The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum mechanics (CIQ) is incomplete, because it uses the Quantum Collapse (QC) unavoidably, but has no description of it. Whatever.
On the face of it, that shouldn’t be a problem, that’s how science always advances: newly proposed explanations are often incomplete.
A description of the collapse will be full when there is an equation for it. So what is an equation? It is a mathematical description using algebra and the logic (and semiotics) of algebraic geometry and its extension, mathematical analysis and infinitesimal calculus.
Now a typical equation is formalized by: V = W, where W and V are some expressions… each of them a logic of its own.
The equal sign (“=”) was invented by Robert Recorde, a Welsh mathematician, in 1557. He introduced the symbol in his book titled “The Whetstone of Witte,” where he explained its usage for the concept of equality in mathematical equations.
Before the equal sign, mathematicians used phrases like “is equal to” or “equals” to indicate equality. Recorde sought a more efficient and concise way to represent this concept, so he devised the two parallel lines (=) to signify equality between two expressions… As he put it:
“… to avoide the tediouse repetition of these woordes: ‘is equalle to’, I will sette as I doe often in worke use, a paire of paralleles, or Gemowe [twin] lines of one lengthe, thus: =, bicause noe .2. thynges, can be moare equalle.”
Going back to Euclid, or even earlier, Pythagoras, where are the equations? Well, I grabbed Pythagoras theorem, while testing my 13 year old daughter’s understanding of (some of the most famous of ) its proofs. It turns out that the proof equalizes logics.
It turns out that the proofs involve computing the same thing, an area, in two different ways, and equating the results.
Two logics lead to the same result, in two different ways, and equating the results forces out a hidden axiom (a so-called theorem [1])
The proof where one completes the hypothenuse is logically similar: one computes the area of the big square in two different ways, and then one equates the result, getting the relationship between the sides and the hypothenuse.
***
In physics the situation is different. The two different logic are forcefully equated; that’s the equation. That forces some results (actually they are theorems, same as in pure math). Then those results are checked against experiments, say the advance of the perihelion of Mercury [1], or the deviation of light by the sun (twice more in Einstein theory than Newton’s).
***
The force-acceleration law of motion (F = ma) and Poincaré-Einstein’s mass-energy equation (E=mc^2) are iconic equations which are the basis vectors of some dimensions of science (yes, equations as basis vectors in knowledge space…).
F is obtained, and can be measured, in a certain way, whereas the acceleration a is purely dynamic, it’s measured in a completely different way. So it’s not just two logics which are equated, but two completely different physical experimental processes [2]. Physical processes are themselves a particular type of logic,and each process is its own logic.
***
E = mc^2 was first demonstrated by Poincaré in a reduced setting (a bit as Buridan had a reduced setting for F = ma). Poincaré demonstrated that light of energy E had inertial mass m = E/c^2. That was rigorous. Later generalizations evolved: EE – ppcc = (mc^2)^2… that too is rigorous, but confusion arose about E = mc^2 standing alone (true if in the strict Poincaré context, speculative otherwise, covering up unknown physics…).
So equations in physics start always speculative, lead to new theories in physics, and then join two different experimental approaches (logics)… The same happens in mathematics (where also explicit examples are often generalized to more general contexts… which are then checked, quite a bit as in physics)
People like to talk about the “Multiverse”… In the context of Quantum Theory, it’s completely idiotic idea… BUT, in the case of information space, the Multiverse is the rule, and equations is what binds it together. Equations ultimately are the foundational ideas expressed to their barest form.
It took around seven centuries to get the equation of gravity in its present form (SQPR says it needs to be modified further, to include the “splitting aka fatigue” of gravitons…)
In the case of Quantum Collapse, we don’t have an equation yet; according to SQPR, we should get one, as the Quantum Interaction (that QI exists is another axiom) is a field (it propagates topologically and at finite speed). But we have an experimental, and theoretical fact: QC is much faster than the speed of light.
I equate, therefore I think…
Patrice Ayme
***
[1] The metalogic of the whole thing is crucial: Newton’s gravitation predicted not as much advance of the perihelion of Mercury as observed: a planet was searched to explain the dragging of Mercury’s ellipse… and not found… Einstein knew this. It turns out that Local Time slows down closer to the Sun, and that explains the effect…
***
[2]. The first to point the equivalence of these two logics, at least in a reduced setting, was Buridan circa 1350 CE. Anglo-Saxons idolaters call it Newton’s first law