studiot

I missed this thread first time round, so thnaks for the update. Super. +1

Yes but this thread is very firmly in the Physics section. Variables in Physics usually have physical dimensions, and that includes the variables in the 'wave function', which is a physical quantity of interest. Probability is a dimensionless variable. Furthermore even non dimensional varaibles in maths may have different domains and certainly different codomains. This is not trivial since 0< P(x) < 1 at any measurement and the whole measure = 1.

The wave function is not a variable it is called the 'wave function' because it is .. a function. I agree and said this earlier in the thread. Classical probability is a limit to infinity. As a result we have to make do with the best estimators we can.

The fact remains that you have not addressed a single point made by your critics. That is not discussion or deabate in either Philosophy or Physics. The tradition of hypothesisors welcoming critics an dtheir criticism goes back to Aristotle and Plato. So does the fact that attempting to dismiss the criticism by dismissing the critics themselves, without addressinf their criticism, is not acceptable.

You are quite right Chemistry has recently been undergoing a mind blowing rennaisance, courtesy all the modern tools provided by applied Physics. If you are genuinely interested and want to know more, look out this book from Cambridge University press. Chapters 12 through 14 are relevant, but there is lots of other interesting new stuff well explained in it.

Love it. +1

Good points @TheVat +1 You mentioned the specialist term 'model' three times in your first post. So you presumably understand that Quantum Mechanics and wave fucntions are just models. As such they enjoy the characteristic of all models in that no model is identical in all respects to the object being modelled. I also note that not everyone (of note) agrees with you. As regards telephathic control of a quantum process, which is what conscious intervention of any kind must mean, you are trying to take us back to the medieval days of witches, wizards and warlocks waving wands. Of course they had tussles in their 'magic' to see who was the most 'powerful'. Which brings me to to my next 'philosophical' point or question. If one mind can consciously affect a quantum process, then so can another or even many others. What happens in they clash ? And what happens if there is no consciousness available ? What happens if an experiment is made or only proposed; would the outcome be the same in both cases ? That is why I do not accept the consciousness proposal. As to the alleged massive measurement problem, it is true that a few measurements yield unexpected results, but the vast overwhelming majority do not. For example the technology by which we are communicating requires umpteen billions of electrons and holes as well as photons to perform exactly as expected, whoich fortunately they do. The extremely occasional instance where something does not so perform is to be expected from the fact that we are expecting the model to behave exactly as that which is modelled, which goes under the name 'reality'. So why is it suprising that occasionally something is different ? That happens with all models, some more so than others.

I don't wish to be rude but I suggest you wait until you have studied a few more years of school physics, then try again. You are clearly capable of connective thinking, but it seems to me that you don't yet know enough to make appropriate connections. Further I can't see the need for the downvote for trying. +1

Sounds just like the preaching of Mahomed or the Mormons, and just about as arrogant.

Why is the problem only with measurent ? Or, if you prefer, why is there apparant;ly no problem when you don't measure? When considering this, a good question to think about might be. Say to have 1000m drum of rope of 1 tonne breaking load. Say you cut 100 1 metre lengths from that rope. If you measured the breaking load of all those 100 lengths what would you expect to happen ?

Do you mean the measurement problem as stated in your title or do you mean could a q-computer simulate the universe ? I am seriously disappointed with the Scientific American article Scientific AmericanQuantum Theory's 'Measurement Problem' May Be a Poison Pi...Solving a notorious quantum quandary could require abandoning some of science’s most cherished assumptions about the physical worldWhich only makes the 'problem' worse.

If I've understood him correctly, Rovelli would say we have to give up the implicit assumption that entities have a concrete existence in between interactions. They have potential existence only, described by the wave function, until the next interaction makes them concrete once more. There are many wave equations. Furthermore they are partial differential equations. A wave function is a mathematical solution to a particular wave equation. Solutions to partial ordinary equations involve the correct selection of an arbitrary constant but solutions to partial differential equations involve the correct selection of an arbitrary function. As a resilt of this there is a whole infinity of solutions to such equations. Normally when presenting applications to other disciplines, mathematicians choose 'convenient' arbitrary constants or functions and they are then forgotton about, by the users. But all the solutions are always there and available to the mathematics. So questions about wave functions have a mathematical resolution, not a philosophical one. Quantum mechanics is about energy. Bohr's original insight was the quantisation of that energy. Schrodinger's later equation is also about energy. Quantisation of the wave functions, which as noted are solutions to this equation, are about the zeros of the wave functions not directly the energies. Wave functions do not have the physical (MLT) dimensions of energy, they have a rather peculiar dimension which depend upon the number of spatial dimensions they occur in. Bohr's and later theories of quantisation are about quantisation of energy not necessarily the zeros of the wave function. The quantised energy is never zero. Achieving the harmonisation of the zeros of the wave function and the energy function requires an agent eg a potential field or some reference point for KE to be referred to (all velocity is relative) This type of reasoning is what I would call 'the philosophy of quantum mechanics'

