Well, that’s a relief. I’d hate to think I’m a total nutjob!
Ah. It sounds like I do ascribe more meaning to it than you do, and therein lies the heart of any disagreement between us.
When I figure it out, you’ll be the first to know… dierson, the reason I don’t think outside the box is that what I’m trying to describe is stuff inside the box. Sure, I agree with you that I can define t[sub]0[/sub] to be whatever I want, that I can take t → -t in my equations, etc etc, but I must have something to describe the evolution in time (artificial construct or not) because that’s the goal to begin with!
Oh, and erl, if you’re still following this, don’t despair; I’m still thinking about what you’ve said (you have an interesting perspective on things!), but haven’t had much free time to devote to the boards this week. I swear I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.
Finally, Ben, the reference you want is, for example:
Townsend, A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics, University Science Books, etc etc etc.
Do many particle and quantum physicists still talk about the hopelessly outdated idea of a “collapse of the wave function”??
Sheesh! I thought such mental masochism was a long dead relic of the misty (and confusing) past.
I’ve read papers which say that the majority of quantum physicists long ago dumped the old Copenhagen nonsense with its mind-bending talk of collapse and instead embraced MWI or TI or time-reversal!
Why go out of your way and seek to multiply metaphysical problems when other interpretations have no need of such?
Hopelessly antiquated belief? 'Tis to laugh, ambushed. We have a model built which explains the experiments we get. That model includes waveform collapse. What is the problem here?
I have never particularly liked MQM models which try to brush off waveform collapse. Seems to push Occam’s Razor aside for nebulous philosophical gain.
I think the experiments which demonstrate the vacuum potential are enough to seal it for me, but then, the nay-sayers to MQM don’t really offer me anything more than, “But it can’t be waveform collapse!” Why not?
FriendRob, I would be interested in hearing your understanding of light polarization experiments, where two sheets of polarity-blocking material are placed apart from each other, and no light makes it through (predictably, since any that made it through the first isn’t “lined up” with the second). And yet, doing our different experiment, when we add a piece of polarization material inbetween the other two, we do get an output! No light should pass through the first and the second, or the second and the third, or the first and the third, and yet light goes all the way through.
How do you explain that without actual manifested wavefunctions? It seems impossible to me.
I am also particular interested in your interpretation of electron scattering experiments where single electrons are “fired” at the scattering crystal one-at-a-time, and where we still see the interference pattern.
I don’t mean to be a dick about it if it seems like I am, I am really interested in hearing your ideas about the simple experiments which seem, to me, to conclusively demonstrate the waveform state of nature. If there isn’t the waveform then I am assuming that we are back to “classical” waves and particles? Or is everything corpuscular?
Curious. My beef with the Copenhagen interpretation is indeed that it’s so metaphysically unappealing (I assume you’ve gathered that by now). But don’t you find the idea of something like the many worlds approach to be just as awful? I mean, to suggest that a new universe is born every time a new measurement is made seems hopelessly extravagant to me!
Let me tackle the electron scattering first, since that gives a good illustration of “my” QM philosophy (of course I don’t claim credit for it). QM describes not individual experiments, but collections of experiments. A “quantum state” is defined by an experimental procedure that yields well-defined probabilities for all measurable quantities. This only makes sense in reference to a collection of experiments - if you only do it once, probabilities are meaningless. So, take a crystal, and a beam of electrons - this is the procedure. QM tells you the probability of detecting a scattered electron at a particular angle of measurement. It matters not a whit whether the beam is continuous, or “one electron at a time”. But the probabilistic nature of the QM prediction means it is telling you about the result of many measurements on many electrons - not about the result of any single experiment. The wave function summarizes my knowledge about a large collection of experiments, not just one. I use it to calculate with, but don’t ascribe physical existence to it.
Briefly, same thing with photon polarization: experimental set-up #1 yields no photons, set-up #2 yields photons; two different setups, two different wavefunctions, two different probability distributions for the outcome.
BTW, one philosophical consequence of this approach is that it doesn’t make any sense to talk about “the wave function of the Universe”. We don’t get a collection of Universes to do experiments on, we just get one. So, no wave function.
Not at all. Nothing like a good debate to clarify one’s ideas.
This is where the difficulty is, philosophically at least. QM gives us nomechanical model of the subatomic/atomic world. Classical waves don’t work. Classical particles don’t work. Thinking of the wave function as a “real” wave doesn’t work. QM tells us everything we can know about a system, but doesn’t tell us anything about what’s “really” going on. As Feynman said (approximately), “I have danced with Nature and tried to woo her, but she won’t let you peek under her veil.” (Hey! Maybe I’ve found a sig!)
Unless I am reading that wrong, FriendRob, it seems you’ve just stated that everything is corpuscular but we can only understand it by “making up” probability functions.
In other words: the universe really is doing something. Is that correct? I don’t see how that accounts for electron interference patterns…
