Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> when the state of the particle is "observed" (whatever that might mean)
> 
>> Merely that you have done something to it which changes its unknown 
>> state, usually causing it to make contact with another particle(s), such 
>> as a detector.
> 
>   I think the Copenhagen interpretation goes beyond that. If the decay of
> the radioactive substance causes the flask to be broken, killing the cat,
> it has already been "observed" (by whatever detector caused the flask to
> be broken) and thus there are no superimposed states, but according to
> the Copenhagen interpretation there are, until some external observer opens
> the box.
> 
>   That's the kind of "observation" I don't understand.
> 
But, the Copenhagen interpretation is intended as an example, where by 
the "mechanism" isn't part of the system that causes the observation. 
The presumption being that what ever opens the box to look is what 
*causes* the result. It was never intended to be used to imply that the 
state in such a box could/does exist in the real world. In short, you 
are exaggerating the meaning of the example. There may be others doing 
so too, but most understand that the *entire box*, and the cat inside, 
is the particle, and that the observer is basically what ever "looks" 
into the box to see what happened, which could be an X-Ray machine, for 
all that it matters, or a guy with a crowbar, or just some single 
particle, shot at the box, which "quantum tunnels" through the inside, 
and other the other, carrying some information on the state inside. The 
*observer* is never a conscious observer, it is always, "What ever 
happens to interact with the particle, causing it to change."

And, if you think about it, it can't be otherwise. If you observe a 
particle with a detector, the detector "causes" the state change. Turn 
on a flashlight, photons cause the state change. There is no way to 
*observe* an object that doesn't involve us hitting the particle with 
another particle, and measuring what the change in *that* particle is, 
thereby deriving what happened to the other one. All Copenhagen really 
says is, "If nothing is interacting with the particle, the particle's 
state isn't known, but the moment something does (which they confusingly 
termed "observer"), the state becomes fixed." Its sort of like the way 
normal people use "theory" to mean guess, but scientists mean, "already 
supported by evidence". "Observer" doesn't mean what the average person 
would mean by it. Imho, it was a really poor choice, but we are, at this 
point, stuck with it. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message