3 added 127 characters in body
source | link

Oh, this problem with uncertainty and duality=((... I was in you shoes for a long time until I finally read a decent modern interpretation. Something like the following: the act of measurement causes collapse (not breeding) of possibilities into one realization out of the whole pool of possible outcomes. Before the experiment all those possibilities are statistically possible.

A non-ideal analogy: imagine you study a gas of identical particles. You can measure pressure, temperature, volume... All of those are statistical parameters, not deterministic. Sure, they depend on the momenta, masses etc of each and every particle in that gas, but you, in your experiment, don't have access to that information. More than that, each independent measurement of the local velocity of some random particle is meaningless and useless. Similar thing is happening in quantum. You can only talk probabilities, the outcome of each independent event is ill-defined. In quantum statistics you can even introduce quantum ensembles, where this thermodynamic analogy becomes completely legit.

The only other thing to discuss is how Heisenberg uncertainty contributes here, but it is a separate topic. I personally prefer to blame locality...

This interpretation doesn't have the highlighted philosophical conflict with physical reality we observe. (To clarify, in this interpretation asking the question above is nonsense because many-world interpretation is not necessary.)

Copenhagen interpretation is OLD, as most of its derivatives at that time, imho. It was developed at the point when a lot of representatives of general scientific community were not comfortable with probabilistic description. General public is still cranky about this... But scientists had to somehow explain physical phenomena on publicly available level, and they did it in the best way they could at that point...

P.S.: I fully accept criticism in advance as I know that this way of thinking about that is fairly unusual.

Oh, this problem with uncertainty and duality=((... I was in you shoes for a long time until I finally read a decent modern interpretation. Something like the following: the act of measurement causes collapse (not breeding) of possibilities into one realization out of the whole pool of possible outcomes. Before the experiment all those possibilities are statistically possible.

A non-ideal analogy: imagine you study a gas of identical particles. You can measure pressure, temperature, volume... All of those are statistical parameters, not deterministic. Sure, they depend on the momenta, masses etc of each and every particle in that gas, but you, in your experiment, don't have access to that information. More than that, each independent measurement of the local velocity of some random particle is meaningless and useless. Similar thing is happening in quantum. You can only talk probabilities, the outcome of each independent event is ill-defined. In quantum statistics you can even introduce quantum ensembles, where this thermodynamic analogy becomes completely legit.

The only other thing to discuss is how Heisenberg uncertainty contributes here, but it is a separate topic. I personally prefer to blame locality...

This interpretation doesn't have the highlighted philosophical conflict with physical reality we observe.

Copenhagen interpretation is OLD, as most of its derivatives at that time, imho. It was developed at the point when a lot of representatives of general scientific community were not comfortable with probabilistic description. General public is still cranky about this... But scientists had to somehow explain physical phenomena on publicly available level, and they did it in the best way they could at that point...

P.S.: I fully accept criticism in advance as I know that this way of thinking about that is fairly unusual.

Oh, this problem with uncertainty and duality=((... I was in you shoes for a long time until I finally read a decent modern interpretation. Something like the following: the act of measurement causes collapse (not breeding) of possibilities into one realization out of the whole pool of possible outcomes. Before the experiment all those possibilities are statistically possible.

A non-ideal analogy: imagine you study a gas of identical particles. You can measure pressure, temperature, volume... All of those are statistical parameters, not deterministic. Sure, they depend on the momenta, masses etc of each and every particle in that gas, but you, in your experiment, don't have access to that information. More than that, each independent measurement of the local velocity of some random particle is meaningless and useless. Similar thing is happening in quantum. You can only talk probabilities, the outcome of each independent event is ill-defined. In quantum statistics you can even introduce quantum ensembles, where this thermodynamic analogy becomes completely legit.

The only other thing to discuss is how Heisenberg uncertainty contributes here, but it is a separate topic. I personally prefer to blame locality...

This interpretation doesn't have the highlighted philosophical conflict with physical reality we observe. (To clarify, in this interpretation asking the question above is nonsense because many-world interpretation is not necessary.)

Copenhagen interpretation is OLD, as most of its derivatives at that time, imho. It was developed at the point when a lot of representatives of general scientific community were not comfortable with probabilistic description. General public is still cranky about this... But scientists had to somehow explain physical phenomena on publicly available level, and they did it in the best way they could at that point...

P.S.: I fully accept criticism in advance as I know that this way of thinking about that is fairly unusual.

2 added 152 characters in body
source | link

Oh, this problem with uncertainty and duality=((... I was in you shoes for a long time until I finally read a decent modern interpretation. Something like the following: the act of measurement causes collapse (not breeding) of possibilities into one realization out of the whole pool of possible outcomes. Before the experiment all those possibilities are statistically possible.

