What you described is more or less consistent with Schrödinger’s views.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, a quantum system is described by a wave function (the probability density of all of its possible states; the cat is maybe dead and maybe alive) until it is observed, at which point it collapses into one of its possible states (the cat is definitively dead or definitively alive).
As far as I can tell, in Schrödinger’s views, there is no superposition and there is no collapse, and a system is described directly by its wave function, which changes over time.
But this is all just interpretation. I don’t even know where to start looking for empirical evidence that supports one or the other, or whether there’s even a point philosophizing about it.
yeah i kind of fundamentally disagree with both interpretations to be honest. both take what ill call a literalist interpretation of the complex statistical math used to describe quantum mechanics. its a conceptual trap usually reserved for novices in other fields, but which for some reason certain people who study quantum mechanics fall into. i think the math is a powerful predictive tool, but that reading too deeply into it and trying to claim that the weirdness literally describes the fundamental nature of reality is a mistake. at the end of the day the whole wave function collapse thing is a statement about our knowledge of the system, not the literal state of it.
like seriously, what idiot would think that a particle stops being a particle just because its not interacting with a measurement device? the simplest answer is that it doesnt, the particle still exists when we arent looking at it, the math just tells us the probability of it being in a given position and velocity. sure theres some structure there which shows up in the experimental results, but that implies that theres stuff going on that we dont understand even if the math correctly predicts it, at least to me.
i think the reason we cant resolve the intepretations one way or the other is partly from dogmatic inertia in the field, which is something that every revolutionary theory of physics falls into eventually, but mostly because we’re running into the fundamental limits of what we can measure using photons interacting with particles. in other words heisenburgs uncertainty principle is in the way.
i wont claim to know what to do about it either, but i think it is important to explore outside the canonical interpretations at this point. lots of the breakthroughs of the past started as philosophical arguments first, so its certainly worth exploring without the burden of established dogma.
What you described is more or less consistent with Schrödinger’s views.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, a quantum system is described by a wave function (the probability density of all of its possible states; the cat is maybe dead and maybe alive) until it is observed, at which point it collapses into one of its possible states (the cat is definitively dead or definitively alive).
As far as I can tell, in Schrödinger’s views, there is no superposition and there is no collapse, and a system is described directly by its wave function, which changes over time.
But this is all just interpretation. I don’t even know where to start looking for empirical evidence that supports one or the other, or whether there’s even a point philosophizing about it.
yeah i kind of fundamentally disagree with both interpretations to be honest. both take what ill call a literalist interpretation of the complex statistical math used to describe quantum mechanics. its a conceptual trap usually reserved for novices in other fields, but which for some reason certain people who study quantum mechanics fall into. i think the math is a powerful predictive tool, but that reading too deeply into it and trying to claim that the weirdness literally describes the fundamental nature of reality is a mistake. at the end of the day the whole wave function collapse thing is a statement about our knowledge of the system, not the literal state of it.
like seriously, what idiot would think that a particle stops being a particle just because its not interacting with a measurement device? the simplest answer is that it doesnt, the particle still exists when we arent looking at it, the math just tells us the probability of it being in a given position and velocity. sure theres some structure there which shows up in the experimental results, but that implies that theres stuff going on that we dont understand even if the math correctly predicts it, at least to me.
i think the reason we cant resolve the intepretations one way or the other is partly from dogmatic inertia in the field, which is something that every revolutionary theory of physics falls into eventually, but mostly because we’re running into the fundamental limits of what we can measure using photons interacting with particles. in other words heisenburgs uncertainty principle is in the way.
i wont claim to know what to do about it either, but i think it is important to explore outside the canonical interpretations at this point. lots of the breakthroughs of the past started as philosophical arguments first, so its certainly worth exploring without the burden of established dogma.