QUESTION re SciAM 12/07 Copenhagen School

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
philosophy/theology).

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
analogy, concrete.

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
difference.

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
things.

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
objects? Why?

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.

ANALOGY:
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
jobs.

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.

"Tani Jantsang©" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

When the base assumptions of anything is wrong, the justifications can get
very tangled. Heisenberg was wrong. Quantum theory is wrong. The evolutions
of this mess is where we stand. Truth: we are 4 dimensional creatures living
in a 4 dimensional universe. We are blind to anything outside of our
immediate 3 dimensional situation. Math has a predisposition to numbers
making it a poor tool for analysis. New approaches are necessary.

"Larry Snyder" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Do you mean 3 spacial dimensions plus one of time = 4? I don't think Bohr
would agree with this. What the Copenhagenists have works, they can use it.

"Tani Jantsang©" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
No. The 4th dimension is one you can measure with a ruler like the other
three. Our brain structure is incapable of visualizing it. Probably because
it has almost no survival value. The best description I can give is size,
like large ball /small ball.
Larry

"Larry Snyder" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Mehh, not a good description, heh. That would mean that any 4D object
passing through our space would be seen in part, only be able to be measured
in part - or perhaps not even seen, just felt. It might explain why
electrons seem like waves and particles, when they can't be both. Perhaps
they are neither. Perhaps they are something else entirely.

Analogy with 3d object passing thru 2D space - eg, a ball (heh, big or small
one, no matter). In 2D it wouldn't even be visual, but would felt as some
kind of force that starts out a point, gets bigger and surrounds an area and
then retreats back to a point and vanishes.

But is this part of something Bohr et al would agree about? I was asking a
question about why the Copenhagen guys muddled up an explanation about micro
and macro objects so badly that it led to exestential rubbish, including
string/brane religion. I think I explained it better, clearer.

"Tani Jantsang©" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
Probably. If you noticed, a lot of physics is like a popularity contest.
Since funding is related, a lot of tenacity gets involved. There are a lot
of phenomena that are completely ignored. I think it would be a good idea to
throw out all theories and start from scratch with a new popularity contest.
Larry

On Dec 27, 10:52*pm, "Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:



Copenhagen was a compromise t. It was basically not theory, but
properted to be one.
Technically is was a symbol. A word. A letter to denote, only.

Classical Theory abstract form allows the slight digression as long as
it was qualified. i.e. it name called an interpretation, not a theory.

I was NOT a prinicple aside from Einstein's objection concerning the
rolling of dice. TO this day we wonder about the dice rolling
problem. Wavefunction collapse was found and the dice were the
state. And things or objects denoting state were to NOT INCLUDE bags
of air

You need to forget about air abstracted Copenhagen. Aether does not
exist. SO matter probability functions where still to be debated.

So maybe think about alternative to Copenhagen to pass the time of
day. It is rather trivial in form, but the debate was to be also easy
to solve. Abstract air as wave funtion was a perfect analogy! maybe I
misunderstood your usage.

And to cause the state buy dematerialization into collapsable function
was the debate. It is solvable. Just pretend I am a tooth fairy. AND
the NIST Neutron was rather covertly indicative of the caused neutron
binding deficit. A close history examination will reveal NEVER<
NEVER< NEVER a single international absolute calibration. Everybody
just tends to forget the meaing of deficit. IT means binding does not
exist.

It is a cooked International Standard. And now you can see the
answer. Just pretend the tooth fairy allows liquid drop nuclear
physicis, and not the alternative. This is supposed to be day one of
nuclear physics btw. The cause of binding is up for grabs right now.
If you want a world class challenge to win, try upholding the current
NIST NBS-1 Neutron Standard.

ANd it was not hard as long as the crosssection was used to determine
the neutron, but absolute determination does not allow that method.
That is a relative determination method.

SO just use activation foild covertly to maintain the correct neutron,
then place the doll on the table. The doll being you method of
absolute calibration. Rumor is that NIST is to use a water
calorimeter.

Have fun oout there.

"Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5b49d930-7ab9-40a6-9b97-2d78e8146ec4@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 10:52 pm, "Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote:

I'm inserting > marks on your statements.

properted to be one.
Technically is was a symbol. A word. A letter to denote, only.


I don't understand a word you just said!


it was qualified. i.e. it name called an interpretation, not a theory.

OK, but their interpretation, coming up with phrases like "altered by the
observer" and "two realities" just opens the door to mystical crazy
thinking, imo. I said it a LOT clearer.

rolling of dice. TO this day we wonder about the dice rolling
problem. Wavefunction collapse was found and the dice were the
state. And things or objects denoting state were to NOT INCLUDE bags
of air

Oh, I was using air and my handbag as analogies, only. Reread what I said.
Not bags of air. Bags (handbags) AND air - in my analogy. As a way to
explain it to people in a classroom, I mean.

exist. SO matter probability functions where still to be debated.

