Why I hope QM is incomplete

  • Thread starter kebugcheck
  • Start date
It is ok for physics to distinguish between me and a rock out somewhere on the surface of mars ? Who am I but a bag of chemicals ?

Why would my action of observing be of any significance ?
Why should the moon be "paged-in"/from-into-existence when I "observe" it and other times it is allowed to go for a walk(even if it is only a change in probability of finding the moon).
Why is my observing the moon any different from a "rock observing the moon" ?

I am a computer engineer, and recently started reading QM. I was displeased with what I inferred. Can somebody confirm this understanding that I have come about QM?
 
1,006
104
Don't worry, you don't have any special significance in QM.

The word "observer" in QM has unfortunate connotations, suggesting some special role for intelligent entities or whatever. There is no such special role. An "observation" is just the word we use to talk about an interaction between a system and its surroundings. So a rock is just as capable of being an "observer" as you are.
 
21,992
3,273
Let me guess, you are reading a Pop Sci book on QM and not an actual physics book??

If you want to understand QM, then you really need to go into the physics and you need to work out the math. If you resort to Pop Sci books, then your understanding will always be flawed.

Anyway, I'm not a physicist at all, so I'll leave it to somebody else to give a scientific response.
 
Hence, everything is getting observed by everything else always. If that were true, why special cases for a human's act of observation ?
 
Let me guess, you are reading a Pop Sci book on QM and not an actual physics book??

If you want to understand QM, then you really need to go into the physics and you need to work out the math. If you resort to Pop Sci books, then your understanding will always be flawed.

Anyway, I'm not a physicist at all, so I'll leave it to somebody else to give a scientific response.
Source suggestions ? I have background in higher math and physics being an engineer.
FYI, I mostly read from google.

Links like : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/
 

Bill_K

Science Advisor
Insights Author
4,155
194
why special cases for a human's act of observation ?
Because for the most part, human beings are more talkative than rocks. But right now, at the OPERA experiment under the Italian alps, stacks of photographic emulsions are "observing" tau neutrinos.
 
I get that quantum phenomenon is not macroscopic.
But is't a macroscopic phenomenon a function of 'n' microscopic ?

If the non-determinism as shown by QM applies to microscopic entities, when do the laws of QM suddenly give up and the law of classical mechanics start ? When we observe.
But why only then?
 

phinds

Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
15,492
5,119
Hence, everything is getting observed by everything else always. If that were true, why special cases for a human's act of observation ?
Who told you there is a special case for human's observation ? Have you been watching "Through the Wormhole" or similar junk?
 
1,370
2,679
I second what The Duck wrote. Observation in physics usually means measurement by an instrument (sometimes human). In the context of QM, this is connected to the collapse of the wave function. See also Observer (quantum physics).
Hence, everything is getting observed by everything else always.
Not in the context of mainstream QM; wave functions evolve by themselves without collapsing. A physical interaction with an instrument/object/observer (observation) yields a wave function collapse (many possible outcomes->one single outcome).
If that were true, why special cases for a human's act of observation ?
Humans have no special role in mainstream QM/physics. Some interpretations have tried to address it in this way though, but it is quite far from mainstream views (and I personally don't think it's fruitful at all to mix QM with human consciousness). When you get into QM you will soon find out there are unresolved issues (e.g. how to interpret QM), see Interpretations of QM. The so-called Measurement problem is one of the most central questions.
 
Last edited:

atyy

Science Advisor
13,627
1,684
In the textbook Copenhagen interpretation (eg. Landau and Lifgarbagez), quantum mechanics is incomplete. This is because it needs a measuring apparatus which is "classical", and not governed by quantum mechanics.

In the Bohmian interpretation, quantum mechanics is incomplete. Here the measurement problem is solved, and the problems of quantum mechanics are the problems of statistical mechanics (the postulation of the initial distribution is unjustified).

In the many-worlds interpretation, quantum mechanics is generally thought to be complete. I'm not sure about this, but that is what I seem to read.

There is a chapter discussing this in http://books.google.com/books?id=3PSHDohngVgC&dq=quantum+aharonov&source=gbs_navlinks_s (Chapter 3: Is quantum mechanics complete?)
 
Last edited:
well, any QM literature says "wave-function collapses" when observed.
I inferred that at microscopic level, everything is understood as a probability without any cause of that probability being bizarre.
Eg. cat dead/alive, moon present/absent, Single Photon both a particle and wave.

