Posted:

**Aug 06, 2010 9:23 pm**. . . as I said from the start they are controversial . . .

Talk about a cretin not having a clue. The interpretation of quantum mechanics is an ongoing subject of debate from its first theoretical inception to the present day.

The uncertainty principle has no meaning without an observer. The uncertainty principle concerns measurements of physical phenomena. Measurements require observers.

There are at least a dozen prominent interpretations of QM that differ concerning determinism, reality of the wavefunction, collapsibility of the wavefunction, histories of particles, hidden variables, and the role of the observer.

Einstein never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics as a "real" and complete theory. And von Neumann's interpretation holds a central role for the "conscious" observer in QM.

Personally I'm not advocating any one position here (I'm a QM agnostic) my role has been merely to show that lively debate on the subject exists.

Pot to kettle. . . .

hackenslash: No they're not.

Talk about a cretin not having a clue. The interpretation of quantum mechanics is an ongoing subject of debate from its first theoretical inception to the present day.

hackenslash: My objection was to your assertion that the uncertainty principle requires an observer. It doesn't. That's the beginning and the end of the subject. Nothing you have presented suggests that the uncertainty principle requires an observer, and nor does anything in the literature.

The uncertainty principle has no meaning without an observer. The uncertainty principle concerns measurements of physical phenomena. Measurements require observers.

There are at least a dozen prominent interpretations of QM that differ concerning determinism, reality of the wavefunction, collapsibility of the wavefunction, histories of particles, hidden variables, and the role of the observer.

Einstein never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics as a "real" and complete theory. And von Neumann's interpretation holds a central role for the "conscious" observer in QM.

In attempting to judge the success of a physical theory, we may ask ourselves two questions: 1. "is the theory correct?" and 2. "is the description given by the theory complete?" It is only in the case in which positive answers may be given to both of these questions, that the concepts of the theory may be said to be satisfactory. The correctness of the theory is judged by the degree of agreement between the conclusions of the theory and human experience.

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N. (1935).Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical Review 47: 777-780.

Personally I'm not advocating any one position here (I'm a QM agnostic) my role has been merely to show that lively debate on the subject exists.

The sum of all matter, energy and space that is observable or detectable, and all other matter, energy, and space that may be causally linked.hackenslash: Define 'physical universe'.

Oldskeptic: If you want to talk about the 1st law or the 2nd law or entropy then you should try to gain an understanding of them.

Pot to kettle. . . .