correction: 'not' should be 'no.'
Hmmm. The wavefunction IS the atom. That's what they're saying.. - Great book! "Quantum theory has no atom in addition to the wavefunctiion of the atom. Since the atom's wavefunction occupies both boxes, the atom itself is simultaneously in both boxes until its observation in a single box _causes_ it to be wholly in that box. On Sep 23, 2010, at 4:54 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > > > "Students come into physics to study the down-to-earth physical world. The > _Oxford English Dictionary_ defines this sense of "physical" well: "Of or > pertaining to material nature, as _opposed to the psychical, mental or > spiritual"_ (emphasis added). The 'New York Times' recently quoted science > historian Jed Buchwald: "Physicists . . . have long had a special loathing > for admitting questions with the slightest emotional content into their > professional work." Indeed, most physicists want to avoid dealing with that > skeleton in our closet, the role of the conscious observer. The Copenhagen > interpretation of quantum mechanics allows that avoidance. It's our > discipline's "orthodox" position." > >>>>> (Rosenblum & Kuttner,'Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness', >>>>> p.99,2006) > > > > "Classical probability in the shell game, say, is the _subjective_ > probability (for you) of where the pea is. But there is also a real pea > under one shell or the other. Quantum probability is _not_ the probability > of where the atom is. It's the objective probability of where you (or > anyone) will _find_ it. The atom wasn't in that box until it was observed to > be there. > > "Quantum theory has no atom in addition to the wavefunctiion of the atom. > Since the atom's wavefunction occupies both boxes, the atom itself is > simultaneously in both boxes until its observation in a single box _causes_ > it to be wholly in that box. > > "The point of the last paragraph is hard to accept. That's why we keep > repeating it. (Forgive us.) Even students completing a course in quantum > mechanics, when asked what the wavefunction tells, often incorrectly respond > that it gives the probability of where the object is. The text we teach from > emphasizes the correct point by quoting Pascual Jordan, one of the founders > of quantum theory: "Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, > they _produce_ it." But we're sympathetic with our students. Using quantum > mechanics is hard enough without worrying about what it means." > > > >>>>> (Rosenblum & Kuttner,'Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness', >>>>> p.103,2006) >>> > > > > ___ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