But on observation everything arranges itself according to laws of classical mechanics.
Thus, cat is either dead or alive and the photon becomes a particle and does not show interference pattern.
 

atyy

Science Advisor
13,627
1,684
well, any QM literature says "wave-function collapses" when observed.
I inferred that at microscopic level, everything is understood as a probability without any cause of that probability being bizarre.
Eg. cat dead/alive, moon present/absent, Single Photon both a particle and wave.

But on observation everything arranges itself according to laws of classical mechanics.
Thus, cat is either dead or alive and the photon becomes a particle and does not show interference pattern.
Yes. The "wave function collapse" interpretation is called the Copenhagen interpretation. This is the most common interpretation, and it is incomplete. Try the reference in post #10 as a starting point. I don't believe there is any consensus as to whether any interpretations are satisfactory.
 
In the textbook Copenhagen interpretation (eg. Landau and Lifgarbagez), quantum mechanics is incomplete. This is because it needs a measuring apparatus which is "classical", and not governed by quantum mechanics.

In the Bohmian interpretation, quantum mechanics is incomplete. Here the measurement problem is solved, and the problems of quantum mechanics are the problems of statistical mechanics (the postulation of the initial distribution is unjustified).

In the many-worlds interpretation, quantum mechanics is generally thought to be complete. I'm not sure about this, but that is what I seem to read.

There is a chapter discussing this in http://books.google.com/books?id=3PSHDohngVgC&dq=quantum+aharonov&source=gbs_navlinks_s (Chapter 3: Is quantum mechanics complete?)

I read somewhere that officially Heisenberg declared QM closed and a complete theory. It was 1 of the Wikipedia page about QM.
 
911
1
QM is incomplete in the sense that:

Though we can mathematically describe/predict/model the things that happen on micro/quantum scale in an accurate manner

however we don't understand QM conceptually/in-reality yet.
 
I second what The Duck wrote. Observation in physics usually means measurement by an instrument (sometimes human). In the context of QM, this is connected to the collapse of the wave function. See also Observer (quantum physics).

Not in the context of mainstream QM; wave functions evolve by themselves without collapsing. A physical interaction with an instrument/object/observer (observation) yields a wave function collapse (many possible outcomes->one single outcome).

Humans have no special role in mainstream QM/physics. Some interpretations have tried to address it in this way though, but it is quite far from mainstream views (and I personally don't think it's fruitful at all to mix QM with human consciousness). When you get into QM you will soon find out there are unresolved issues (e.g. how to interpret QM), see Interpretations of QM. The so-called Measurement problem is one of the most central questions.
1>
I do not want to include "Humans consciousness" in QM.
I believe consciousness = chemical reaction.

But (some)QM literature makes the act of observing by a human unique.

2>

My main issue with QM is :-

*why should the non-determinism (even in form of probabilities) exists at microscopic level ? Am I the only one who finds it absurd ?
Cat is dead or it is alive. why does it needs to be both ?
A photon "knowing" that "ahead-lies-a-slit-and-I-should-behave-like-wave" makes more sense. This "knowing" can be due to something we do not know. Maybe the structure of space. Makes more sense than accepting that the moon may have gone for a walk right now.

*what point do QM laws give up and classical laws start ? Observation ? Why only our observation ?

3>
I will read up more on the links/books you folks have provided here.
Thanks for your replies. Appreciated.

PS: wishing I had chosen physics. This is so interesting :)
 
463
7
universe creation explanation not available, no observers, rocks, whatever....
 
54
0
This thread reeks of dishonesty and/or ignorance.

The assumption that human observations are equivalent to a rock observing is absolute nonsense.

How would you explain the double slit experiment where a 'measuring device' was left on but the information leaving the measuring device was not allowed to reach its destination and viewed (by humans) AND STILL resulting in a an interference pattern?

When the information leaving the measuring device was allowed to pass through and be observed, a double slit pattern was observed.

Naaaa nothing special going on here.
 
1,370
2,679
Btw,
I get that quantum phenomenon is not macroscopic.
Well, this is a little tricky question, you know :smile:. I could agree with you in some sense, but on the other hand disagree. Where do we draw the line between microscopic and macroscopic?
But is't a macroscopic phenomenon a function of 'n' microscopic ?
In a sense, yes, "classical" macroscopic physical behavior can be seen as emerging from the behavior of miscroscopic systems (gravity is still a problem though, but that's another story). I'll give you some examples of "macroscopic QM" (there are more);

* Superconduction (e.g. SQUID)
* Superfluid Helium (clip)
* The double-slit experiment is a macroscopic demonstration (clip)
* This is a macroscopic demonstration (clip) of the Uncertainty Priciple.

