|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> At any rate, the relevant part of the wave equations here is really
>> the fact that they describe the probabilities of the outcomes of
>> measurements.
>
> Right. And the question is "what's a measurement" in this case. That's
> the outstanding question. Since measuring a superimposed state can give
> you an answer different from any possible "outcome" per se, figuring out
> when a "measurement" has occurred is the problem.
Exactly why I phrased my sentence the way I did. The Schrödinger
equations don't directly say anything about what state the cat's in, or
even if it's in a deterministic state or not -- it's how you treat the
process of measurement that does, and that's a philosophical questions
rather than a scientific one at this point (and thus not part of QM
proper but of its interpretation).
More specifically, AFAIK there are some interpretations of QM which give
the cat a deterministic state, and others which don't (and I assume
others which regard the question as meaningless). All are in agreement
with he Schrödinger wave equation, so it's not the equation that's the
issue here.
>> and stating that the cat in superposition before measurement and
>> "collapses" when we open the box is only one such possible explanation.
>
> For us, maybe. Not for the cat.
Indeed, but I don't understand what this has to do with the Schrödinger
equations, since it seems (as I mentioned) to be only a problem with the
Copenhagen interpretation. Perhaps I'm missing what point you're making?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |