Single-world interpretation, 7.2

Quantum Mechanics 3

Under the many-worlds interpretation, the Schrodinger equation, or relativistic analog, holds all the time everywhere. An observation or measurement of an object by an observer is modeled by applying the wave equation to the entire system comprising the observer and the object. One consequence is that every observation can be thought of as causing the combined observer-object’s wavefunction to change into a quantum superposition of two or more non-interacting branches, or split into many “worlds”. Since many observation-like events have happened, and are constantly happening, there are an enormous and growing number of simultaneously existing states.

If a system is composed of two or more subsystems, the system’s state will be a superposition of products of the subsystems’ states. Once the subsystems interact, their states are no longer independent. Each product of subsystem states in the overall superposition evolves over time independently of other products. The subsystems states have become correlated or entangled and it is no longer possible to consider them independent of one another. In Everett’s terminology each subsystem state was now correlated with its relative state, since each subsystem must now be considered relative to the other subsystems with which it has interacted.

— Wikipedia on Many-worlds interpretation

This is insightful, but incorrect. Please refer to my previous post “Single-world interpretation, 7” for details.

The main theme is that the macroscopic reality can never be an eigen-quantum-state. Instead, the macroscopic reality is the resultant effect of the superposition of eigen-quantum-states. For example, without quantum superposition, there would be no Principle of Least Action in classical mechanics.

— Me@2012-12-28 12:52:12 PM

In particular, Sidney explains that our world is a quantum world and any phenomena that look classical are approximate or derived. So it’s really nonsensical to ask for an “interpretation of quantum mechanics”. Instead, one should really discuss the “interpretation of classical physics” and its derivative appearance from the quantum framework.

Of course, Sidney was well aware of the fact – and made this fact explicit – that the people who have problems with these concepts have those problems simply because they believe that underneath quantum mechanics, there is still some classical physics operating.

— Sidney Coleman: Quantum mechanics in your face

— Lubos Motl

2012.12.28 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

教學無用 2.1

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 3 日的對話。

「客觀評價一個人的教學才能」這個講法,有自相矛盾之嫌,因為「教學才能」,並不能「客觀評價」。「教學才能」只可以在某些人工標準下,予以評定。例如,如果你在補習社教書,你的學生人數多少,就會疑似反映,你教學才能的高低。但是,那又不完全是,我們原初想考慮的東西,因為學生的人數多,又不一定代表教學才能高。

最理想的情況是,你的學生人數多,正正是因為你真才實學,教學精闢獨到。但是,更大的可能是,有其他的原因。

準確一點的評估是,除了學生總人數外,還再考慮他們之中,有多少人真正明白講課內容。但是,那又好像無從統計。即使直接問一位學生「你明不明白」,也未必有用,因為,有很多時候,那位學生連自己「明不明白」,也不清楚。

再準確一點的評估是,除了學生總人數,和他們明不明白外,還再考慮他們的考試結果。但是,他們的成績好,又不代表你的教學佳。可能,正正是因為你的教學奇差,激發了一半人的自學才能,發奮圖強。而沒有自學能力的另一半人,則深知不妙,立刻去找補習老師。

但是,「教學才能」又未至於,沒有高低可言。我們明明可以感受到,有些教員是騙子,有些教員是大師。所以,我剛剛所講「『教學才能』,並不能『客觀評價』」,並不盡正確。實情是,「教學才能」,並不容易「客觀評價」。現在的問題則是,那我們如何可以,客觀評價「教學才能」呢?

這個問題十分微妙,因為不易回答。我並不是立刻想到答案。

— Me@2012.12.27

2012.12.28 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK