Re: The Measurement Problem finally solved?

From: tadchem (thomas.davidson_at_dla.mil)
Date: 03/11/05 

Date: 11 Mar 2005 11:03:01 -0800

MauritsvandenNoort wrote:
> The Measurement Problem finally solved

Such a broadly and authoritatively phrased title betrays more ego than
accuracy.

> Maurits W. Van den Noort*
>
> *Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of
> Bergen, Jonas Lies vei 91, Bergen 5009, Norway

[an interesting position to be held by someone who seems to feel
qualified to pontificate on the basis of QM - I'd sooner believe a
patent clerk]

> Quantum Mechanics describes the deterministic unitary
> evolution of a wave function.

"(T)he deterministic unitary evolution of a wave function" is a phrase
I can honestly say I have *never* previously encountered in several
decades of work and study in chemistry, physics, and mathematics. I
would be interested to learn if it has a well-established definition in
math/chemistry/physics.

Please tell us WTF* you are jabbering about.

(as you are probably not a native speaker of English, I should explain
here that "WTF" is a term in Usenet and Internet use - an acronym for
an English phrase that may politely be reduced to the subordinate
conjunction "what")

> The wave function allows us to compute
> the probability that certain macroscopic events can be observed. In
> the mathematical model, there are no events and there is no mechanism
> for creating events.

Your education in QM evidently never got that far. The mathematical
model *does* include events and mechanisms for initiating changes.
Unfortunately for those who persistently maintain a classical approach
to physics, the causal mechanisms in QM are *not* deterministic.

<snip>

> In Quantum
> Mechanics, the mathematical model by itself never produces
> observations.

No. QM readily makes quite *precise* mathematical predictions about the
vaues of observable quantities. "Observations" require the volitional
act of an *observer,* which QM does not provide, nor is it intended to.

> We must interpret the wave function in order to relate
> it to experimental observations.

The elegance of empirical science is that a well-crafted theory
produces predictions regarding the values of observables. These
predictions can then be independently tested by other observers working
with the same theory. If the results of theoretical predictions are
inconsistent with each other or the observations, the theory is
questioned - by all.

"Mother Nature" provides the ultimate interpretations of the theory as
a 'right or wrong' judgement of the accuracy of theoretical
predictions.

> From the beginning of Quantum
> Mechanics, the concept of measurement has proved a source of
> difficulty.

...not really. A standard is selected. An observation is made. The
observation is compared to the standard. The rest is in the details.

> In this paper, I

...ATTEMPT TO...

> show that the solution to the
> measurement problem lies not in a special role for consciousness, but
> in unconscious information processing of the observer

Given that "the measurement problem", "consciousness", and "unconscious
information processing" have not even been provided with operational
definitions - satisfactory for use by independent investigators to
independently and replicably identify any specific instance of any of
the terms - I suspect your efforts are doomed from the start.

<snip>

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Quantcast