|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
hmmm I kinda saw the "uncertainy principle" as the quantum version of the tyre pressure thing, that it was basically impossible to obtain a perfect measurement because to measure velocity perfectly changes the location, and vice versa. Clearly not.
I thought this theory got revived in the 50's? Is De Broglie–Bohm theory not science in the strictest use of the word?
All known attempts to make a comfortable, intuitive, sensible explanation of QM have either been terribly flawed in inconsistencies or have failed at their goal.
The 3 most popular interpretations are as follows:
As we've discussed briefly, the pilot wave hypothesis relies on these imaginary forces that make deterministic processes appear random.
The many worlds interpretation cannot be falsified, either. That's the idea that all possible quantum states exist simultaneously, and our universe represents one particular probability slice of that poly-verse.
(Any Hitchhiker's Guide fans, here? The "Whole Sort of General Mish Mash" bit always comes to mind when I think of the many worlds theory.)
Anyway, since we can only observe our own universe, by definition... our universe is everything we can observe and all that is directly implied we could observe if we had been in the right place at the right time. There is no way to measure these other universes' outcomes.
I tend to preach the Copenhagen interpretation like it's gospel, but it's equally messed up in the assertions. A few posts back, I explained Young's double-slit experiment as the evolution of a wave which exists in a superposition of states, and even when a particle doesn't get detected by a detector, the wave function still interacted and collapsed, leaving the rest of the wave function to continue.
So I asserted that a lack of detection (or any measurable event, for that matter) still caused a measurable change in the universe - the pattern on the wall behind the undetected hole still looks like the pattern behind the detected hole, so long as the detector is on.
That assertion relies on unmeasurable events being causes, in much the same way that I criticize the pilot wave interpretation.
:/
Frankly, I should look at the pilot wave interpretation a bit more closely. I like Copenhagen because it relies on the math, which is experimentally confirmed. On the surface, that's also true of pilot wave, so ... cool.
|
Reply With Quote