Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: why FTL is illegal, in small words
Message-ID: <6651@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 17:47:31 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6651
Posted: Tue Dec 18 17:47:31 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 01:13:43 EST
References: <683@gloria.UUCP> <785@ariel.UUCP> <119@talcott.UUCP> <374@mhuxt.UUCP> <820@bnl.UUCP> <432@gitpyr.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 21

> > One of the postulates of physics is that any observer in an
> > inertial frame must observe a universe that obeys the same laws of
> > physics as an observer in any other inertial frame.  Otherwise
> > there is no point to physics since the universe depends on how
> > you observe it, and not on any intrisic existence of its own.
> 
> But I thought that QM says that events absolutely DO depend on being observed?

A very common mistake.  What quantum physics tells us is that observation
affects the system being observed (specifically, the measured value of
a physical quantity is an eigenvalue of the corresponding operator, with
probability distribution of eigenvalues corresponding to squared amplitudes
of elements of the operator applied to the system state, according to the
usual QM computation rules).  This is not the same as "depending on being
observed".  The physical occurrences propagate in the total absence of any
observer.

This is really not much worse than in relativity theory, where the actual
results of observations are observer (state of motion) dependent projections
of absolute physical objects.  Relativistic descriptions can be done either
using coordinates or coordinate-free; similarly for quantum physics.