New Suskind Article on the nature of the Observer Effect

[Dr. Zaus]

I've watched every lecture by Suskind I can get my hands on, now i've read this amazing paper...

"Standard quantum mechanics— Copenhagen quantum mechanics—is set up in a way that requires a single external observer, one who is not part of the system. He, she, or it interacts occa- sionally with the system through a process called measurement, and in so doing collapses the wave function, throwing away all branches other than the one observed. In this view observations are irreversible events which cannot be undone. The method works well in practice but only because reversing a measurement is generally too complex a process to ever be of practical importance.

It is obvious that the Copenhagen Interpretation cannot be the last word. The universe is filled with subsystems, any one of which can play the role of observer. There is no place in the laws of quantum mechanics for wave function collapse; the only thing that happens is that the overall wave function evolves unitarily and becomes more and more entangled. The universe is an immensely complicated network of entangled subsystems, and only in some approximation can we single out a particular subsystem as THE OBSERVER."



http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02589v2.pdf

 

[flexy]

Obviously the expression "external observer" itself is an oxymoron. You either interact with a system - or not. You cannot "externally" observe a system.

Thinking deeper there, in fact you cannot "observe" an undefined system at all if it's the observation which makes/creates reality (which is the case according to QT).

There IS no simultaneous momentum AND position of an particle, for instance. The state of the particle "becomes" via observation. So you cannot "externally observe" the undefined/fuzzy/uncertain system which is still beyond the veil of reality, before things become "real", aka "what we observe"

 

[Moonbeam]

Does not the act of observation cause the observer to disappear?

Isn't to observe to be aware? Isn't awareness awareness of awareness?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Does not the act of observation cause the observer to disappear?

Isn't to observe to be aware? Isn't awareness awareness of awareness?

Observation is a manner of entering a system; with entrance into the superior system coming from wider observation. He covers this with a few examples .

Such as in the case of being aware of being aware.

 

[Charmonium]

There are more than a dozen interpretations of quantum mechanics with Copenhagen, deBroglie and Everet just being 3 of the best known - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The fact of the matter is that QM is so bizarre from the point of view of conventional reality that trying to understand it at all apart from the mathematics is probably a futile effort. It's a little like trying to explain enlightenment to someone who hasn't experienced it.

 

[agent00f]

There are more than a dozen interpretations of quantum mechanics with Copenhagen, deBroglie and Everet just being 3 of the best known - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The fact of the matter is that QM is so bizarre from the point of view of conventional reality that trying to understand it at all apart from the mathematics is probably a futile effort. It's a little like trying to explain enlightenment to someone who hasn't experienced it.

Yes, this is the trap that noobs/laymen to qm fall into. Terms like "observer" and "aware" are just too crude to describe what's actually going in the symbolic math model/description.

The very idea of humans "making sense" of something involves analogizing to other regular things and there's simply nothing else analogous to qm. Or anything sophisticated enough like relativity or "strings" or any equation sufficiently complicated, etc.

To me, there's also a very interesting question which arises out of "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics": given we're able to unveil a rather rich tapestry often beyond our intuition with relatively simple math, what else is really out that's not so simple?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Yes, this is the trap that noobs/laymen to qm fall into. Terms like "observer" and "aware" are just too crude to describe what's actually going in the symbolic math model/description.

The very idea of humans "making sense" of something involves analogizing to other regular things and there's simply nothing else analogous to qm. Or anything sophisticated enough like relativity or "strings" or any equation sufficiently complicated, etc.

To me, there's also a very interesting question which arises out of "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics": given we're able to unveil a rather rich tapestry often beyond our intuition with relatively simple math, what else is really out that's not so simple?

I've noticed that I can deliver economics and continental philosophy in one, accessible, one hour lecture. It still takes me about 45min to deliver Bayesian statistics, but my fluency is improving.

I suspect that the pretend-professors (who likely have a Ph.D. and tenure) don't actually know what they are talking about because they can't explain it simply.

This is why i'm drawn to the lectures of Suskind, he shows the kind of intuitive understanding that shows clearly his underlying knowledge.

 

[agent00f]

I've noticed that I can deliver economics and continental philosophy in one, accessible, one hour lecture. It still takes me about 45min to deliver Bayesian statistics, but my fluency is improving.

I suspect that the pretend-professors (who likely have a Ph.D. and tenure) don't actually know what they are talking about because they can't explain it simply.

This is why i'm drawn to the lectures of Suskind, he shows the kind of intuitive understanding that shows clearly his underlying knowledge.

The point is qm can be beguiling like this to laymen. Consider the words of Richard Feymann on the matter: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.", and this was in comparison to rather more accessible relativity.

He's one of the smarter physicists to have lived, and something of an authority on the subject.

On somewhat less complex subjects, while it's certainly possible to intro some basic econ concept in X lectures (or even qm, really), this is a somewhat arbitrary metric whose reach largely depends on the audience on hand.