Bonus material: The color of gold is a demo of microscopic relativity, pretty interesting I think + also the liquidity of mercury. Provided by me just to show macroscopic results of microscopic behavior.

(see also Macroscopic quantum phenomena)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,370
2,679
But (some)QM literature makes the act of observing by a human unique.
I would personally choose other literature (at least at first). I see no reason to cloud one's objectivity by introducing humans as special. But it's my personal opinion of course. A quite interesting question (from a psychological perspective IMO) is why some people seem to resort to the human perspective when discussing QM. It seems... unusual. We don't seem to need any human perspective when discussing, let's say, thermodynamics or relativity.
why should the non-determinism (even in form of probabilities) exists at microscopic level ? Am I the only one who finds it absurd ?
No, you are not alone :smile:. But I would personally not call it absurd, but interesting, because:
atyy said:
I don't believe there is any consensus as to whether any interpretations are satisfactory.
I agree with atyy.
This is so interesting :)
Yes!
 
33,470
9,206
I get that quantum phenomenon is not macroscopic.
I would like to add Bose-Einstein condensates to the counterexamples of DennisN.
But (some)QM literature makes the act of observing by a human unique.
That literature is bad then, unless this option is just mentioned as one of many interpretations (and I don't think it has many supporters).
*why should the non-determinism (even in form of probabilities) exists at microscopic level ? Am I the only one who finds it absurd ?
There are interpretations where the time-evolution of the universe is deterministic, in particular the de-Broglie-Bohm theory and many worlds.

Cat is dead or it is alive. why does it needs to be both ?
Superpositions exist in all interpretations in some way. Otherwise, you could not perform double-slit experiments.

A photon "knowing" that "ahead-lies-a-slit-and-I-should-behave-like-wave" makes more sense.
No, it does not fit to experiments. You can decide what you want to measure even after the photon passed the slit(s).

micky_gta said:
How would you explain the double slit experiment where a 'measuring device' was left on but the information leaving the measuring device was not allowed to reach its destination and viewed (by humans) AND STILL resulting in a an interference pattern?
To get an interference pattern, this information has to be destroyed in a very fundamental way - in a way not even a rock could "observe" it.
 
1,006
104
But (some)QM literature makes the act of observing by a human unique.
Unfortunately there's a lot of nonsense written about QM. Your instincts that human consciousness should not be special are correct. Anyone who tries to associate QM with human consciousness is talking nonsense.

*why should the non-determinism (even in form of probabilities) exists at microscopic level ? Am I the only one who finds it absurd ?
No, many people have an instinctive reaction against non-determinism. But keep in mind that the universe doesn't particularly care what you find absurd.

Cat is dead or it is alive. why does it needs to be both ?
All we can do is look at the world and try to describe what we see, and what we see is that it is possible for things to be in "superpositions" of different states.

*what point do QM laws give up and classical laws start ?
Classical mechanics arises gradually from quantum mechanics as you consider larger systems, in the same way that Newtonian mechanics arises gradually from special relativity as you consider slower speeds.
 
9,249
2,142
Source suggestions ? I have background in higher math and physics being an engineer.
Then the book to get is - Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Development by Ballentine:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/9810241054/?tag=pfamazon01-20

An observation is any device capable of recording an outcome - it has nothing to do with a conscious observer. But don't take my word for it - it's all explained in full detail in the reference above.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
54
0
To get an interference pattern, this information has to be destroyed in a very fundamental way - in a way not even a rock could "observe" it.
I do not understand your answer to my question?

my question: "How would you explain the double slit experiment where a 'measuring device' was left on but the information leaving the measuring device was not allowed to reach its destination and viewed (by humans) AND STILL resulting in a an interference pattern? "

People argue that its the measuring devices that causes the double slits to appear instead of an interference pattern when clearly experiments have shown that its not. Its where the information ends up and 'who' knows about it.
 
33,470
9,206
I do not understand your answer to my question?

my question: "How would you explain the double slit experiment where a 'measuring device' was left on but the information leaving the measuring device was not allowed to reach its destination and viewed (by humans) AND STILL resulting in a an interference pattern? "

People argue that its the measuring devices that causes the double slits to appear instead of an interference pattern when clearly experiments have shown that its not. Its where the information ends up and 'who' knows about it.
If the environment knows about it (and we get decoherence), it is a measurement (and we destroy interference), otherwise it is not (and we get interference). It does not matter if a human, a dog, or a rock might receive the measurement result.

In other words, if you get an interference pattern, your measuring device did not really measure the position of the particle - it might have interacted with it, but there is no measurement result.
 

Related Threads for: Why I hope QM is incomplete

  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
Replies
225
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
428
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Top