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 14:49 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<pfe51t$jvp$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <pf989h$1932$1@gioia.aioe.org> <pf9nq3$77u$1@dont-email.me> <e2ad8fc3-96d4-42dc-a485-0db2dfc599e3@googlegroups.com> <pfcaar$c2m$2@dont-email.me> <4307cccf-0051-403f-b25a-7a491d30374c@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 17:12:34 -0700, Alan Folmsbee wrote:

> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-10, will wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 17:43:42 -0700, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 12:39:01 PM UTC-10, will wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:14:09 +0000, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > will <willscrcommypanprofile> wrote:
>> >> >> Gents:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> My 1st post ... FYI: retired PhD biophysics/polymer science.
>> >> >> Searching Web sources I have been unable to find a necessary &
>> >> >> sufficient justification for the use of the QUANTUM MEASUREMENT
>> >> >> concept. Objectifying/singularizing  measurement  seems tied to
>> >> >> the strange QM identification of variables with  maths operators
>> >> >> required (??) by uncertainty relations.  I do read the issue is
>> >> >> still considered OPEN in the realm of QM foundations. So what
>> >> >> happens if you reject (ignore etc.) the concept of measurement (
>> >> >> being a "thing")  as is done in classical physics ?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> > Well you get alternate ways of dealing with the collapse of the
>> >> > wave function. Like Bohmian QM or Everett’s many-worlds
>> >> > hypothesis.
>> >> 
>> >> Do I need to read Diracs book to understand why Copenhagen-model
>> >> requires .. or is expressed in-terms-of a "physical" measurement. My
>> >> complaint is that the noun MEASUREMENT refers to a group of actions
>> >> ...
>> >> it's really a collective verb not a noun (object) and in being
>> >> bastardized by QM has lost all physical meaning. Yes I kinda
>> >> understand that "measurement" is supposed to throw a shadow of the
>> >> (mystery) state-
>> >> vector onto the set of eigenvectors for that operator. I'm not
>> >> claiming the math is bad ... I'm asking if it "means anything"
>> >> beside giving correct predictions ... like a weegee-board.  I
>> >> suspect the answer is NO .
>> > 
>> > All measurements of an atom involve a laboratory apparatus with a
>> > second atom. It is not possible to complain loud enough to make
>> > measurements seem unnecessary. The quantum description of
>> > measurements is useful as a stepping stone to a greater wisdom about
>> > reality.
>> 
>> You are telling me ... I think ... to read Diracs book. Because it is
>> useful. Perhaps I will.  My question is ... does physics know it to be
>> necessary ? Certainly no use is made of the QM measurement concept in
>> the derivation or application of the Schrodinger Equation to the
>> hydrogen atom.
> 
> You can read books other than Dirac.
> You speak about the "QM measurement concept" but you never give details
> like :
> 
> QM measurement concept using a gas QM measurement concept using tungsten
> carbide QM measurement concept using light QM measurement concept with a
> scanning tunneling microscope QM measurement concept with theory only
> using algebra

Alan: Yes my questions are incomplete and I am certainly struggling with 
the physics. FYI/// I find my self with a few weeks "downtime" and 
proposed to retry understanding some aspects of QM. Immediately I run 
into Heisenbergs definition of a QM variable as a maths operator ... & 
Diracs mathematical definition of a measurement. The justifications for 
both appear to be heuristic ... and thus why not some other physics to 
predict random beta-decay and hydrogen atom  discrete energy levels ? I 
am poking around  at fundamentals trying not to appear too stupid .. or 
too gullible.

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