Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ?

From	will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ?
Date	2018-06-08 14:38 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<pfe4dl$jvp$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <qY6SC.264824$Hv4.175285@fx39.iad> <pfavqk$l3t$1@dont-email.me> <tDgSC.143884$wG5.60553@fx02.iad> <pfc9pp$c2m$1@dont-email.me> <d72bed9d-b891-4641-b371-89bf2bb3cd2e@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 04:12:07 -0700, Edward Prochak wrote:

> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 5:58:19 PM UTC-4, will wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 16:32:02 -0400, benj wrote:
> 
> 
>> > Point is simple. If your measurements (reality) does not agree with
>> > your theories (math) then the theories are wrong.
>> > 
>> > If your measurements do not agree with the basic assumptions of one's
>> > (OK?) math then One's (OK?) math is wrong and one needs a new kind of
>> > math with different assumptions.
>> > 
>> >> There are tons of  experimental evidence from nuclear physics to
>> >>   relativistic quantum chemistry.
>> > 
>> > Lots of measurements are good, but that only makes theories correct
>> > if it agrees with theory.
>> 
>> Benji: We are conflicting ... and I will try I explain the conflict. I
>> am willing ( trying ) to reject the word/concept measurement as a
>> single physical object. You can say lots about a measurement, but there
>> is no number or function that maps to a measurement; it's a complex bit
>> of non-
>> linear stuff.  It's a process with no single/unique/concrete outcome.
>> Just think of all the parts to a light-scattering machine. The only
>> true physical objects are such entities as mass, speed,  time(?) ...
>> and product quantities like Youngs Modulus, momentum  temperature
>> etcetc ... we extract these physical values from an experiment ( non
>> object ) by use of POINTERS & digit-readouts & a few  other exotics
>> perhaps. This is the POV of classical physics, where we say "I have
>> measured an electrons magnetic moment using a solenoid ..." or
>> whatever. The pointer output of a measurement maps onto an external
>> reality ... which I believe Copenhagen rejects for QM analysis. So
>> again my question ... as you say BOHM and MANY WORLDS hold to a realist
>> physics: is it possible otherwise to have both QM and realistic physics
>> W/O the measurement concept ?  Or am I mixing up something basic and
>> spewing nonsense ?
> 
> There is becoming a new understanding of measurement that I saw
> recently. I will try to find the link to the article, but the basic
> point seemed to be that there is nothing special about a measurement.
> 
> What does a measurement boil down to?
> A photon striking an electron Basically any fundamental particle
> interacting with another.
> 
> Because of this, Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is no longer a
> paradox of superpositions dead and alive.
> We cannot truly isolate the cat from the rest of the universe.
> There are quantum interactions (measurements) continually happening.
> 
> I don't know if that helps. I must admit I don't understand it. And I
> think many do not understand this.
> 
> The only other thing I could suggest is to post in the
> sci.physics.research group. That one is moderated, so much less noise
> and much more thoughtful and experienced posters who can respond.
> 
> HTH,
>   ed

I have read-of this new interpretation ... constant interactions == 
constant measurement == semi-classical world since ( supposedly ) all 
wave-functions are constantly being collapsed out of every quantum-like 
flakey super-position.  This "water-bath" model of reality is favored by 
Arnold Neumaier: http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/0810.1019v2 ... I find his 
physics really really hard to grasp.

Thread

Can  quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000
  Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:14 +0000
    Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 22:38 +0000
      Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:43 -0700
        Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 22:07 +0000
          Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:12 -0700
            Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:49 +0000
      Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:39 -0400
        Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 05:19 +0200
          Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:31 -0400
            Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:01 +0200
              Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:32 -0400
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 21:58 +0000
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 04:12 -0700
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:38 +0000
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-08 02:41 +0200
  "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 11:47 -0700
    Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 19:00 +0000
      We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 12:25 -0700
        Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:35 -0400
          Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700
            Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 18:15 -0700
            No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 18:21 -0700
              Re: No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:47 -0400
                NO TRUTH. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 20:28 -0700
                Re: NO TRUTH. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:32 -0400
                Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-07 11:18 -0700
                Re: Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:42 -0400
                Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-07 14:15 -0700
                Re: Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 02:20 -0400
                Worshiping Ignorance. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-07 23:36 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 11:42 -0400
                " I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer " -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-08 10:17 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 01:58 +0000
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 19:55 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:37 +0000
                EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 14:51 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-09 22:01 +0000
                To a retard, _everything_ is "random". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 15:11 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:13 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:52 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 22:54 +0000
                People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 16:40 -0700
                Re: People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:15 +0000
                Putting words in Einstein's mouth. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 17:42 -0700
                Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:59 +0000
                God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:42 +0000
                Mark Twain was a determinist. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
                Re: Mark Twain was a determinist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:48 -0400
                Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-10 10:51 -0700
                Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:02 -0400
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 19:37 -0700
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:59 -0400
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 03:51 +0000
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:50 -0400
                Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-10 11:01 -0700
                Re: Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:06 -0400
                Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-11 07:02 -0500
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:28 -0400
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:53 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:41 -0700
                If the truth is your enemy... Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 00:14 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-09 06:52 -0400
        Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 21:22 +0000
          I feel rich, very rich. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 14:39 -0700
      Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:32 -0400
    Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400

csiph-web