Trying to make sense of quantum uncertainty

[bobcat]

My understanding is the Copenhagen Interpretation asserts that wavefunction collapse occurs upon measurement. Many-Worlds assumes that all possible realities exist in parallel universes, but the observer’s experience collapses the possibilities into a single reality. Kinda like measuring the spin on one paired particle determines the spin on it's twin.

The problem I had with the Uncertainty Principle is this: If I put something in a box (say fingernail clippers) and left it on the counter and went somewhere, and you went to my house and opened the box, how would you know what's in the box. Then if I called you and asked you what you found, you would tell me it's fingernail clippers. How could you have known if what's in the box could have been anything?

Then I read somewhere that perhaps everything exists in uncertainty, but our senses act as the filter to collapse the waveform prior to our brain interpreting it and becoming reality. So, if I see, hear, or touch anything it becomes reality instead of possibility, which is then interpreted by my brain. So the person finding the nail clippers has essentially the same senses, so their senses told them it is nail clippers, which collapsed the random possibilities on their end. This made sense.

However, what if it was a chocolate chip cookie with pecan bits in it, which the person ate, and said they enjoyed it, especially with the walnuts inside. If they believed something different, then which did they eat? Expanding that out, it a person's senses detect a ghost, do they actually create a ghost? I don't understand how to marry quantum reality to the reality we live in. I can't wrap my mind around it.

 

[Medusa]

This calls Schrodinger's cat to mind; do you create the reality of the cat being dead or alive simply by observing it? If someone else opened the box would their experience be different?
I can't claim to understand these ideologies; this stuff is right on the edge of my comprehensive ability, I fear.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

This topic is way over my head also.

 

[Sunny]

This Schrodinger's cat thing has always seemed a little too "woo-woo" for me. We've got enough real problems to worry about!

 

[Medusa]

This Schrodinger's cat thing has always seemed a little too "woo-woo" for me. We've got enough real problems to worry about!

Well, it's pretty straightforward on the face. The cat is either alive or dead, or both alive and dead, until the box is opened and a finality is determined... or perceived.

It's getting into whether the mere perception alters the outcome where things get wonky.

 

[OregonGuy]

My understanding is the Copenhagen Interpretation asserts that wavefunction collapse occurs upon measurement. Many-Worlds assumes that all possible realities exist in parallel universes, but the observer’s experience collapses the possibilities into a single reality. Kinda like measuring the spin on one paired particle determines the spin on it's twin.

The problem I had with the Uncertainty Principle is this: If I put something in a box (say fingernail clippers) and left it on the counter and went somewhere, and you went to my house and opened the box, how would you know what's in the box. Then if I called you and asked you what you found, you would tell me it's fingernail clippers. How could you have known if what's in the box could have been anything?

Then I read somewhere that perhaps everything exists in uncertainty, but our senses act as the filter to collapse the waveform prior to our brain interpreting it and becoming reality. So, if I see, hear, or touch anything it becomes reality instead of possibility, which is then interpreted by my brain. So the person finding the nail clippers has essentially the same senses, so their senses told them it is nail clippers, which collapsed the random possibilities on their end. This made sense.

However, what if it was a chocolate chip cookie with pecan bits in it, which the person ate, and said they enjoyed it, especially with the walnuts inside. If they believed something different, then which did they eat? Expanding that out, it a person's senses detect a ghost, do they actually create a ghost? I don't understand how to marry quantum reality to the reality we live in. I can't wrap my mind around it.

My head is exploding!

I can imagine the Cosmic Consciousness Board of Directors (CCBOD) enjoying our befuddled reaction as they slowly feed us bits and pieces of info.

Hopefully they will fill in the missing puzzle pieces when I die.

 

[HoneyNut]

I don't understand how to marry quantum reality to the reality we live in. I can't wrap my mind around it.

