8 Answers

  1. Here's the photon. We know it's there because we caught it with the detector. If we hadn't caught it, we wouldn't have known if it was there.

    Is our fixation of a photon a physical fact? Definitely. Is the existence of this photon before we catch it a physical fact? Definitely. And the fact that this photon was released by the Sun 8 minutes ago? Yes, this is a physical fact.

    But have we observed this fact? No. So, does it follow from quantum mechanics that there is no sun? We do not observe the Sun, we observe photons on the retina of our eye. As far as I'm familiar with quantum mechanics, it doesn't make such bold claims.

    Let's go in from the other side. Am I watching the atoms in my phone right now? Well, strictly speaking no, I only observe photons emitted by its screen. But these atoms “observe” each other. Not in the same sense of observation as we usually talk about it, but in the same way that we talk about it in quantum mechanics, where to observe is to interact.

    And now from quite a distance. Is it even a matter of physics – existence? When I say that to be is to be observed , am I really doing physics at this moment? When I make the claim that the unobservable does not exist, is that physics? In my memory, this was called ontology and was a branch of philosophy. A physicist can and probably should study philosophy, but philosophy does not become physics because a physicist does it, just as stamp collecting does not become physics, no matter how many scientific regalia a collector has.

  2. No, you shouldn't.

    First, if we are talking about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, then it applies only to quantum mechanics, but not to any hypothetical facts.

    Secondly, there are no “observers” in it, but there is a registration of one of the two characteristics of the particle. It is not necessary to observe this directly.

    A lot of things have been written in this thread, but so far no one has canceled the particle-wave dualism and the uncertainty principle, and this is the basis of quantum mechanics, on which the work of many macro-objects is based, for example, a laser, a semiconductor transistor, a cathode ray tube, etc.

  3. It is more likely that the theories of quantum mechanics are mostly delusions, since they do not have sufficient and clear justification, and also cannot challenge alternative points of view. And all the confusion is due to the habit of replacing phenomena with simplified models, and in them there are constant substitutions of the concepts of the observer with the observed phenomenon.

  4. It's paradoxical how long outdated ideas last. They continue to be duplicated in textbooks and mass media.

    We are talking about two outdated (erroneous) ideas of the early 20th century

    1) Wave-particle dualism

    2) The effect of the observer on the reduction of the wave function

    From the point of view of modern kwantmech, everything is a WAVE. Quantum field theory (QFT) prevails. Everything around us is waves, and the particles are a macroscopic approximation, so that there is no coherence left. Those are a bit complicated.

    The observer is not a human being. Oh, if only Bohr and Izhi knew what kind of mine they put in the minds of future generations by very carelessly using the animated word observer. They'd probably be careful. An observer is any macro object that registers a physical quantity. By its registration action, it both destroys coherence and leads to reduction.

  5. No, you shouldn't. if life in the universe ceases to exist, will the Sun stop emitting photons? or will the photons behave differently?the observer only records the fact, not creates it. The cat in the Schrodinger box is either dead or alive at a given time, and the fact that the observer does not see the cat does not change its state. The photon is also in a certain state at a certain point in time, but the observer does not know which one. in the photo, a car moving 200 km / h seems to be standing on the road, the observer will not say that it was moving or moving, but this does not affect the speed of the car in any way. The coin flipped up is in an indeterminate state only for the observer,in fact, it just rotates and is in a certain state at a certain time.�

    A fact is an objective thing that does not depend on the subject, otherwise it is not a fact, but a perception of a fact.

  6. The reasoning of physicists is meaningless without the support of philosophy) �

    And from the point of view of philosophy, as Wittgentstein rightly pointed out in his LFT, the human “world” does not consist of objects, but just of facts – that is, connections between objects. This is the difference between our world and the world of, say, a cat-for her, the world consists of objects.

    That is why objects outside of human attention exist, but any facts do not. For human attention is a means of establishing a connection between objects.

  7. I will answer the question in accordance with its wording, maybe I misunderstood the question. Let's forget for a moment that we have any knowledge in the field of physics (besides, I have it far from the knowledge that people who have devoted their entire lives to physics have). Just enable the usual logic. What does quantum physics study? Quantum mechanical and quantum field systems and the laws of their motion. It does not cover all areas of physics. What is a physical fact? Roughly speaking, the presence of the Archimedean force in liquids or gases is a physical fact. Does quantum physics study it? No. Does it follow from quantum mechanics that there are no physical facts separate from observers?Whatever the principles of quantum physics state, no, because quantum physics does not cover ALL the branches of physics, and therefore not all physical facts are studied by quantum physics. Roughly speaking, does the fact that an apple is round mean that all fruits are round? No, we determine their shape by looking at a specific fruit of this type, and not by looking at an apple.

    On the other hand, you are asking whether there is a physical fact separate from the observer. What is a fact? One of the definitions is an event, a phenomenon; a firmly established knowledge given in an experiment, the reliability of which is proven. The word fact is synonymous with the word knowledge. “Established knowledge”. So, there must be someone who established this knowledge. That is, an observer. Without an observer, there will be no fact, just based on the definition of the concept. However, if the observer leaves, for example, the apple will not stop falling to the ground.

    If we take it as a statement that “the observation itself affects the result obtained, the course of events, or something like that,” then we will delve into such wilds, into the cat. I don't want to get involved, although maybe that's what you asked.

  8. It follows from quantum mechanics that observation is an imperfect way of establishing physical facts, since it is included in the observed system. Such cases.

Leave a Reply