Thread: Physical reality

“I just want to explain what I mean when I say that we should try to hold on to physical reality. We are … all aware of the situation regarding what will turn out to be the basic foundational concepts in physics: the point-mass or the particle is surely not among them; the field, in the Faraday-Maxwell sense, might be, but not with certainty. But that which we conceive as existing (“real”) should somehow be localized in time and space.“ THE ABOVE IS A BRIEF PARAGRAPH OF EINSTEIN TRYING TO SHOW IS VIEW OF REALITY. FROM THE ABOVE WE CAN VERY MUCH ASCERTAIN THAT EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN REALITY AS ONLY WHAT CAN BE LOCATED IN SPACE AND TIME,AND IT SHOULD BE REGARDLESS OF AN OBSERVER. If this is true,what then what happens to a more realistic view and interpretation for schrodingers cat? THE CAT WAS IN A SUPERPOSITION,AND UNLESS THE CAT IS CONSIDERD REAL WITH TWO POSSIBLE POSITION AT SAMETIME(WHICH WAS CONSIDERD LIKE THAT) WHAT THEN HAPPENS TO THE OTHER POSITION AFTER MEASURMENT?IT DID APPEAR REAL BEFORE,SO WHY COLLAPSE TO SOMETHING LESS REAL OR NOT EVEN REAL.

Any discussion of "reality" should probably be in the Philosophy forum. I don't think it is something that science can deal with.

(Any discussion in ALL CAPS might belong somewhere else ... )

Originally Posted by merumario

If this is true,what then what happens to a more realistic view and interpretation for schrodingers cat? THE CAT WAS IN A SUPERPOSITION,AND UNLESS THE CAT IS CONSIDERD REAL WITH TWO POSSIBLE POSITION AT SAMETIME(WHICH WAS CONSIDERD LIKE THAT) WHAT THEN HAPPENS TO THE OTHER POSITION AFTER MEASURMENT?IT DID APPEAR REAL BEFORE,SO WHY COLLAPSE TO SOMETHING LESS REAL OR NOT EVEN REAL.

It would help if you understood Schrödinger's point.
Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.
"One can even set up quite ridiculous cases" and "Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation" (Einstein). IOW his gedankenexperiment was an illustration of the absurdity (in fact he actually used that word) of that viewpoint.

Though I am not entirely sure what the use of such capitalization is. I'll elaborate on Einstein's view of quantum physics. Having read his work extensively. It isn't in-determinism that Einstein was troubled with, but rather the apparent violation of locality and causality in physics. (which contemporary physicists couldn't answer yet)

Basically what your question boils down is the interpretation of the (three) measurement problem(s). Tim Maudlin wrote a very nice article about it. There were 3 (only 2 left) main interpretations of the problem. Each with a different philosophical mindset that explains the problem of how reality comes to be, from the apparent unreal quantum world. (Though I assure you that if you take the time and study it, the quantum world is very simple and real)

Basically reality is build up from observations. This might seem simple to state. But then again, it is. What we observe, is all we can ever know, and hence all that could ever be part of a reality we can live in. All that cannot be observed cannot be part of our reality.

This doesn't mean we cannot observe a dead and alive cat. From a good experiment (the schrodinger's cat is a bit more difficult, but it isn't impossible, Haroch and Wineland won the nobelprize for the experimental realization of this concept, this year Really kind guys Btw) you can show the following:

Though a direct observation of the cat will destroy the wavefunction and make it either alive or either dead. In it's superposition it can affect the world around it.

Let's say that the cat experiment is controlled by animal rights organization. And that the waiting time is about a week. It would require us to keep the cat fed and healthy in order not to distort the experiment. But a week is a long time. So in order to do this we make a beam of food that is past through the box. Even though we do not observe the cat, and only distort it slightly, we do not destroy the superposition. Yet it is obvious that the stream of food in and out is different when the cat is dead, alive or both at the same time. And this effect can actually be observed. That is the way it is. Reality can be more things at the same time. And all at once.

i have studied quantum theory long time ago.my problem here is that the wave function just collapse.


this makes me believe that many world interpretation is much better than Copenhagen interpretation.i like to see it that when confronted with options or superposition of such,there is a split in the universes. most people would not like this but heres why i like it.

lets consider schrodingers cat,both position are possible reality which makes the cat both at sametime,while if the box is opened the cats becomes one or the other, dead or alive. if two possible reality could collapse to just one,what happens to the other reality?

many worlds would say in another universe the other reality was the cats position after measurement.which makes sense to me,because its more as if when we carried out the measurement we shifted into a particular reality without collapsing the other.and if we could observe both possibility,then there was no split.

i was working on an article before on this same topic just to show that the wave function is dependant on the observers.meaning if winger did not know about the experiment then the wavefunction might have collapsed when measured by his friend.

if winger had knew as he did know according to thought experiment(winger's friend),he has being part of the experiment and thesame wave function that was for his friend would be for him.and if the wave function has cillapsed for his friend,it has'nt collapsed for him.


i then concluded that if observers tend to infinity,the final collapse will tend to infinity.

Originally Posted by Kerling

Basically reality is build up from observations. This might seem simple to state. But then again, it is. What we observe, is all we can ever know, and hence all that could ever be part of a reality we can live in. All that cannot be observed cannot be part of our reality.

can i use this line in the religion forum?

Let's say that the cat experiment is controlled by animal rights organization. And that the waiting time is about a week. It would require us to keep the cat fed and healthy in order not to distort the experiment. But a week is a long time. So in order to do this we make a beam of food that is past through the box. Even though we do not observe the cat,

yea, but i would bet after a week you would surely smell him...


anyway..
what i think i understand about the shroedinger analogy is that it is for the quantime level observation of a particle..that analogy expresses the process of observation interfereing with the experiment, i think of it like a tunneling miscroscope that can look at the atom, but in the process the tip of the scope would 'bump' other atoms causeing the atom being viewed to show properties caused by the interference of the measurement device..so that the actual properties of the atom remain unclear.

i know it may be a rather crude analogy but i think its essence holds true..

Well of course you can.

It is true that any measurement will distort the system under observation. But what we learn isn't untrue. As after the observation that will be the state the system is in. But there is simply no such thing, as a perfect observation.

Originally Posted by Strange

Any discussion of "reality" should probably be in the Philosophy forum. I don't think it is something that science can deal with.

(Any discussion in ALL CAPS might belong somewhere else ... )

Somewhat funny.

I had a similar but opposite thought that science is the ONLY method that's qualified to explore "reality." Philosophical discussions of the same are far too often rooted in sand.