Empirical evidence is no longer limited to sensory perception. We have better instruments, along with an instrumentation problem, which is one facet of the limitations of science.
It's interesting to read some of Dirac's early lectures on quantum mechanics, because he describes the statistical nature of it, and the uncertainty principle, as resulting from instrumentation problems. I think this is quite different to today, where the prominent position holds that the statistical nature of QM is fundamental, not merely emerging from instrumentation problems.
So if we take Dirac seriously here, then modern QM represents an internalising of instrument limitations into our fundamental physics.
Though sensory experience, and all the cognitive limitations and biases that come with it, still form the foundational limit.
For example, if the flow of a river is altered, it may not be possible to gauge the effects by observing a part of the watershed. The entire watershed has to be looked at. Can it be assumed that QM phenomena don't have unknown watersheds?
I don't think anyone could assume that, but such assumptions cannot be made in any complex system. I don't think such a quality is unique to QM. The interpretation that is unique to QM, which comes with the Copenhagen interpretation, is the idea that, without observation, the system remains in an indeterminate statistical state, as shown in the double slit experiment. But that, with observation, if you were to observe the electrons being fired out, and which hole they passed through, the whole system changes and loses its superposition.
If a phenomenon is not observed, then no assumption or interpretation can be made. That would be akin to a just-so story.
Weather forecasts require a large volume of observations, typically at the synoptic scale. The atmosphere is a complex system. Is QM a complex system? To understand or predict QM phenomena, would physicists not require what meteorologists require?
Empirical evidence is no longer limited to sensory perception. We have better instruments, along with an instrumentation problem, which is one facet of the limitations of science.
It's interesting to read some of Dirac's early lectures on quantum mechanics, because he describes the statistical nature of it, and the uncertainty principle, as resulting from instrumentation problems. I think this is quite different to today, where the prominent position holds that the statistical nature of QM is fundamental, not merely emerging from instrumentation problems.
So if we take Dirac seriously here, then modern QM represents an internalising of instrument limitations into our fundamental physics.
Though sensory experience, and all the cognitive limitations and biases that come with it, still form the foundational limit.
With QM, can it be assumed that taking one measurement in one location is sufficient to understand what is going on?
Depends what you mean by "what's going on". there's sort of the extreme notion of that, in quantum entanglement.
For example, if the flow of a river is altered, it may not be possible to gauge the effects by observing a part of the watershed. The entire watershed has to be looked at. Can it be assumed that QM phenomena don't have unknown watersheds?
I don't think anyone could assume that, but such assumptions cannot be made in any complex system. I don't think such a quality is unique to QM. The interpretation that is unique to QM, which comes with the Copenhagen interpretation, is the idea that, without observation, the system remains in an indeterminate statistical state, as shown in the double slit experiment. But that, with observation, if you were to observe the electrons being fired out, and which hole they passed through, the whole system changes and loses its superposition.
If a phenomenon is not observed, then no assumption or interpretation can be made. That would be akin to a just-so story.
Weather forecasts require a large volume of observations, typically at the synoptic scale. The atmosphere is a complex system. Is QM a complex system? To understand or predict QM phenomena, would physicists not require what meteorologists require?
Good intro Matty. Thanks for prompting me get the dictionary out and educating myself from ignorance :)