Posted: Sep 12, 2011 5:18 pm
by hackenslash
eric8476 wrote:computers use 1 and 0?

Computers, or more specifically the semiconductors in computers, employ devices known as Esaki diodes, which operate on the basis of quantum tunnelling. Of course, I already addressed this in the previous post of mine you quoted.

schrodinger's thought experiment uses the variable of the decaying matter. the cat's status is the result not the variable. copenhagen states that the matter can be decaying and not at the same time then the conclusions of schrodinger is disproving this statement. how is this not debunking?

I see that Twistor has covered this in more depth than I would have done.

is it the only equation used to measure the wavefunction?

It isn't used to measure the wavefunction, but to describe the probability amplitude of one of a pair of conjugate variables.

measuring and observing are different things.

Care to highlight the distinction, or to point out how one can measure something without observation?

we don't have the technology to observe particles in areas as of yet without collapsing the wavefunction

It isn't a matter of technology, and your continued reassertion that it is doesn't actually move us forward. Indeed, there's good reason to think that those conjugate variables don't actually possess any definite values until observed.

that is a result, observation or not.


check this link here: and scroll down the the conclusion area, there is a chart that shows different interpretations and some do not suggest collapsing of the wavefunction?

I'm aware of them, thanks. There are problems with those that don't include the collapse of the wavefunction. Not insurmountable by any means, but suggestive of problems. For example, the Many-Worlds interpretation is horribly unparsimonious. Not that parsimony is indicative of veracity, but as a heuristic in hypothesis selection, it's proved extremely useful, so not to be dismissed lightly. the de Broglie-Bohm intepretation runs into difficulties with the observation of superposition (indeed, and as Darkchilde pointed out above, it has been observed in macroscopic objects), because superposition removes the need for the 'pilot-wave'.

I tend to favour the path integral formulation, but not with any huge conviction. Since they are pretty much inseperable in terms of prediction of observations, there's no reason to choose between them at this point, but those without wavefunction collapse are the easiest to lay aside until some unique predictions arise from one of them. The Copenhagen interpretation has brought us a very long way, and those hypotheses haven't actually brought us any further (apart from the path integral).

In any event, none of this supports your assertion that measurement and observation are different things.

take the quantum state measuring electrons that are around a nucleus, for instance. with advanced technology, the electrons can be observed in the electron cloud of the atom. thus the wavefunction collapsing or not would be a moot point.

They can certainly be observed, but they can only be observed with a given position or a given momentum, not both. The very best we can do is a kind of weak measurement that can give a vague average of both, to the tolerance of the wavelength of the photon used for observation, but accuracy is impossible, because the uncertainty principle cannot be violated with pairs of conjugate variables. The more accurately we know one, the less accurately we can know the other.

we can possess the advanced technology for observing without collapsing the wavefunction. it is possible. it doesn't exist yet, but it can exist. our grandchildren could be using them and not us but it's possible none the less.

And the evidence in support of this contention is...?

Since there is good reason to suppose that pairs of conjugate variables don't actually possess values until they are observed, I'd love to see how you're going to manage this.