-2
$\begingroup$

When I was talking to my physics professor, he went on an interesting tangent that I did not understand.

His Words (Mostly)

He said he had a colleague that recently died. His colleague learned a lot about his physics from books, and in books, when they talk about quantum mechanics there is usually an eye to act as the observer. He said, "In reality there is no eye." Then he went on to say something roughly like, "There was no eye that evaluated our universe." He did not say that, I am just trying to remember.

My Conflict

It seems as though he was both implying the superposition of the universe before the great expansion and that there is no eye. Who is observing us out of superposition?

This brief side conversation made me question all of that I learned and take to be true. I just simply cannot begin to understand what he was trying to say. Could anybody elaborate or give any refernces towards this topic or idea?

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by DilithiumMatrix, Jon Custer, Kyle Kanos, rob Jan 23 '17 at 19:17

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ He probably was referring to the interpretational problem of the quantum state of the universe. States are implicitly defined with respect to an observer. Where is the observer in this case? $\endgroup$ – G. Bergeron Dec 6 '16 at 13:12
2
$\begingroup$

What was discussed by you guys seems to me to be a counter argument to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

In my view, any interpretation does not alter what we observe or the predictions of our models - at best any one interpretation gives us a intellectual handle on the subject in order to be able to predict something else, something new.

For me, most interpretations of QM so far have some logical imperfection or just falls short of intellectual satisfaction.

Interpretations of quantum mechanics

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.