Aether? Do you mean space? I'm referring specifically to the SciAm
article - which was primarily about the electron and it's odd behavior when
it's isolated - VERSUS it's normal behavior when it's combined with other
particles in the macroscopic world. I could have gone on and said more on
that - eg, take a cell from a heart. Does the cell by itself behave like a
heart? No, but nobody would call that "two realities" or wonder what the
boundary was between "cell as part of a heart" and "isolated heart cell."

day. It is rather trivial in form, but the debate was to be also easy
to solve. Abstract air as wave funtion was a perfect analogy! maybe I
misunderstood your usage.

Yes, I used the air - versus my handbad as analogies. I think English is
not your first language? You are hard to understand I read SciAm - and
I enjoy articles on physics, but I'm SICK of that string bullshit. I think
SciAm is biased these days.

was the debate. It is solvable. Just pretend I am a tooth fairy. AND
the NIST Neutron was rather covertly indicative of the caused neutron
binding deficit. A close history examination will reveal NEVER<
NEVER< NEVER a single international absolute calibration. Everybody
just tends to forget the meaing of deficit. IT means binding does not
exist.

This is over my head, sorry.

answer. Just pretend the tooth fairy allows liquid drop nuclear
physicis, and not the alternative. This is supposed to be day one of
nuclear physics btw. The cause of binding is up for grabs right now.
If you want a world class challenge to win, try upholding the current
NIST NBS-1 Neutron Standard.

Well, I have no idea what NIST NBS-1 Neutron Standard is. I do understand,
on a very basic level, nuclear physics, atoms, molecules, etc. I do
understand the subatomic stuff, on a basic level (as you probably can see by
what I originally wrote). You mean by "cause of binding" that they don't
know why subatomic particles tend to bind to other particles and become
things like atoms, molecules, etc? Hmm. Heh. Well - because they DO?
LOL. Perhaps they DO that based on temperature of the environment - sun
versus on earth?

the neutron, but absolute determination does not allow that method.
That is a relative determination method.

then place the doll on the table. The doll being you method of
absolute calibration. Rumor is that NIST is to use a water
calorimeter.

Well, that was over my head, too, sorry. Imo, it's not like the nucleus of
an atom is "like liquid" - that's just another analogy. The nucleus of an
atom is not like ANYTHING in the big world we inhabit - but neither is a
molecular bond. Analogies are always being made - but imo, some are a lot
easier to grasp and "see" than others.

My way of "seeing" this is well, more analogies - the nucleus of the atom is
made up of subatomic particles that have binded together in that nucleus -
it's sort of like how liquid acts. Some nuclei are heavier than others,
have more particles than others. Surrounding that atom, is a cloud of
electrons, some clouds are denser than others. The number determins WHAT
the thing is, (lead, gold, hydrogen, etc). When the clouds combine with the
clouds of other atoms, molecules form - and so forth. ALL of that is
pictoral, like imagery - all of it is analogy. Using this kind of imagery,
it's pretty easy to explain the basics to people that never studied physics.

Please don't eliminate groups - one physicist I know of tend to READ what's
on one of those groups. He's also a person that knows about
sonoluminescence and was there when they did turn sound into light.

Have fun oout there.

On Dec 28, 4:32*pm, "Tani Jantsang©" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

The air bag w.

A w means the terms application and requires the reader to read. A
symbol to classical theorectical theory form appears the debate of
chance of existance. Quantum mechanical chance was the
interpretation. So the term or word to communicate chance was
Copanhagen. i.e. it is only a Symbol.

Just say word "insert favorite derisive word here" for the chance.
i.e. Copanhagen was a title or renaming of the word chance to exist.
So you know it and acknowledge, but then go one to complain. Mystical
chance was only the debate. The chance debate exists and complaining
of debate is useful only as applies to the term complicated. So your
complaint is the ease of understanding and communicating Copanhagen?
I guss you have two complaints, one the existence of debate and the
other the true ease and not mysticism. I understand youor point, but
the debatte was to then turn to another solution.

Exact formal theory was the abstract collapse in your reply. That is
another formal theory and not Copanhgen. You replied to redirect the
chance to a formal abstract chance. A wavefunction is chance, and
abstracted chance to make the collapse is another theory said once
agian.

It is evidently not hard to follow my wording, but the implication of
my wording then debated. The last sentence is your form of complaint
summarized. Complaint of my comments concerning the neutron.

If you know what the nucleus drop is, it means the abstract functional
collapse is the alternative.

Making you in techical agreement with my comments.

Apparently it is all simple. ain'it.