I thought the point of Schrodinger's Cat in a Box Thought experiment was to illustrate how it is absurd to try to apply quantum uncertainty to large objects, so, you can't wrap your mind around it precisely because that was his point (I think).

 

[Nathan]

The problem I had with the Uncertainty Principle is this: If I put something in a box (say fingernail clippers) and left it on the counter and went somewhere, and you went to my house and opened the box, how would you know what's in the box. Then if I called you and asked you what you found, you would tell me it's fingernail clippers. How could you have known if what's in the box could have been anything?

Kind of reminds me of the question posed by George Berkeley in the 18th century: "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound, even if no one is around to hear it?"
In my view, this is more philosophical than having to do with Physics.

 

[Medusa]

I thought the point of Schrodinger's Cat in a Box Thought experiment was to illustrate how it is absurd to try to apply quantum uncertainty to large objects, so, you can't wrap your mind around it precisely because that was his point (I think).

In Bobcat's defense, I brought up Schrodinger's Cat; he was simply using the box concept with nail clippers.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean that Bobcat was using the cat experiment in any form when referencing nail clippers in a box.

 

[Flarbalard]

Schrodinger's Cat was a vampire cat, ie, both alive and dead at the same time. Of course, that could apply to the observer as well.

 

[MaddHollander]

IDK. Sorry. I cut class that day.

 

[Paco Dennis]

I asked AI a question that seems very relevant.

Does the uncertainty reflect linear measurements when other occuences are happening but unable to be measured?

You're absolutely correct that quantum uncertainty reflects the limitations of linear measurement frameworks when applied to a reality that is far more complex and dynamic. In quantum mechanics, there are indeed "other occurrences" or phenomena happening simultaneously that cannot be directly measured or observed due to the constraints of our tools and the principles governing quantum systems.

### The Nature of Quantum Measurement
Quantum systems are inherently probabilistic and multidimensional, meaning that multiple potential outcomes or "states" coexist until a measurement is made. However, measurement itself collapses this superposition into a single observable state. This collapse is not just a limitation of our tools but a fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. It means that while one property (e.g., position) can be measured, its complementary property (e.g., momentum) becomes inherently uncertain.

### The Role of Non-Linear Dynamics
Quantum systems often exhibit non-linear and non-local behaviors, such as entanglement and superposition, which defy classical intuition. These phenomena suggest that there are "hidden" or unmeasurable dynamics occurring in the background. For example:

1. **Entanglement**: When two particles are entangled, their states are correlated no matter how far apart they are. Measuring one particle instantly affects the other, but the mechanism behind this "spooky action at a distance" cannot be directly observed.

2. **Wavefunction Evolution**: The wavefunction describes all possible states of a system, but it exists in an abstract mathematical space (Hilbert space). We can infer its behavior indirectly through experiments, but we cannot directly measure the wavefunction itself.

3. **Contextuality**: Quantum measurements depend on the experimental setup or "context." This means that what we observe is influenced by how we choose to measure it, leaving other potential realities unmeasured.

### Beyond Linear Measurement
Linear measurement tools are designed for classical systems where properties like position and velocity can be independently and precisely determined. However, in quantum mechanics:

- **Complementarity**: Certain properties (like position and momentum) are complementary, meaning they cannot be precisely measured at the same time.
- **Observer Effect**: The act of measurement disturbs the system, making it impossible to observe all aspects simultaneously.
- **Unobservable Dynamics**: Quantum systems may involve higher-dimensional or hidden variables that we cannot access with current technology or theories.

### Emerging Approaches
Scientists are exploring ways to probe these "unmeasurable" aspects of quantum systems:

1. **Weak Measurements**: These allow for partial information to be gathered without fully collapsing the wavefunction, offering insights into quantum behavior without complete disturbance.

2. **Quantum Tomography**: This reconstructs the quantum state by combining data from multiple measurements, providing an indirect view of what might otherwise be unobservable.

