There is an article in SciAm, Dec. 2007, "The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett."
I have a question, but first up, I have an opinion, too.
Ok, imo, the Copenhagen interpretation is right. However, the way they
explain it SUCKS.
Imo, Hugh Everett and the string/brane and guys talk mystical rubbish that's
gotten in the way of real physics, even obstructed people from getting jobs
or grants in real physics (instead of having to settle for string/brane
That's imo. I'm not a physicist, but I was taught the basics in 1960s and
imo, and in the opinion of two other students, it wasn't hard.
Anyway... Why can't they simply say that:
1. An isolated electron IS an isolated electron, a microscopic subatomic
particle or quantum object.
2. If you DO abc to it, it behaves like a particle (as we define particle).
3. If you DO xyz to it, it behaves like a wave (as we define wave).
Either way, you are DOING something TO the electron. You have to DO
something to even SEE an isolated electron. That's the whole bit about the
"observer affecting it" - which sounds rather mystical! They could make
that clearer and not so mystical sounding - such as - you are DOing
something TO the electron in order to even see it - and that of course is
going to change something. What you actually are seeing is "isolated
electron affected by what you did." That's just SO clear. Analogy: in
order to feel what someone's skin feels like, you have to DO something to
that person - touch them. In which case, the skin might not feel the same
as it would had you not touched them. You caused a change. REAL simple
There seems to be a problem, for some, that regular objects in a room, or
people, don't behave like electrons, like micro quantum objects. I have to
scratch my head - HUH? Macro objects are not "just isolated electrons" or
isolated particles of any kind. Macro objects are a combination of these
micro objects acting together, interacting and so forth. That's THE
Electrons are in the air and in my handbag. Obviously, air is not like bag.
I can pick up bag, lift it up, carry it, put things in it. I can't pick up
air like that and carry it - I mean the way I pick up the bag. In both bag
and air, there are (almost??) no isolated electrons. Both air and bag are
macro. Both air and bag are a COMBINATION of particles and forces. Micro
quantum objects are not combinations. They are solitary, isolated subatomic
Make two holes in a wall. I can throw the bag through 1 of the 2 holes, but
not both at the same time. I can't throw air, but air can go through 2
holes at the same time. Is it a mystery to anyone that air and bag do not
act the same even though both are made up of atoms? No, I don't think it
is! Is it a mystery that sodium and chlorine do what they do - but combined
they do something else? I don't think anyone had to make up two realities
for that. But they invent two realities for micro objects and macro
OK, so you can measure how fast I'm moving and also locate me, both, at the
same time. You can't do that with an electron. Could it possibly be that
when subatomic particles are isolated/solitary, that they interact with
space/time differently than they do when they are combined? I'd assume that
straight up. NO need to invent other universes.
IMO, that COMBINATION state, common to all macro objects, IS the so-called
"boundary" between the micro and the macro that they speak about. It's not
two realities. It's the difference between isolated and combined.
Can we see an electron in its "natural state?" OK, what temperature is
natural? You can't even define "electron in a natural state." Is "in the
sun" natural? Or "in a room?" Is it natural for electrons to be bound to
other particles? Or not? In stars, electrons behave like high energy
waves, I assume. In planets, electrons are bound to other particles - which
makes big macro objects, including the planets themselves.
Imo, it's not hard to explain this at all, but the Copenhagenists obscure it
terribly. Imo, it's not some huge problem at all; there is no
contradiction. I'm not a physicist, and I never had trouble understanding
this - but the way they explain it - UGH.
If you subject H2O to 32 degrees F or lower, it behaves one way.
If you subject H2O to 33 degree F or above, it behaves another way.
And so on, various temperatures.
But H2O is still H2O. Is it ice, gas, liquid or plasma? It's H2O. It
behaves differently dependent on what you DO to it. "What is the natural
state of H2O?" Is that even a valid question? No.
This, imo, is a very simple and clear analogy for the whole electron thing
spoken of in the article, something physics is all twisted up about.
There is no need for "more than one reality." That kind of mystical
sounding talk, imo, led to the stuff I think is a total waste of time - all
that multiple universe and string/brane crap.
The article complains that physicists are taught that equasions of QM work
in one part of reality, the micro, but are not relevent in the macro.
PHEW! I disagree. It's not 2 parts of reality. It's ONE reality.
Physicists should maybe be told that equasions for QM work on ISOLATED
subatomic quantum objects - but are not relevent when these quantum objects
are COMBINED with each other to make even a macro object like an atom, or a
brick, or a person. They are bound to each other, interacting - that is WHY
they behave differently.
Why not say that macro objects are a COMBINATION of particles and forces.
Micro objects are isolated subatomic quantum objects, not combined with
anything. The moment such a micro object is combined, it becomes macro and
no longer behaves "so strangely." NO macro object is "just electrons."
Even at the tiny, but macro, size of an atom, that's a combination, acting
together, affecting each other.
The combination IS the so-called boundary - but this is not some boundary
between two realities. Micro quantum objects are solitary subatomic
objects. Macro non-quantum objects are combinations of these subatomic
objects interacting together. That's the difference. Sure they don't behave
the same way.
Depending on the combination in the macro world - my bag doesn't behave like
the air, either.
This, imo, is SIMPLE. It's not 2 realities at all. Isolated particles
behave as they behave - and we can't know how they "REALLY" behave because
we have to DO something to them to see them - and so far well, we see
electrons behave like particles or waves. Has anyone even theorized that
the "oddness" of solitary quantum objects might have to do with the way they
interact with space/time WHEN they are not combined with anything?
The boundary is 1. micro: isolated solitary quantum object and 2. macro:
combination of these objects interacting that make another kind of object.
Why don't they explain it this way? They go overboard to muddle it up so
badly that we end up with imo waste of time diversions into string/brane
rubish. Years of it, so bad that people had to be "INTO" that bs to get
At least there is solid real evidence, reproducable, for the Copenhagen
people. So big deal, it's not possible to "really see" isolated quantum
micro object because you have to DO things to it to see it - or not possible
to know some "natural state of quantum objectness" because the whole
"natural state" makes no sense to begin with (as with my H2O example). So
what? What's the problem?
Everett coming to the crazy idea of applying QM to macro objects, concluding
that there are more than one version of him looking at the electron - oh,
there must be an infinite number of hims - that's wacked, imo. It's great
science fiction - on TV!
One other thing: for ONE physicist that argued about this with Andy Jones.
I seem to remember Andy Jones having a theory about the cosmos expanding,
some kind of dark force doing it - and gravity being something that opposes
this force. Heh - HE WAS RIGHT. He said that before they discovered dark
energy causing exactly this expansion - defeating gravity.
My basic question, btw, was - WHY don't the Copenhagen guys explain this in
terms that are a LOT easier to understand? Or don't they themselves realize
that isolated little micro things do not behave the same as combined bigger
macro things? Don't they know that there are not 2 realities, but just two
states: solitary versus combined?
One more thing, mass can be turned into energy; long before anyone DID it,
back in school I said, "then sound can be turned into light." Having a clue
about HOW to do such a thing - well, heh, way over my head. Well well,
someone actually DID IT, Seth Putterman, I think. Why isn't this being
sought after as a source of clean energy?
Thanks Please don't eliminate the groups - that one physicist I said
something to tends to see things on one of the groups I posted to.