Jump to content

what do you think of this critique of quantum physics?


IrishGuy

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.