You've missed the point. The role of "the observer" is one of the cornerstones of "quantum weirdness". I am simply suggesting that it should be thrown out of physical theories.Observation and measurement is why we build things like the LHC, so we can learn new things in physics and verify theories. We needs it to explore reality, not to generate 'reality'.
You've said that several time but it's a meaningless suggestion. People to free to have 'their own' (sometimes mystical nonsense IMO) physical theories, it's just an interpretation.You've missed the point. The role of "the observer" is one of the cornerstones of "quantum weirdness". I am simply suggesting that it should be thrown out of physical theories.
Remember, QM states that the very act of observation causes wave-function collapse. Thus, the theory itself is flawed because its supposed mechanisms are based on questionable "interpretations". So once again, delete the nonsense, and go back to what is legitimately verifiable.You've said that several time but it's a meaningless suggestion. People to free to have 'their own' (sometimes mystical nonsense IMO) physical theories, it's just an interpretation.
I think this point has been argued in the past. I cant remember the name of this particular argument but it centers on which comes first, the brain or the physics. I think it is because when you really get down to it the brain and the measurement are so uniquely tied together that it becomes arguable which one takes precedence. I guess by 'brain' the meaning is the interpretation.OK, but is the "observer" really even necessary from the standpoint of making measurements? Wouldn't it be more concise to talk about the "specific nature of the observation"? That is, we have wires and plates and all sorts of components which inadvertently interfere with a "strictly faithful" measurement. Those objects are of course going to influence the measurement. In that particular respect however, consciousness is of little interest to the physicist. (That said, there may one day be some viable theory which CAN successfully incorporate "consciousness" into the equations. But that would be more along the lines of focusing on the "consciousness of the thing being observed" rather than the "observer of the thing being observed", if that makes any sense.)
That was interesting. He was pointing out the difference between a mathematical theory and a physical theory and saying that it's hard to go from the math theory to the physical world.
But a series of bouncing-droplet findings since 2015 has crushed this dream. The results indicate that Couder’s most striking demonstration of quantum-like phenomena, back in 2006 — “the experiment that got me hooked on this problem,” the fluid dynamicist Paul Milewski said — was in error. Repeat runs of the experiment, called the “double-slit experiment,” have contradicted Couder’s initial results and revealed the double-slit experiment to be the breaking point of both the bouncing-droplet analogy and de Broglie’s pilot-wave vision of quantum mechanics.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|P||NSD618 TO220 case datasheet please||Datasheets, Manuals & Parts Identification||3|
|F||How to apply the the conditional probability and chain rule formulas in a multivariable case?||General Science, Physics & Math||0|
|The Case of the 500 Mile Email||Off-Topic||0|
|The Case Against Patents||Off-Topic||24|
|The Case Against Patents||Off-Topic||18|
by Jake Hertz