Strange

Well, we can observe it; that is why you can find papers describing the distribution of dark matter in the universe, for example. But if there are things that we can never observe (i.e. they have zero effect on anything around us) how is that different from those things just not existing?

Actually, it can do, under the right circumstances. The double-slit interference experiment has been done with large molecules, such as C60 ("buckyballs). The "explanation" is: that is how quantum phenomena work. All such "interpretations" have problems, because they are just analogies. In the end, at the quantum scale things are not localized (in time or space) and so the behaviour of particles is affected by everything around them (the presence of a second slit; the presence of detectors that can detect which slit the particle went through, even if indirectly; measurements made after the interference could take place; etc. ...)

Only when you do it wrong. Are you really so arrogant to think that you have spotted a flaw in a theory that is more than 100 years old and has been analysed and rigorously tested by thousands of people? Unbelievable.

Superposition (which is what you are talking about) is a quantum-level effect. An electron, or a photon, or a small number of atoms can exist in a state of superposition until they interact with something else - another electron, atom, etc. So the idea of a macroscopic object, especially the size of a planet, being in a superposition of states is pretty much impossible. It does not require the planet to interact with another planet, it simply requires the particles in that planet to interact with one another.

Isn't that what the OP was about?

By reality, in this context, I mean: what we observe. You seem to think that reality should be determined by what makes sense to you, personally, rather than what we observe. That is not sensible. It is barely sane.

A critique of the experiment by John Baez here: https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/C7vx2G85kr4

It is both a good and a bad thing. It is an increasing proportion of leakage current as devices get smaller but, on the other hand, it is essential for devices such as flash memory.

That has nothing to do with Schrodinger's Hypothetical Cat, though.

Actually, if you go into the hills above Palo Alto you can stand on the fault and see signs of it all around you; you can see it wiggling its way north to San Francisco. Are proposing some alternative model for earthquakes, the creation of mountains, seismic activity, mid sea ridges, volcanoes, the distribution of flora and fauna, .... ?

So reality is not good enough for you!?

Scientists don't really seek "truth"; that is more in the realm of philosophy and religion. And few, if any, are satisfied with the status quo. You don't seem to know much about how scientists work.

As I say, scientists are trained to question everything. That is what they do. What point are you trying to make? Because just repeating the same thing isn't terribly constructive.

You may have heard of "seismology"? That is what scientists are trained to do.

OK. But arguments about, or the use/misue of one or more interpretations (or interpretations of interpretations), doesn't seem relevant to the statement that "There is no one accepted Theory that explains its mysteries". There is one theory. It is fully accepted (*). And it explains all "mysteries" (i.e. counter-intuitive behaviour). (*) OK. I'm sure there are a few people who question some aspects of it. That is a good thing. Einstein's continual questioning of QM, for example, helped make it a stronger theory.

All you have done is state the obvious. We can only see the surface of the Earth. Trivially true but uninteresting. We theorize about the internal structure, based on multiple lines of evidence. Yep. That is what science does.

Yes, that's the whole point. If, for example, you have a photon in a superposition of two states (spin of +1 and -1 is the usual example) and you measure it, then it will be in a single state because you measured it. But it could also "collapse" into a single state because it interacts with something else. More generally, if you want to detect a photon the only way of doing that is by destroying the photon.

Well, there are measurement effects that sometimes have to be taken into account. For example, if you are using light to observe something small, the light might heat it up or make it move. But these are rarely serious problems. A lot of good experiment design is about taking those effects into account and finding ways to eliminate them or cancel them out.

Or an interaction between the subject and ... well, anything really. We were only talking about quantum effects.

Good point! My understanding is that this is any "measurement" or interaction that determines the state of an object. That might be a person making a measurement in the lab, or it might be the object interacting with something else. At which point its state becomes definite, rather than being potentially in a superposition of different states. The fact that this happens spontaneously (without a human observer) is one of the challenges of quantum computing, which relies on trying to keep "qbits" in a state of superposition for an extended period. But that means trying to keep them isolated from the material around them, which is not easy.

Is that some sort of chaos theory idea? I don't see how a single atom can have a significant effect on the sun. And, anyway, in terms of quantum mechanics, that atom will not be in a state of quantum superposition between those states because it is continually interacting with (being observed by) all the other atoms around it. That might be a nice philosophical game (along the lines of "if a tree falls in a forest...") but it doesn't appear to have any basis in reality.

None of those objects are in the sort of isolation from any interaction that the hypothetical cat is. An object like a planet (or even, realistically, a cat) cannot exist in a state of superposition. Some macroscopic (i.e. tiny) objects have been forced, temporarily into a state of superposition but this requires carefully controlled laboratory conditions near absolute zero, to avoid the state being disturbed by any external interaction (aka "observation"). You appear to think that "observe" means someone looks at it. It doesn't.

A couple of problems: 1. You assume that only visual observation counts. Which is just silly. 2. You seem to think that theorizing about things is a Bad Thing. Yet it is the whole basis of our undertsanding of the world around us (and the technology you use to post this message).

But c2 is still not a density, and force is not energy!

OK. Fair enough. I have never paid much attention to interpretations of quantum theory, Copenhagen or other. They all seem pretty irrelevant. It is hardly surprising that informal descriptions will have variations; I had never heard it described that way before. Are you saying that they did not accept quantum theory? I am not aware of Bohr having any reservations (unlike Einstein, say). And I have no idea who Fred Alan Wolf is.