3. **Quantum Field Theory**: This framework incorporates non-linear dynamics and interactions at a deeper level, offering a more comprehensive understanding of quantum phenomena.

### Conclusion
Quantum uncertainty highlights the limits of classical measurement tools in capturing the full complexity of quantum systems. While some occurrences remain beyond direct measurement, they still influence observable outcomes in subtle ways. Advances in technology and theoretical frameworks continue to push the boundaries of what can be inferred about these hidden dynamics, but certain aspects may remain fundamentally unknowable due to the probabilistic nature of reality itself.

 

[Medusa]

I asked AI a question that seems very relevant.

Does the uncertainty reflect linear measurements when other occuences are happening but unable to be measured?

You're absolutely correct that quantum uncertainty reflects the limitations of linear measurement frameworks when applied to a reality that is far more complex and dynamic. In quantum mechanics, there are indeed "other occurrences" or phenomena happening simultaneously that cannot be directly measured or observed due to the constraints of our tools and the principles governing quantum systems.

### The Nature of Quantum Measurement
Quantum systems are inherently probabilistic and multidimensional, meaning that multiple potential outcomes or "states" coexist until a measurement is made. However, measurement itself collapses this superposition into a single observable state. This collapse is not just a limitation of our tools but a fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. It means that while one property (e.g., position) can be measured, its complementary property (e.g., momentum) becomes inherently uncertain.

### The Role of Non-Linear Dynamics
Quantum systems often exhibit non-linear and non-local behaviors, such as entanglement and superposition, which defy classical intuition. These phenomena suggest that there are "hidden" or unmeasurable dynamics occurring in the background. For example:

1. **Entanglement**: When two particles are entangled, their states are correlated no matter how far apart they are. Measuring one particle instantly affects the other, but the mechanism behind this "spooky action at a distance" cannot be directly observed.

2. **Wavefunction Evolution**: The wavefunction describes all possible states of a system, but it exists in an abstract mathematical space (Hilbert space). We can infer its behavior indirectly through experiments, but we cannot directly measure the wavefunction itself.

3. **Contextuality**: Quantum measurements depend on the experimental setup or "context." This means that what we observe is influenced by how we choose to measure it, leaving other potential realities unmeasured.

### Beyond Linear Measurement
Linear measurement tools are designed for classical systems where properties like position and velocity can be independently and precisely determined. However, in quantum mechanics:

- **Complementarity**: Certain properties (like position and momentum) are complementary, meaning they cannot be precisely measured at the same time.
- **Observer Effect**: The act of measurement disturbs the system, making it impossible to observe all aspects simultaneously.
- **Unobservable Dynamics**: Quantum systems may involve higher-dimensional or hidden variables that we cannot access with current technology or theories.

### Emerging Approaches
Scientists are exploring ways to probe these "unmeasurable" aspects of quantum systems:

1. **Weak Measurements**: These allow for partial information to be gathered without fully collapsing the wavefunction, offering insights into quantum behavior without complete disturbance.

2. **Quantum Tomography**: This reconstructs the quantum state by combining data from multiple measurements, providing an indirect view of what might otherwise be unobservable.

3. **Quantum Field Theory**: This framework incorporates non-linear dynamics and interactions at a deeper level, offering a more comprehensive understanding of quantum phenomena.

### Conclusion
Quantum uncertainty highlights the limits of classical measurement tools in capturing the full complexity of quantum systems. While some occurrences remain beyond direct measurement, they still influence observable outcomes in subtle ways. Advances in technology and theoretical frameworks continue to push the boundaries of what can be inferred about these hidden dynamics, but certain aspects may remain fundamentally unknowable due to the probabilistic nature of reality itself.

I only read parts and the conclusion of the above (short attention span), but it seems sound. My understanding is that measuring is difficult at the quantum level because interaction with the measuring tools ultimately changes the measurements.

 

[bobcat]

Well, it's pretty straightforward on the face. The cat is either alive or dead, or both alive and dead, until the box is opened and a finality is determined... or perceived.