I am sure you know that there are versions of creationism in which the creator creates and then sets his creation 'running' but does not interfere further or only minimally. At least some of these notions are not incompatible with evolution. Also to folks more generally, I can't see the reason for the overtly hostile responses. In particular Wigberto is entitled to his opinion/belief (although I don't share it) and has frankly stated his position. So I have added a +1 to this. Yes indeed that is a very good point of view +1 My own POV is that the alleged origins debate receives too much (hot) air time. Quite frankly I just don't care, which seems to be a minority view, but I am happy to explain further to any interested party.

I am going to say +1 for this, crediting you with having come up with the idea by yourself. There is a considerab;le wealth of important mathematics that has been developed about this, although as you might guess it does not work out quite as you say. Calculus is often involved as it touches many aspects of applied maths. Curve fitting Extremal points Finite element analysis. Boundary element analysis To name but a few Can you please tell us what is your actual interest so that that we can help pointing you in the right direction ?

I wasn't doubting your sincerity or your diligence for one moment. But I recently posted an article about both Iran and Israel promulgating fake news in respect of the preent conflict. Apparantly Iran has been claiming unjustified success (to bolster morale ?) Meanwhile Israel has been posting old pics and vids of demonstrations to bolster their claim that Irans people are dissatisfied with their regime.

So why is it not on Aunties' news ?

I didn't understand how the most basic question you can ask about quantum mechanics is meaninless in a thread all about quantum mechanics.

You really are floundering.

Or is this an example of fake news ?

Still not answering the most basic question then What is being quantised ?

In some ways it is yes I agree. However the stated aim of this thread is So we should be discussing QM at the most fundamental level. To me the most fundamental level is the question What is being quantised ? The second question which follows close in the heels of the first is How do we go about studying or determining the quantisation ? In studying the second question we come across a third one. Having decided what we are quantising, what else or other physical agent do we need to be acting ? Having set these up we can plunge into details such as Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and uncle Tom Cobbly. Unfortunately the OP is refusing to answer these most basic questions, and further appears to want to work without any maths whatsoever. Whilst you can pose and answer my three questions without any maths, you will struggle to proceed much further. Some progress can be made with a little amount of maths, as Prof Jordan says in his book And we can also show the answers to the OP issues over observers, conscious or not, wave functions, collapse, and so forth.

The nonsense about conscious observers is easy to dispel for those who understand the HUP. A simple philosophical point, not metaphysical or mystic or woo, will tell those folks that not only can we not not physically observe the values of certain quantities beyond a certain accuracy, we cannot even know them. This is obvious because once you have a formula the experiment itself does not actually have be performed or the apparatus actually exist for the limitation to be expressed. Of course you need to know enough maths (and I'm sure you do) to understand this. Talking of formulae and maths, I'm also sure you understand that even more basic to QM than collapse, measurement, observation, interaction, interpretation etc is the question What is a wave function and under what conditions does it exist ? The answer to this lies in the mathematics and supplies a remarkable refutation of the many worlds interpretation if extended to the universal wave function a la Sean Carroll. I am sure you understand this because you must have done a great deal of spectroscopy, professionally.

So far as I can tell, Darksand's proposal is a variation of the Simulation hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis and perhaps the Holographic Universe https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8847863/holographic-principle-universe-theory-physics

I wasn't assuming anything except that your English was ill thought out and led me to assess your words incorrectly. "You cannot deny etc" followed immediately by "A quick example, Darwin etc" as the next sentence in the same paragraph would mean that Darwin provided the example of the previous sentence. Do you wish to answer my question ?

So why did you imply otherwise ?