News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Thirty Years of ‘Against Measurement’ by tsimionescu on Friday December 04, 2020 @01:16PM (#25305744)
That still doesn't explain why macroscopic objects behave differently from particles - the measurement problem is currently inescapable. Until you can prove that tunneling happens with chairs or find the interference pattern of bowling balls, the possibility that there is some other phenomenon that we currently don't understand remains open.

You may prefer to believe that quantum rules apply to the macroscopic universe, and that is a valid possibility. Superdeterminism is another possibility that can't be discounted. Perhaps wave function collapse is a physical phenomenon. There are other possibilities, and currently no way to choose between them, so just claiming that one of them is true doesn't make it right.

Not to mention that QM and GR can't both be true, so we know for sure that at least one of them has some flaw. Most believe that the flaw is with GR, but the possibility that QM is falwed remains there.

Re:Thirty Years of ‘Against Measurement’ by aidenn0 on Friday December 04, 2020 @01:48PM (#25306097)
With the exception of gravity, the behavior of macroscopic objects is pretty well understood in a quantum sense.

Probability, when averaged over an astronomical number of cases, becomes certainty. The interference pattern of a bowling ball is a bowling ball! Any single particle in the bowling ball could end up off from the classical, but the aggregate probabilities suggested by the wave function implies classical mechanics.

Re:Thirty Years of ‘Against Measurement’ by tsimionescu on Friday December 04, 2020 @06:23PM (#25309665)
> With the exception of gravity, the behavior of macroscopic objects is pretty well understood in a quantum sense.

The rules of motion of quantum mechanics say that particles move according to the Schrödinger equation, AND that once a particle is measured (i.e. it interacts with a macroscopic device) the particle can be found in some particular place with some probability that can be computed from the Schrodinger equation.

So QM has 2 rules of motion: one for particles which interact only with other particles (the completely deterministic Schrödinger equation) and a different one for particles interacting with macroscopic objects (the Born rule, which assigns probabilities based on the Schrodinger equation).

Exactly what counts as a macroscopic object, i.e. when the Born rule needs to be applied, is an open problem (or if there is some way to account for experimental results without this rule). Until we have some answer to this problem, I wouldn't make too many pronouncements about how QM applies to the macroscopic world.