Since you gave me a free subscription, I will respond as I am a physicist. It has been a while with some of the foundation issues and I can point you in the right direction to learn more if you ask a question. I am sure you already understand that things get murky real fast when you start asking questions about measurement. Further, when you ask questions about the origin of the probability interpretation of the wave function, there are no answers. Probability emerges as an interpretation with no underlying stochastic assumptions. Going all the way to today and trying to understand the entanglement idea, here is an interesting lay explanation by a physicist, https://medium.com/@phorwitz_53265/quantum-entanglement-explained-35dff70f7652.
Could it be that a measurement is just a particular kind of apparatus? This might explain some of the weird results involving taking measurements of measuring systems.
I get the impression that quantum mechanics is like ChatGPT. It all depends on the question you ask. You get an answer that has a grammatical consistency but no correspondence to any real world model. QM isn't a problem for physicists since the big use case for physics involves asking questions and dealing with the answers. They've accepted that there are certain questions that don't have answers in the classical sense. It is a problem for the AI researchers since people expect their answers to be "correct" in precisely the classical sense.
Yes, a "measurement" is sending the quantum state through an apparatus in a way that entangles it with something in the outside world. That much seems clear. But what happens next and how to think about it... that is not so clear, nor is it clear how there can be an apparatus that does not entangle the photon...
<pop> <fizzle> Sorry everyone! Believe everybody in here enjoys less noise and more signal. But that last transmission has blown out receptor instrumentation on this side
I understood very little of the the preceding, perhap because I lack Brad's mathematical sophistication. I do hear the ghost of AE whisperinig in my ear about "spooky action at a distance." Perhaps because I am old and set in my ways, I prefer a cause and effect description for the wonders I perceive in the universe.
See Prof. Steven Weinberg's, "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics", Cambridge U Press 2013.
Prof Weinberg believed that a new theory is needed as do I. A champion of the symmetry view gives the best (but still unsatisfactory) explanation of the operational operators that are the basis of quantum mechanics. While providing a cookbook derivation of the Hydrogen atom energy spectrum (amazingly accurate) it fails to provide much help with the spin interaction and entanglement. Perhaps a dead end.
Hi Brad:
Since you gave me a free subscription, I will respond as I am a physicist. It has been a while with some of the foundation issues and I can point you in the right direction to learn more if you ask a question. I am sure you already understand that things get murky real fast when you start asking questions about measurement. Further, when you ask questions about the origin of the probability interpretation of the wave function, there are no answers. Probability emerges as an interpretation with no underlying stochastic assumptions. Going all the way to today and trying to understand the entanglement idea, here is an interesting lay explanation by a physicist, https://medium.com/@phorwitz_53265/quantum-entanglement-explained-35dff70f7652.
Could it be that a measurement is just a particular kind of apparatus? This might explain some of the weird results involving taking measurements of measuring systems.
I get the impression that quantum mechanics is like ChatGPT. It all depends on the question you ask. You get an answer that has a grammatical consistency but no correspondence to any real world model. QM isn't a problem for physicists since the big use case for physics involves asking questions and dealing with the answers. They've accepted that there are certain questions that don't have answers in the classical sense. It is a problem for the AI researchers since people expect their answers to be "correct" in precisely the classical sense.
Yes, a "measurement" is sending the quantum state through an apparatus in a way that entangles it with something in the outside world. That much seems clear. But what happens next and how to think about it... that is not so clear, nor is it clear how there can be an apparatus that does not entangle the photon...
<pop> <fizzle> Sorry everyone! Believe everybody in here enjoys less noise and more signal. But that last transmission has blown out receptor instrumentation on this side
I think I prefer the ether world. 😁
I understood very little of the the preceding, perhap because I lack Brad's mathematical sophistication. I do hear the ghost of AE whisperinig in my ear about "spooky action at a distance." Perhaps because I am old and set in my ways, I prefer a cause and effect description for the wonders I perceive in the universe.
See Prof. Steven Weinberg's, "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics", Cambridge U Press 2013.
Prof Weinberg believed that a new theory is needed as do I. A champion of the symmetry view gives the best (but still unsatisfactory) explanation of the operational operators that are the basis of quantum mechanics. While providing a cookbook derivation of the Hydrogen atom energy spectrum (amazingly accurate) it fails to provide much help with the spin interaction and entanglement. Perhaps a dead end.
meant to give you my email, jeffrey.lapides@gmail.com