On 9/21/2011 8:34 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Why does a particle bouncing off a mirror not collapse the state?
> Certainly there's interaction there. Indeed, where in the wave equations
> is the expression for the collapse of the state? That's really pretty
> much what the question boils down to.
>
Yeah, that is kind of an interesting case. The question is what sort of 
interaction are you dealing with, with respect to a mirror, that isn't 
the same as if it hits something that doesn't have reflection? The only 
answer I have is that this is who mirrors work, for some reason, in that 
they "deflect" a particle, without causing a change. No idea why. But, 
if they didn't, we wouldn't have mirrors, pretty much by definition.

>> Personally, I consider the confusion over what happens if you don't
>> "see" it
>> happen to be complete nonsense,
>
> Except you get different experimental results depending on whether you
> see it or not. That indeed is the entire point.
>

But, its not. What is the fundamental difference between these 
categories of experiment design:

1. Two detectors, one farther away than the other, where you expect the 
first one to detect the entangled particle, but the farther one to not.

2. One detector, and one solid block, where the block is closer, again, 
with the expectation that you will get no result, since the entangled 
pair "stops" at the block, and never reaches the detector.

3. No detectors, but blocks in the same positions as above.

You are proposing that "somehow" #3 is completely different, and that 
only #1, and maybe #2, somehow, produce a predictable effect. I say this 
is absurd. Where exactly does the entangled second particle go, if it 
doesn't collapse into its twin, in case #3? What ever relevance to a 
mirrors ability to deflect a particle, without causing a collapse, is 
not relevant to this question. You could build your system without "any" 
mirrors, and you still have the same bloody situation. So, the question 
is, I think, fundamentally wrong. Its not, "Why does observation appear 
necessary?", but rather, "What exactly is it in the nature of mirrors 
that produces a different result than a non-reflective object?" I don't 
see how assuming that the first question makes any sort of sense leads 
you to finding any sort of answer to the second one.

Oh, and its not about "prose". Language is critical to how we think. A 
great many things we failed to grasp in the past *precisely* because the 
language was inadequate to describe them, and new language had to be 
defined, before comprehension was possible. The words we use "color" our 
perceptions, and determine how, and even if, in some cases, we can 
examine a problem. I seem to even remember studies on this, though I 
can't think of exactly when, or where, I read about it.

Post a reply to this message