Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing TinyTree;
This infers that if it cannot be measured, it cannot be proven to exist. Schrödinger simply was expressing this view by stating that until one observes the cat (a measurement) there exists no proof of its condition. |
I think you and I apprehend the probability wave function differently. You are apprehending it as "the condition exists, but we do not know the condition until we measure it" and I apprehend it as "the condition does not exist- and the proof of its nonexistence lies in the intereference pattern of the probability wave function- until it is 'measured'".
Note- I do not think a "rational" observer is required at all, and further I agree that the scientific establishment is completely confused, all the way to the top, as to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. I don't claim to know the answer, but am claiming it is both worth discussing and there is an answer that is understandable.
The cat's state, in my interpretation, DOES exist in one of the two configurations whether not it is measured by an external agent. However, it DOES exist in one of those states because of an earlier 'measurement' wherein the probability wave function got bound into 'classical reality'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing We now have a science based solely on terms derived from our ability to measure within the limits set by probability and uncertainty. |
I do not claim to be an expert, but am reading a book on quantum measurement, and I believe you are misunderstanding the way the experiments work. I would like to organize and classify these experiments at some point (perhaps in these forums? Where would we do that).
But anyway, here is one for your to ponder. You take a polarized piece of glass, like your sunglasses. This only lets through light with a specific orientation. Now if you take two pieces of polarized glass, and lay them atop each other perpendicularly, so that the orientations lie at right angles- and no light gets through. This is what you might expect- All the light going into the first piece of glass comes out "up and down" and can't make it through the "right to left" glass. We will pretend the light is on the bottom, coming through the glass.
Now rotate the top piece of glass by 45 degrees. Now SOME of the light comes through. How is this possible? Because after the "measurement" of coming through the bottom piece the light is free to have an orientation, free with a probablilistic angle ranging from straight up and down (high) to left to right (zero).
So now you can see that the light in the first experiment was actually only PROBABALISTICALLY being blocked, not certainly.
To prove this to yourself, take another piece of glass and lay it on top, with the orientation left to right. This is the same as the experiment with the two pieces of glass perpendicular, except there is an extra pane of glass in the middle angled at 45 degrees.
What happens? Is all the light blocked?
No. The light comes through, when before it was blocked utterly. This is because at the second pane of glass, at the "measurement" it has changed orientations from the first pane to be at 45 degrees. Now when it hits what used to be perpendicular, it is at a 45 degree angle, and probabilistically, some of it gets through. (1/4 I believe)
So you can see, the "measurement" of having the polarized piece of glass changes the probability wave function. Also, there is no wierd cats or outside observer required. Do you think the light stops coming through the lenses when you look away from it? No. Does it have anything to do with a rational observer? No. You could build this and leave it in your backyard, and then possibly or not go back and put your finger under where the light had been shining and see if it was warm or not.
Check out this page for further strangeness:
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/