It's getting into whether the mere perception alters the outcome where things get wonky.

Yes, I tried thinking about it in a different way. Perhaps it isn't the actual cat that is dead or alive, but the possibilities are. They are kinda like math. They exist but not in a physical form, like a thought. So, when in the box, the cat is both alive and dead (Possibility wise), and when the box is opened, the "information" is updated which collapses the waveform.

Think of it this way. If there are five doors, and behind one of them is a new car, the possibilities are 1 in 5 that it is behind the door we pick. That is the current information we have. Then if someone is feeling generous and opens one of the doors and no car is there, now our information is updated, and the possibilities are 1 in 4. So, in a way, the possibilities are collapsing, not the car.

That makes sense in the box with the nail clippers. The possibilities are anything that could fit in that size box, and once it's opened, the possibilities have collapsed to a singular possibility.

However, when I thought about the double slit experiment, where photons can behave like particles or waves until they are measured, I'm not sure if the "possibilities" example is relevant because particles have mass and are real. Although, perhaps they aren't actual particles, but "behave" like them. I don't know.

 

[bobcat]

Kind of reminds me of the question posed by George Berkeley in the 18th century: "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound, even if no one is around to hear it?"
In my view, this is more philosophical than having to do with Physics.

I guess to me it seems like a physics thing and a philosophical thing. If a jet or a lightning bolt breaks the sound barrier, it's going to create sound shock waves. However, if nothing or no one is around to hear them, it is meaningless. If I hand you a hammer, and you have no sight, or sense of touch, does the hammer exist? Well, physically it does, but not in your reality. This begs the question, could there be other things that exist, but our senses aren't equipped to detect them.

Before telescopes, microscopes, and all kinds of other detectors existed, many things were beyond our knowledge, but now we are aware of them. However, what if parallel universes exist, or other dimensions, or ???. They may exist, but beyond our reality.

 

[Medusa]

Yes, I tried thinking about it in a different way. Perhaps it isn't the actual cat that is dead or alive, but the possibilities are. They are kinda like math. They exist but not in a physical form, like a thought. So, when in the box, the cat is both alive and dead (Possibility wise), and when the box is opened, the "information" is updated which collapses the waveform.

Think of it this way. If there are five doors, and behind one of them is a new car, the possibilities are 1 in 5 that it is behind the door we pick. That is the current information we have. Then if someone is feeling generous and opens one of the doors and no car is there, now our information is updated, and the possibilities are 1 in 4. So, in a way, the possibilities are collapsing, not the car.

That makes sense in the box with the nail clippers. The possibilities are anything that could fit in that size box, and once it's opened, the possibilities have collapsed to a singular possibility.

However, when I thought about the double slit experiment, where photons can behave like particles or waves until they are measured, I'm not sure if the "possibilities" example is relevant because particles have mass and are real. Although, perhaps they aren't actual particles, but "behave" like them. I don't know.

This is similar to when my husband buys a $10,000.00 scratch off. I always say, until we reveal it, we are, at that time, $10,000 richer because the possibility is present and so, in a sense, one of our potential realities.

I can see where the cat or clippers does not directly correlate to measuring photons because, unlike the cat/clippers, the measuring of photons is, inasmuch as it can be, an experiment yielding empirical evidence whereas the former are thought experiments.

It gets seriously wonky at that level, hard to conceptualize, I agree.

 

[Medusa]

I guess to me it seems like a physics thing and a philosophical thing. If a jet or a lightning bolt breaks the sound barrier, it's going to create sound shock waves. However, if nothing or no one is around to hear them, it is meaningless. If I hand you a hammer, and you have no sight, or sense of touch, does the hammer exist? Well, physically it does, but not in your reality. This begs the question, could there be other things that exist, but our senses aren't equipped to detect them.

