Does gravity slap us into reality?

[seer]

Alright. Now we have a basis with which to work.

Now, I'll move on to a stripped down analogy similar to the one I made with dice, a few posts back. Let's suppose that I have a coin. I flip the coin, and cover it before anyone can see how it turned up. The coin is showing either heads or tales beneath the covering. The probability that it is showing heads is 50%, and the probability that it is showing tails is 50%.

Now, I remove the covering. We see that the coin is showing heads. Now, the probability that it is showing heads is 100%, and the probability that it is showing tails is 0%.

Do you agree that the simple act of observing the coin changed its probability distribution?

OK, but Sparko makes a good point. Now what?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, but Sparko makes a good point. Now what?

Cool. Now, we get to the good bits.

Experimentation seems to show that quanta behave according to their probability distribution. Changing the probability distribution of a quantum will change its behavior. Since we have just established the manner in which observation alters probability distribution, we have simultaneously established the manner in which observation affects the behavior of quanta.

[seer]

Cool. Now, we get to the good bits.

Experimentation seems to show that quanta behave according to their probability distribution. Changing the probability distribution of a quantum will change its behavior. Since we have just established the manner in which observation alters probability distribution, we have simultaneously established the manner in which observation affects the behavior of quanta.

Again Boxing I'm not sure how this follows from your example. As you agreed the coin is never effected by our knowledge or lack of, does not change the actual position of the coin. It doesn't follow that observation affects the coin in anyway.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Again Boxing I'm not sure how this follows from your example. As you agreed the coin is never effected by our knowledge or lack of, does not change the actual position of the coin. It doesn't follow that observation affects the coin in anyway.

I never said that it affects the "actual position of the coin." I said that it affects the probability distribution of the coin. In exactly the same way, observation affects the probability distribution of the quantum. This part, at least, makes sense, right?

[rogue06]

The coin was always showing the same side, even when covered up. You just didn't know what it was. But in quantum physics the coin would be showing both sides up until you removed the cover. Schroedinger's cat.

[seer]

I never said that it affects the "actual position of the coin." I said that it affects the probability distribution of the coin. In exactly the same way, observation affects the probability distribution of the quantum. This part, at least, makes sense, right?

No it does not make sense if we are speaking of actual positions, which we are. Of actual physical facts.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No it does not make sense if we are speaking of actual positions, which we are. Of actual physical facts.

I'm not talking about positions. I'm talking about probability distributions. Do you understand that observation affects probability distributions?

[Sparko]

I'm not talking about positions. I'm talking about probability distributions. Do you understand that observation affects probability distributions?

Let's say you look under the cup at the coin that was flipped. It is heads. What is the probability that it was heads one second before you looked?

Once you have flipped the coin, the probability is fixed, whether you know what side is up or not. The 50% probability of which side is up only comes into play when you are about to flip the coin. Now the GUESS you make before looking has a 50% chance of being right or wrong, but the coin is already heads or tails whether you look or not. Your looking doesn't affect it's outcome.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Let's say you look under the cup at the coin that was flipped. It is heads. What is the probability that it was heads one second before you looked?

In keeping the analogy with the Copenhagen interpretation, the probability one second before you looked was 50%.

Once you have flipped the coin, the probability is fixed, whether you know what side is up or not. The 50% probability of which side is up only comes into play when you are about to flip the coin. Now the GUESS you make before looking has a 50% chance of being right or wrong, but the coin is already heads or tails whether you look or not. Your looking doesn't affect it's outcome.

You are still conflating the probability distribution and the position of the coin. The probability that it is heads is 50% before you look, and either 100% or 0% after you look.

[seer]

I'm not talking about positions. I'm talking about probability distributions. Do you understand that observation affects probability distributions?

But probability distributions does not affect the actual physical position(s). It only affects what we know or don't.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But probability distributions does not affect the actual physical position(s). It only affects what we know or don't.

We're getting to that part; but first, I need to make sure that you agree that observation affects probability distribution. Otherwise, any further exploration of Copenhagen is fairly useless.

[seer]

We're getting to that part; but first, I need to make sure that you agree that observation affects probability distribution. Otherwise, any further exploration of Copenhagen is fairly useless.

OK, as long as we agree that probability distribution has nothing to do with an actual physical position.

[Sparko]

In keeping the analogy with the Copenhagen interpretation, the probability one second before you looked was 50%.

You are still conflating the probability distribution and the position of the coin. The probability that it is heads is 50% before you look, and either 100% or 0% after you look.

No it was always heads or it would not have been heads when you looked. The only thing that was a 50% probability was whether you were right or not in your guess. If you were to make a bet, you would have a 50% chance of winning, but the coin would still be heads under the cup no matter what.

Now from what I understand of the photon double-slit experiment, the photon is both a wave and particle until you measure it. And the wave pattern proves it so. That is completely unlike the coin scenario.

simple cartoon describing the double-slit experiment.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, as long as we agree that probability distribution has nothing to do with an actual physical position.

Once again, we haven't gotten there, yet. We actually don't agree on that point (at least, insofar as I am explaining the Copenhagen interpretation), but it is first necessary to establish an agreement that probability distributions are affected by observation.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No it was always heads or it would not have been heads when you looked. The only thing that was a 50% probability was whether you were right or not in your guess. If you were to make a bet, you would have a 50% chance of winning, but the coin would still be heads under the cup no matter what.

Once again, you are conflating position ("it was heads immediately after the flip") with the probability distribution ("there is a 0% or 50% or 100% chance that it is heads"). These are two entirely separate concepts.

Now from what I understand of the photon double-slit experiment, the photon is both a wave and particle until you measure it. And the wave pattern proves it so. That is completely unlike the coin scenario.

The "wave" part of wave-particle duality is a description of the probability distribution of the particle. The wave function in Schroedinger's equation is a probability function. Anywhere you see the word "wave" in discussions of Quantum Mechanics, you can substitute the synonym "probability distribution." So, the photon is both a probability distribution and a particle until you measure it.

In fact, I would argue that it is both a probability distribution and a particle after you measure it, as well, but that narrowing a probability distribution to a single possible position yields behavior indistinguishable from a particle. That is to say, particle behavior is a special case of wave behavior.