The moon is shining, even in Copenhagen

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics is so named because the main center where it was developed in the 1920s under the leadership of Neils Bohr was based in the city of Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of all things quantum states that it is inappropriate to speculate on the existence and properties of any object until such time as the object in question (its wave function) is actually observed and measured. Then, and only then, the probability that this or that exists and the properties it possesses become certainties. This is called a collapse of the wave function. The classic example is that an electron could be here, it could be there, it could be anywhere. The electron may be in an upward spin state, or perhaps in a downward spin state. Only one measurement or observation will solve the problems. Ultimately, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the observer (taken as self-evident as human) is the whole and the end; the supreme referee, judge, jury and executioner.

The opposite of the classic example, proposed by the physicist Erwin Schrodinger as a contempt for the Copenhagen Interpretation, illustrating the absurdity of all this, was Schrodinger’s cat. The gist of this thought experiment (no animals were actually involved, so animal lovers can breathe easy) was that there would be some kind of quantum event (like a radioactive decay event) that had a 50-50 probability. to happen in an hour. . If the event were to happen, it would trigger a chain of events that would cause the death of a cat trapped inside an opaque sealed box. If the quantum event did not happen, the cat would be alive inside the sealed box. The question is, after an hour, is the cat alive or dead? Without an observer, the Copenhagen Interpretation says that in the absence of an observer, there is an overlap of states. In one state the cat is dead; in the other state, the cat is alive. In other words, the cat is alive until an observer observes, and the 50-50 probability becomes 100% certain.

There is an interesting variation on that cat thought experiment. Let’s say the cat in the box is in a room and I am also in the room, and after an hour I look in the box and determine if the animal is alive or dead. But, let’s say you’re out of the room when I do that. As far as you are concerned, the cat’s wave function has not collapsed and the cat is still alive. So you have to watch too! But then what about a third party in another room in the house, then the next door neighbor, and thus other residents of the city, then the state, then the country, and then the whole world? Of course, the cat would be in limbo in a dead life state with the aliens on another planet until they looked, and so on. In fact, taken to a logical extreme, nothing has reality until the entire Universe watches, which is again (IMHO) absurd as it could take billions of years for that cat’s observation to reach the farthest regions of the cosmos!

In the quantum world, there can be a state superposition. Something can be and not be at the same time (like wave-particle duality); only measurement or observation can decide whether or not it will be. Since the macro (like a cat) is made up of the micro (the realm of the quantum), until observed, the cat can be (dead) and not be (dead).

Similarly, for those who argue that nothing is real unless something is observed, they would argue, for example, that the Moon dissolves into quantum uncertainty, the Moon is and is not, if no one is really looking at the Moon! ! As soon as someone looks at the Moon, it solidifies back into physical reality, it is. The absurdity (again IMHO) about that is that if the Moon were to vanish in quantum uncertainty, that would wreak havoc on the tides and be noticed. Perhaps observing the tides is enough to give reality to the Moon without actually observing the Moon! I will return to that point shortly.

The Copenhagen Interpretation, translated and brought to its logical conclusion, is that if no one is looking at the Moon, does it exist? Can the Moon be in a superposition of states, having existence and not existing simultaneously? That was a quasi question posed by Albert Einstein when he, also in opposition to the Copenhagen Interpretation, considered that he would like to believe or think that the Moon existed even if no one was looking at it. [Presumably the memory of a prior observation doesn’t count.] Well, Professor Einstein, it does!

That the Moon does not exist if nobody looks at it is nonsense from several points of view. First of all, common sense: can anyone really doubt that something they are infinitely familiar with, let’s say your partner (or the Moon) does not exist or does not have the properties that you associate with him / her (or the Moon? )? why are you not watching them?

It is reasonable for anything that is biological and living to observe itself. So even if you are not observing your partner and therefore could deny the existence of your partner, your partner is observing himself / herself and therefore would argue very strongly that he / she exists. That makes that point mute.

No one has defined exactly what constitutes an observer. Can it be a living thing like a plant or bacteria, or does it have to have a sophisticated nervous system (increased sensory capacity)? Maybe there has to be a complex brain inside it. Perhaps an observer is only a genuine observer if he has intelligence, but what degree of intelligence? A one-day-old baby or someone with brain damage may look in the box and see Schrodinger’s cat, but he does not have the ability to understand what he is seeing. Does it have to be human? What about an artificial intelligence? So what is an observer? Can you be less than a human, but still an organic way of life, let’s say your dog, or what about a fish? gold an insect; or does it have a microbe? Can something inorganic be a genuine observer? What about inorganic things like a Geiger counter or a thermometer? I would say that an electron can be as genuine an observer as a human.

For example, let’s say the Sun emits a photon that is directed towards us. Unfortunately, the Moon is in the way (solar eclipse) and therefore the photon is thwarted, its way to Earth is blocked. From that photon’s point of view, the Moon exists, even if no one on Earth was observing the solar eclipse (highly unlikely, but possible for the sake of argument).

The curve ball in all of this is that there is more than one way to look. The assumption is that by observing we are using one or more of our five senses, usually sight. I suggest that in fact every particle / object in the observable universe is observing every other particle / object in the observable universe, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Translated, even when your partner (or the Moon) is out of sight (and hearing, etc.), you are still watching him (or are), even if you are not aware of it!

Why? How? Does the Moon exist if you are not observing the Moon, but are observing the rising (or falling) tide? There is causality between the two. So, observing the tides is, in effect, observing the Moon, or at least one of its properties: gravity. And therein lies the solution to Einstein’s quasi-question.

You have dough. The Moon has mass. Any two masses are attracted to each other through gravitational force. Therefore, he “feels” the gravitational pull of the Moon; the Moon “feels” your gravitational pull. Therefore, even as you read these words, you are ‘watching’ the Moon. You have observed the Moon 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from the moment you were conceived.

The observer problem, the Copenhagen Interpretation, is a furfism, since everything that has mass observes everything else that has mass, all the time, gravitationally.

This explains how the Universe got along and evolved very well, thank you very much, during all those eons before biological observers arrived on the scene. The Universe existed and had properties before the origin of any life, anywhere, since observers don’t have to be alive! However, there are those who believe and would argue that the entire Universe exists (has reality) just because there are observers to observe or measure it. Clearly, the Universe was in a lifeless state and evolved in a lifeless state from Day One (the Big Bang event) through several billion years at least. That is, there were no biological observers. The Universe had to exist in a prebiological observer stage to evolve the complexity required to produce biological observers. A primitive Universe consisting only of hydrogen, helium, and radiation does not hack it as long as it is a suitable environment for biological observers. So in terms of this question of the chicken or the egg, the question of the Universe or the biological observer, the answer must clearly fall on the side of the Universe. The Universe can exist with or without biological observers; Biological observers exist only because there is a Universe.

So the resolution of Schrodinger’s cat is as follows (and no human observers are required). As long as the cat is alive, the cat observes itself. If the cat is dead, those parts that make up the cat’s body are observers when they notice that the organism is now dead because the interactions in which it participates have been altered. Furthermore, the interactions between the dead cat and all the particles surrounding the dead animal can also be considered genuine observers.

Conclusion: The definitive observer, who is everything and the end of everything; that ultimate arbiter, judge, jury, and executioner reside within that abstract sentence, ‘Mother Nature’ – which is anything and everything, anywhere and anywhere, at any time and at all times; at all times. I think observers and measurements have a lot to do with reality, existence, and how things work on a macro or micro scale. The proof for that pudding, if necessary, is that radioactive substances decay with a measured half-life. The whole science of radioactive dating depends on this. And radioactive elements decay whether or not observers are present; they do; they are going to.