Before telescopes, microscopes, and all kinds of other detectors existed, many things were beyond our knowledge, but now we are aware of them. However, what if parallel universes exist, or other dimensions, or ???. They may exist, but beyond our reality.

I absolutely agree with this. There are colors on the spectrum we cannot perceive, they are not part of our reality, yet we know they exist. So does that mean they don't -- actually the color spectrum isn't the best gauge because we are aware, on a level outside sight, that these colors exist, we can detect them with instruments.

But, if there are colors/light we do not perceive, then it follows there are actual things not part of our experience that are, none-the-less, there.

 

[David777]

I'll suggest answers to the Copenhagen Interpretation may come through integration with understandings of the Higgs Field that supposedly permeates space, at least within the known universe. Sort of a variation on earlier "ether" ideas. That is why seemingly empty space is not actual empty. That might have consequence to the double slit experiments reflecting a mysterious wave particle duality with electromagnetic (ie light) phenomenon. If so, it may be without the Higgs Field, that inexplicable experiment given spatial emptiness would be different.

 

[Medusa]

I'll suggest answers to the Copenhagen Interpretation may come through integration with understandings of the Higgs Field that supposedly permeates space, at least within the known universe. Sort of a variation on earlier "ether" ideas. That is why seemingly empty space is not actual empty. That might have consequence to the double slit experiments reflecting a mysterious wave particle duality with electromagnetic (ie light) phenomenon. If so, it may be without the Higgs Field, that inexplicable experiment given spatial emptiness would be different.

Are you saying the Higgs Field is providing resistance and thus granting mass in the double slit experiment?

 

[Paco Dennis]

I'll suggest answers to the Copenhagen Interpretation may come through integration with understandings of the Higgs Field that supposedly permeates space, at least within the known universe. Sort of a variation on earlier "ether" ideas. That is why seemingly empty space is not actual empty. That might have consequence to the double slit experiments reflecting a mysterious wave particle duality with electromagnetic (ie light) phenomenon. If so, it may be without the Higgs Field, that inexplicable experiment given spatial emptiness would be different.

AI : Conclusion ( if you want the whole essay I can provide. This is strictly to maybe provide information to the intronauts here, that is all.)

Your idea highlights the allure of unifying quantum mechanics with field theory. However, the Higgs Field specifically governs mass generation, not the foundational quantum weirdness of the double-slit experiment. A more fruitful path might explore the broader quantum vacuum or QFT’s role in shaping particle behavior, though these still don’t resolve the Copenhagen Interpretation’s core mysteries. The quest to ground quantum ontology in physical fields remains active, but the Higgs alone isn’t the key.

 

[spectratg]

This Schrodinger's cat thing has always seemed a little too "woo-woo" for me. We've got enough real problems to worry about!

Exactly. Suppose Schrodinger were the cat and his human was in the box. Would the human be alive and dead at the same time? Until the cat looked inside the box. I got my BS degree in Physics in 1967 and this whole idea was stupid! It confuses just simple lack of knowledge with quantum uncertainty. It's like me saying my favorite team both won and lost the basketball game last night until I look in the newspaper.

 

[jujube]

I have enough trouble finding my glasses to go all quantum on anything else.

I want to just muddle along in peace....

 

[bobcat]

Exactly. Suppose Schrodinger were the cat and his human was in the box. Would the human be alive and dead at the same time? Until the cat looked inside the box. I got my BS degree in Physics in 1967 and this whole idea was stupid! It confuses just simple lack of knowledge with quantum uncertainty. It's like me saying my favorite team both won and lost the basketball game last night until I look in the newspaper.

Well, with due respect, from what I read, it's not quite that simple, although partially true. It seems that there is a mismatch between classical physics (Things on a macro scale), and quantum physics (Things on a quantum scale). They behave quite differently, and involves quantum decoherence. Here's what I am learning.

