http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/science/quantum.html

 

What is it about?

It's not a very good critque as the author is not entirely famlair with the subject matter.

It isn't a critique at all. It is a an argument that quantum mechanics is an objective theory rather than a subjective one. Although I disgree at parts, the argument seems reasonably coherent.

The author is claiming to of soilved the measuremnt problem, which is ridculous and the following statemnts show that the author is noit cloompletely famlair with the subject matter.

as in the "collapsing" of a light wave into a photon

 

. Throughout space and time, that is what they are doing, quantum states and "probability waves" collapsing willy-nilly every time energy is exchanged. They behave no differently when we observe them doing so, or when we don't. Otherwise the universe would fall apart!

 

Now if (though it doesn't seem to me that the he is) the author is talking about decoherence it's not so ridculous, but it's still incorrect. And how can you even talk about an objective reality in QM without even discussing Bell's theorum?

The author is claiming to of soilved the measuremnt problem' date=' which is ridculous and the following statemnts show that the author is noit cloompletely famlair with the subject matter.

[/quote']

 

I don't think that is a fair assessment. He is claiming that wavefunctions do not collapse when an observation is made, but that they collapse when they interact with a complicated system. This is of course untestable (since we are complicated systems) but he makes a case for saying that this is a simpler explanation than the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

 

Now if (though it doesn't seem to me that the he is) the author is talking about decoherence it's not so ridculous, but it's still incorrect. And how can you even talk about an objective reality in QM without even discussing Bell's theorum?

 

Again, I think you are being unfair. The language of the piece is clearly intended toward the layman - not the expert. You are objecting to him using imprecise language, and not refering to complicated theorems which would only confuse the majority of readers.

 

Having said that, he prevents no mechanism for the collapse of a wavefunction with the interaction with complicated systems (but then again, the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has no mechanism for collapse with an observation).

 

I still disagree with him, but your criticisms are unfair.

What he syas though is misledaing to the point of being correct and I don't thoink it's a case of imprecise language.

 

Anyway it is pretty much accepted that to say that decoherence causes the collapse of the wavefunction is incorrect.