On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:10:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 5 Jun 2020, at 23:36, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > ref (article by Jim Baggott): > > > https://medium.com/@MassimoPigliucci/the-copenhagen-confusion-611f31cc27e1 > > > https://twitter.com/philipcball/status/1268950876405850112 > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fphilipcball%2Fstatus%2F1268950876405850112&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyoDxbukkDIr-ioIp_UjGFzLHeIg> > > Jim Baggott Retweeted > Philip Ball @philipcball > · > "The “collapse of the wavefunction” was never part of the Copenhagen > interpretation because the wavefunction isn’t interpreted realistically." I > have been trying to get this point across for ages; I really hope Jim has > more success. > > Quote Tweet > > Jim Baggott @JimBaggott > > No, the Copenhagen interpretation does not entail the collapse of the > wavefunction. > > > Then, if I look at a spin in the 1/sqrt(2) (up + down), with a {up, down} > measuring device, I am myself in a superposition state, if the wave does > not collapse. > Non collapse entails many world, or better many dreams. In that case there > is no collapse, but also no waves needed, as it has to be explained by > 2+2=4 & Co. > > Bruno > > > > > The best comment by a physicists (Associate Professor, Monash University) in the discussion thread:
The wavefunction is not a physical thing - so whether it collapses is irrelevant. At least one physicist not brainwashed into the current religion. @hilipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/551ea822-560c-4113-bc6d-42b0f348fd2ao%40googlegroups.com.