A non-ideal analogy: imagine you study a gas of identical particles. You can measure pressure, temperature, volume... All of those are statistical parameters, not deterministic. Sure, they depend on the momenta, masses etc of each and every particle in that gas, but you, in your experiment, don't have access to that information. More than that, each independent measurement of the local velocity of some random particle is meaningless and useless. Similar thing is happening in quantum. You can only talk probabilities, the outcome of each independent event is ill-defined. In quantum statistics you can even introduce quantum ensembles, where this thermodynamic analogy becomes completely legit.

The only other thing to discuss is how Heisenberg uncertainty contributes here, but it is a separate topic. I personally prefer to blame locality...

This interpretation doesn't have the highlighted philosophical conflict with physical reality we observe.

Copenhagen interpretation is OLD, as most of its derivatives at that time, imho. It was developed at the point when a lot of representatives of general scientific community were not comfortable with probabilistic description. General public is still cranky about this... But scientists had to somehow explain physical phenomena on publicly available level, and they did it in the best way they could at that point...

P.S.: I fully accept criticism in advance as I know that this way of thinking about that is fairly unusual.

Oh, this problem with uncertainty and duality=((... I was in you shoes for a long time until I finally read a decent modern interpretation. Something like the following: the act of measurement causes collapse (not breeding) of possibilities into one realization out of the whole pool of possible outcomes. Before the experiment all those possibilities are statistically possible.

A non-ideal analogy: imagine you study a gas of identical particles. You can measure pressure, temperature, volume... All of those are statistical parameters, not deterministic. Sure, they depend on the momenta, masses etc of each and every particle in that gas, but you, in your experiment, don't have access to that information. More than that, each independent measurement of the local velocity of some random particle is meaningless and useless. Similar thing is happening in quantum. You can only talk probabilities, the outcome of each independent event is ill-defined. In quantum statistics you can even introduce quantum ensembles, where this thermodynamic analogy becomes completely legit.

This interpretation doesn't have the highlighted philosophical conflict with physical reality we observe.

Copenhagen interpretation is OLD, imho. It was developed at the point when a lot of representatives of general scientific community were not comfortable with probabilistic description. General public is still cranky about this... But scientists had to somehow explain physical phenomena on publicly available level, and they did it in the best way they could at that point...

P.S.: I fully accept criticism in advance as I know that this way of thinking about that is fairly unusual.

Oh, this problem with uncertainty and duality=((... I was in you shoes for a long time until I finally read a decent modern interpretation. Something like the following: the act of measurement causes collapse (not breeding) of possibilities into one realization out of the whole pool of possible outcomes. Before the experiment all those possibilities are statistically possible.

A non-ideal analogy: imagine you study a gas of identical particles. You can measure pressure, temperature, volume... All of those are statistical parameters, not deterministic. Sure, they depend on the momenta, masses etc of each and every particle in that gas, but you, in your experiment, don't have access to that information. More than that, each independent measurement of the local velocity of some random particle is meaningless and useless. Similar thing is happening in quantum. You can only talk probabilities, the outcome of each independent event is ill-defined. In quantum statistics you can even introduce quantum ensembles, where this thermodynamic analogy becomes completely legit.

The only other thing to discuss is how Heisenberg uncertainty contributes here, but it is a separate topic. I personally prefer to blame locality...

This interpretation doesn't have the highlighted philosophical conflict with physical reality we observe.

Copenhagen interpretation is OLD, as most of its derivatives at that time, imho. It was developed at the point when a lot of representatives of general scientific community were not comfortable with probabilistic description. General public is still cranky about this... But scientists had to somehow explain physical phenomena on publicly available level, and they did it in the best way they could at that point...

P.S.: I fully accept criticism in advance as I know that this way of thinking about that is fairly unusual.

1
source | link

Oh, this problem with uncertainty and duality=((... I was in you shoes for a long time until I finally read a decent modern interpretation. Something like the following: the act of measurement causes collapse (not breeding) of possibilities into one realization out of the whole pool of possible outcomes. Before the experiment all those possibilities are statistically possible.

A non-ideal analogy: imagine you study a gas of identical particles. You can measure pressure, temperature, volume... All of those are statistical parameters, not deterministic. Sure, they depend on the momenta, masses etc of each and every particle in that gas, but you, in your experiment, don't have access to that information. More than that, each independent measurement of the local velocity of some random particle is meaningless and useless. Similar thing is happening in quantum. You can only talk probabilities, the outcome of each independent event is ill-defined. In quantum statistics you can even introduce quantum ensembles, where this thermodynamic analogy becomes completely legit.

This interpretation doesn't have the highlighted philosophical conflict with physical reality we observe.

Copenhagen interpretation is OLD, imho. It was developed at the point when a lot of representatives of general scientific community were not comfortable with probabilistic description. General public is still cranky about this... But scientists had to somehow explain physical phenomena on publicly available level, and they did it in the best way they could at that point...

P.S.: I fully accept criticism in advance as I know that this way of thinking about that is fairly unusual.