Implications of Quantum Physics

[Solly]

So does the world not exist at all? Damn Schrodingers Cat..it must be dead in my opinion.

Therefore there is no paradox . But yes, physics is definitely up against the highest brick wall here, it can not explain a thing.

[Kuciwalker]

You mean, it can't explain a thing except phenomena such as the behavior of light or electricity of nuclear physics?

[Solly]

It can't explain anything that is behind our backs.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, it certainly has a better track record than you do at predicting things.

[Bill3000]

...and the behavior of three out of the four fundamental forces, part of the explanation of the big bang, nature of solid-state physics, et cetera.... Yeah, that's sure not explaining a thing.

One should note that the Copenhagen interpretation is not the only philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics. There's also the many worlds interpretation.

[Kuciwalker]

And, of course, there's the fact that QM isn't the philosophy, which is worthless, it's a mathematical tool for predicting physical phenomena. As such, it is *very* successful.

[Bill3000]

By the way, you can still observe things with things behind your back. You can hear, feel, et cetera; hearing by itself pretty much says that you are an observer for things behind your back. You don't have to see things for it to be observed.

Still, there are still other observers anyway; an "observer" doesn't even have to be sentient, really.

[Solly]

" it's a mathematical tool for predicting physical phenomena. As such, it is *very* successful."

When the maths is analysed it makes not a bean of sense.

"Still, there are still other observers anyway; an "observer" doesn't even have to be sentient, really.
"

What is an observer?

[Kuciwalker]

" it's a mathematical tool for predicting physical phenomena. As such, it is *very* successful."

When the maths is analysed it makes not a bean of sense.

Which is irrelevent, since IT WORKS. The mathematics are quite clearly correct.

[Solly]

But the maths mean nothing, at all.

[Kuciwalker]

Which is irrelevent, since THEY WORK. They predict physical phenomana to incredible accuracy. As such, whether you can make any sense of them isn't important.

That action at a distance doesn't make sense isn't a valid argument against Newton. Same thing here.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
" it's a mathematical tool for predicting physical phenomena. As such, it is *very* successful."

When the maths is analysed it makes not a bean of sense.

yes it does

"Still, there are still other observers anyway; an "observer" doesn't even have to be sentient, really.
"

What is an observer?

Something which performs a measurement.

[Solly]

Exactly. The problem with science right now is the orthodox. They (you?) are not prepared to question anything.

You are like the Christians proclaiming that the world is flat.

[Kuciwalker]

Eh, why would we question something that's obviously correct?

[KrazyHorse]

The fundamental axiom of quantum mechanics in question is the one which states: "any measurement of an observable puts the system into an eigenstate of the associated operator"