Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 14, 2021 at 18:57 comment added Chiral Anomaly @Vadim The purpose of my comments was to request clarification about how your original comment is relevant to the OP, because the word "classical" can mean several different things. I wasn't trying to answer the OP's question. I'll move on. I deleted my earlier comments to reduce clutter.
May 14, 2021 at 17:59 comment added Roger V. @ChiralAnomaly I think my previous comment answers your question. I also think that your comments are not relevant to the OP.
May 14, 2021 at 14:59 comment added Roger V. @ChiralAnomaly Observer is postulated to be a classical object, which destroyes the superposition (causes "wave function collapse"). Trying to use a theory self-consistently to describe its postulate is circular logic. But yes, once we believe in QM, we say that observer is a macroscopic, thermodynamic, etc.
May 14, 2021 at 7:42 answer added Deschele Schilder timeline score: 1
May 14, 2021 at 7:38 comment added Samarth I'm sorry if that's so. He just said that and went on. Anyways, saying that change in the state of only one entity (observer or system) would be wrong? That does sound more logical. Thanks!
May 14, 2021 at 7:34 history edited Qmechanic CC BY-SA 4.0
edited tags; edited title; edited tags
May 14, 2021 at 7:34 comment added Roger V. The two statements seem to me somewhat incomplete as formulated. The state of observer changes, and the state of system also changes. If the state of observer didn't change we would measure nothing. But observer is classical - it is not described by a wave function.
May 14, 2021 at 7:30 comment added Samarth So that means both the statements are not equal?
May 14, 2021 at 7:13 comment added Roger V. "Observer" is a classical object.
May 14, 2021 at 7:10 history asked Samarth CC BY-SA 4.0