On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 11:53:14 PM UTC-7, Rich wrote:
> For 1/2 the article, they churn up the basics, they history of quantum physics, which most of us know. Then of course they bring up Einstein. By the end of it, they've hopefully told you something new, but don't count on it.. Bright spot, they've mentioned the Schrodinger's Cat story so much, it's becoming as much a part of the lexicon as Shakespeare quotes.
>
> https://phys.org/news/2023-12-quantum-mechanics-defies-physics.html

This article was on phys.org, and not in, say, a daily newspaper, so I would
have hoped for it not to be as awful as you describe. Indeed, I don't think
it was awful, but it was a good article about the _history_ of quantum
mechanics, while it didn't actually tell you anything about quantum
mechanics itself.

I don't have a quarrel with quantum mechanics, I believe it to be true. I don't
even have a quarrel with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics.

But what I *do* have a quarrel with is how the Copenhagen Interpretation
keeps getting _misinterpreted_, at least in my opinion.

The linear equations of quantum mechanics lead to Schrodinger's Cat:
the superposition of states doesn't get resolved into one possibility or
another _anywhere_ according to those equations.

So even when a radioactive atom with a 50% chance of having decayed
interacts with something as macroscopic as a cat... the half decayed
half not decayed superposed state should just propagate to a half-alive
and half-dead state for the cat. As long as it's in a box totally insulated
from any human being knowing what happened inside.

That's according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, which says things
get resolved into something that looks like it makes sense classically
when they meet a human consciousness.

And so many people have written that quantum mechanics means that
physicists have discovered that Mind and Consciousness play a big
role in the universe.

That is *bunk*.

Physicists had discovered no such thing.

What do physicists _really_ think?

Roger Penrose would tell you that because we have no way to shield
_gravity_, and a cat is big enough to do the Cavendish Experiment
with it, the cat keeling over dead will always be detectible by humans
outside the box.

Most physicists don't agree with Penrose, in the sense of being sure
that he is right. But many would admit that this is _one_ reasonable
possibility, a way in which a system could be coupled to the whole
Universe, and thus forced to behave classically.

Others might suppose that we're missing a nonlinear piece that belongs
in the real Schrodinger Equation that nature obeys, which would explain
how massive something has to be before interaction with it becomes
an "observation".

But this is all stuff we don't know anything about yet. We don't know
what makes the wave function collapse. So, as a stopgap theory to
fill in the blanks... since we know that we never see half-alive half-dead
cats walking around, then the wave function collapses to some classical
eigenstate... *sometime before* it interacts with a human consciousness.

We don't know _when_ things get "observed", but at least we have an
absolute upper limit by which time they _must_ be "observed" and turned
classical.

So the Copenhagen Interpretation was an admission of *ignorance*,
not a claim that through quantum mechanics we have taken our first
step to touching the mystery of mind and consciousness.

Quantum mechanics is a physical theory about small things being
fuzzier than we expect. In some ways, it defies our logic, our common
sense, and that makes it difficult and puzzling. But it isn't the
mystical revelation that it keeps getting made out to be.

John Savard

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 00:50:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 11:53:14?PM UTC-7, Rich wrote:
>> For 1/2 the article, they churn up the basics, they history of quantum physics, which most of us know. Then of course they bring up Einstein. By the end of it, they've hopefully told you something new, but don't count on it. Bright spot, they've mentioned the Schrodinger's Cat story so much, it's becoming as much a part of the lexicon as Shakespeare quotes.
>>
>> https://phys.org/news/2023-12-quantum-mechanics-defies-physics.html
>
>This article was on phys.org, and not in, say, a daily newspaper, so I would
>have hoped for it not to be as awful as you describe. Indeed, I don't think
>it was awful, but it was a good article about the _history_ of quantum
>mechanics, while it didn't actually tell you anything about quantum
>mechanics itself.
>
>I don't have a quarrel with quantum mechanics, I believe it to be true. I don't
>even have a quarrel with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
>mechanics.
>
>But what I *do* have a quarrel with is how the Copenhagen Interpretation
>keeps getting _misinterpreted_, at least in my opinion.
>
>The linear equations of quantum mechanics lead to Schrodinger's Cat:
>the superposition of states doesn't get resolved into one possibility or
>another _anywhere_ according to those equations.
>
>So even when a radioactive atom with a 50% chance of having decayed
>interacts with something as macroscopic as a cat... the half decayed
>half not decayed superposed state should just propagate to a half-alive
>and half-dead state for the cat. As long as it's in a box totally insulated
>from any human being knowing what happened inside.
>
>That's according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, which says things
>get resolved into something that looks like it makes sense classically
>when they meet a human consciousness.
>
>And so many people have written that quantum mechanics means that
>physicists have discovered that Mind and Consciousness play a big
>role in the universe.
>
>That is *bunk*.
>
>Physicists had discovered no such thing.
>
>What do physicists _really_ think?
>
>Roger Penrose would tell you that because we have no way to shield
>_gravity_, and a cat is big enough to do the Cavendish Experiment
>with it, the cat keeling over dead will always be detectible by humans
>outside the box.
>
>Most physicists don't agree with Penrose, in the sense of being sure
>that he is right. But many would admit that this is _one_ reasonable
>possibility, a way in which a system could be coupled to the whole
>Universe, and thus forced to behave classically.
>
>Others might suppose that we're missing a nonlinear piece that belongs
>in the real Schrodinger Equation that nature obeys, which would explain
>how massive something has to be before interaction with it becomes
>an "observation".
>
>But this is all stuff we don't know anything about yet. We don't know
>what makes the wave function collapse. So, as a stopgap theory to
>fill in the blanks... since we know that we never see half-alive half-dead
>cats walking around, then the wave function collapses to some classical
>eigenstate... *sometime before* it interacts with a human consciousness.
>
>We don't know _when_ things get "observed", but at least we have an
>absolute upper limit by which time they _must_ be "observed" and turned
>classical.
>
>So the Copenhagen Interpretation was an admission of *ignorance*,
>not a claim that through quantum mechanics we have taken our first
>step to touching the mystery of mind and consciousness.
>
>Quantum mechanics is a physical theory about small things being
>fuzzier than we expect. In some ways, it defies our logic, our common
>sense, and that makes it difficult and puzzling. But it isn't the
>mystical revelation that it keeps getting made out to be.
>
>John Savard

Schrödinger's cat is a metaphor. A thought experiment. A visualization
tool. I don't see anybody who actually understands something of QM
making a serious attempt to explain how it might work as a real thing.