Why have so many physicists shrugged off the paradoxes of quantum mechanics?

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

philipov wrote: post #7

gus_massa wrote: post #2

> Bohr postulated a distinction between the quantum world and the world of everyday objects. A “classical” object is an object of everyday experience. It has, for example, a definite position and momentum, whether observed or not. A “quantum” object, such as an electron, has a different status; it’s an abstraction. Some properties, such as electrical charge, belong to the electron abstraction intrinsically, but other…

I thought the current fad was to use holography to explain it. The problem is that to measure something in quantum mechanics requires separating the world into two systems. To make exact measurements, the observing system has to be infinitely large to avoid quantum fluctuation, and the experiment has to be repeated infinitely often because it is probabilistic. To deal with the infinite size, particle physicists push…

Post by nikofeyn » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

ChrisSD wrote: post #18

nikofeyn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you could say that about any paradox. it other words, it isn't a helpful position because it doesn't give any insight. why even have the word paradox? plus, our intuition is just as much a part of reality as your "reality".

A paradox is essentially a logical contradiction. As far as we know such contradictions don't occur in nature. Paradoxes indicate that there is a flaw in either our theory or our understanding of our theory.

Post by mjfl » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #17

btilly wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there is not. The Everett aka many-worlds interpretation demonstrates that you can explain the observed effects of measurement without invoking "collapse" of the wave function, and without reference to anything outside of QM.

To further build on what you're saying, by bringing in the concept of a measure-er we have already entered the domain of philosophy, because the special class "measure-er" belongs to the Copenhagen interpretation and the interpretation of quantum mechanics is a philosophical issue by virtue of the fact that it will never be decided experimentally.

Post by aj7 » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

Post by philipov » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #21

philipov wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the current fad was to use holography to explain it. The problem is that to measure something in quantum mechanics requires separating the world into two systems. To make exact measurements, the observing system has to be infinitely large to avoid quantum fluctuation, and the experiment has to be repeated infinitely often because it is probabilistic. To deal with the infinite size, particle physicists push…

A route other than "dividing the world into two categories," has been available since the early days of quantum mechanics, if you believe in many worlds you don't have that problem. It is important to recognize that we are not talking about physics here, we are talking about philosophy. If anything, the greatest shock of quantum mechanics is how it shows that "questions we naturally want to ask about the natural worl…