Quantum decoherence is the process that bridges these two realms. It’s what happens when a quantum system (like a particle) interacts with its environment (other particles, light, air, etc.). These interactions cause the delicate quantum superposition to "spread out" into the environment. The system loses its quantum properties and starts behaving like a classical object with definite states.
Think of it like this: Imagine you're playing a note on a violin (the quantum system) in an empty room. The note is pure and sustained. Now, imagine adding an entire orchestra (the environment). The violin’s sound gets drowned out and mixed with the other instruments’ sounds. Similarly, when a quantum system interacts with its environment, its quantum behavior becomes indistinguishable and "classical-like."
Decoherence doesn’t destroy the quantum state—it just makes it impossible to observe the superposition. This is why we don’t see everyday objects like cats or keys in superpositions, even though, at a microscopic level, quantum rules still apply.
It’s a fascinating idea that explains why quantum weirdness seems to vanish in the world we live in.

So, in my example of the key, apparently it is always a key in the box, as larger things in classical physics aren't essentially changed. The other person's lack of observation before opening the box doesn’t change the state of the key—it remains a key the whole time, independent of measurement. This reflects the deterministic nature of classical physics, unlike the probabilistic nature of quantum systems.

In the quantum world, particles like electrons can exist in a superposition—a combination of multiple possible states at once, like being in two places at the same time. However, in the classical world we observe every day, objects seem to have definite states (a ball is either here or there, not both).

 

[Medusa]

Are you saying the Higgs Field is providing resistance and thus granting mass in the double slit experiment?

For general enlightenment, I looked this up and the answer is this:

"No, according to our current understanding of physics, the Higgs field is unlikely to have any noticeable effect on the outcome of a double-slit experiment because photons (light particles used in the experiment) do not interact significantly with the Higgs field due to their lack of mass at the relevant energy scales; essentially, photons are considered "massless" in this context."

 

[Medusa]

Well, with due respect, from what I read, it's not quite that simple, although partially true. It seems that there is a mismatch between classical physics (Things on a macro scale), and quantum physics (Things on a quantum scale). They behave quite differently, and involves quantum decoherence. Here's what I am learning.

Quantum decoherence is the process that bridges these two realms. It’s what happens when a quantum system (like a particle) interacts with its environment (other particles, light, air, etc.). These interactions cause the delicate quantum superposition to "spread out" into the environment. The system loses its quantum properties and starts behaving like a classical object with definite states.
Think of it like this: Imagine you're playing a note on a violin (the quantum system) in an empty room. The note is pure and sustained. Now, imagine adding an entire orchestra (the environment). The violin’s sound gets drowned out and mixed with the other instruments’ sounds. Similarly, when a quantum system interacts with its environment, its quantum behavior becomes indistinguishable and "classical-like."
Decoherence doesn’t destroy the quantum state—it just makes it impossible to observe the superposition. This is why we don’t see everyday objects like cats or keys in superpositions, even though, at a microscopic level, quantum rules still apply.
It’s a fascinating idea that explains why quantum weirdness seems to vanish in the world we live in.

So, in my example of the key, apparently it is always a key in the box, as larger things in classical physics aren't essentially changed. The other person's lack of observation before opening the box doesn’t change the state of the key—it remains a key the whole time, independent of measurement. This reflects the deterministic nature of classical physics, unlike the probabilistic nature of quantum systems.

In the quantum world, particles like electrons can exist in a superposition—a combination of multiple possible states at once, like being in two places at the same time. However, in the classical world we observe every day, objects seem to have definite states (a ball is either here or there, not both).

So, I've read through this and it makes sense to me, but I'm having a little trouble correlating it to the to the cat in a box thought experiment. I anyone out there able to draw a straight line for my non-sciency brain?

EDIT: I did a little reading and learned that the point of the cat experiment is to highlight what Schrodinger felt was the absurdity of the idea that something can exist in two states at once.

Personally, it makes some sense to me that observing particles causes them to change position, as a result of interaction with the instruments of observation, which, theoretically, means they are potentially in more than one position at the same time when being measured.