks
Bill

As much as it's an annoyance and unsettles the logical positivism that has served us so well, the fact that it's still around should tell us something. It's not just an alternative explanation. It is in many senses, equivalent.

As much as we wished it away, if you put in into the context of the recent advances in cosmology it's really not that weird anymore. In fact, consciousness does seem to clear up a lot of the weirdness of QM.

I think this is going be seen as a pivotal paper in quantum physics:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1066

Worth a read, even if just for the incredibly neat pun in the title.

 

[naima]

The main unanswered problem is the outcomes problem.
The wisest sentence came from Peres: "unperformed experiments have no result"
Take an atom and consider the value of its spin along the z axis. Is it "u" or "d"?
Orthodox QM tells us that there is no hidden variable. To get the answer Bob have to measure it.
According to Born rule Bob will have his random outcome "uu" or "dd" (one letter for the atom and one for his
aparatis).
Is it "uu" or "dd"? this is like the previous "u" or "d" question. there is no hidden variable and if Alice wants the answer she has to ask the question to the atom and to Bob. she will interacr to them and get a random outcome."uuu" or "ddd".
The initial question was: do Bob and Alice see the same thing? the answer will be yes but this will be like an empty box. if you really want rhe anwer you must be the third observer. And you will have your random outcome.

 

[wmikewells]

The main unanswered problem is the outcomes problem.
The wisest sentence came from Peres: "unperformed experiments have no result"
Take an atom and consider the value of its spin along the z axis. Is it "u" or "d"?
Orthodox QM tells us that there is no hidden variable. To get the answer Bob have to measure it.
According to Born rule Bob will have his random outcome "uu" or "dd" (one letter for the atom and one for his
aparatis).
Is it "uu" or "dd"? this is like the previous "u" or "d" question. there is no hidden variable and if Alice wants the answer she has to ask the question to the atom and to Bob. she will interacr to them and get a random outcome."uuu" or "ddd".
The initial question was: do Bob and Alice see the same thing? the answer will be yes but this will be like an empty box. if you really want the answer you must be the third observer. And you will have your random outcome.

Let me see if I understand this. I think the paper you are referencing can be found at:

 

[naima]

I summarized http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002

To the technical team: i often have
Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /home/physicsf/public_html/includes/functions_autotagger.php on line 279

Is it a problem with my linux?