- #106
Lynch101
Gold Member
- 767
- 85
I guess its partly a question of what our physical models are supposed to represent. If they are meant to model reality then we might think of them as descriptions of what exists in nature or, more pointedely, a description of what nature comprises. If nature comprises quantum systems, then a complete model of nature would have to describe a quantum system. If nature comprises quantum systems prior to measurement then a complete model of nature would require a description of the quantum system prior to measurement.Lord Jestocost said:Even if a quantum entity “exists” prior to a measurement, what would it mean that there is something to be described. At first, one has to state, how the quantum entity exists, i.e., what is the character of its “existence” (realism).** That’s a requirement for a “pictorial representation” in relation to the quantum formalism.
If physical models aren't meant as descriptions of nature, rather computational tools to make predictions about nature, which may or may not represent reality, then that would carry a different set of requirements and consequences.
The anti-realist position represents the symbolic representation and as such, appears to calculate the result of an experiment i.e. it gives us the probabilistic predictions of which measurement will occur. Measurements themselves are classical [level] phenomena, so if QM is only a tool to calcualte macro-level phenomena, to what extent does it describe the quantum world at all? As a computational tool does it just represent the amount of information that we can put into the calculation?Lord Jestocost said:A pictorial representation is a formalism that has an isomorphic relation to the objects it represents such that the visualized structure of the representation corresponds to a similar structure in nature. Conversely, a symbolic representation does not stand for anything visualizable. It is an abstract tool whose function it is to calculate a result whenever this representation is applied to an experimental situation.”
This still leaves us asking the question about the quantum system prior to measurement. Even if there is no quantum system, if it is classical all the way down and it is our lack of information that gives us probabilistic predictions, we still have the question of the system prior to measurement. What happens in the intervening time between switching on our device (which prepares the system) and seeing the exposure event on the Stern-Gerlach plate?
I would be inclined to think that this points to an inability on our part to describe the quantum system as opposed to its lack of "existence", or to put it another way, it's absence from what nature comprises.Lord Jestocost said:** Regarding claims concerning the character of the “existence” of a quantum entity, the problems were clearly expressed by J. Robert Oppenheimer in “Atom and Void: Essays on Science and Community”:
If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say "no"; if we ask whether the electron's position changes with time, we must say "no"; if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say "no"; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say "no."