Listen to these questions on this forum: Q: Schrödinger's cat question Q: The Bohm interpretation and Schrodinger's cat Q: Is Schrodinger's Cat itself an observer? When was there a Schrodinger's cat experiment? These questions are all speculation. My question was based on an actual experiment. You have no reason to close this thread because you can't debate the issue.

It's not fair to close a thread because of a few whining people who are threatened because others are debating the issue. People were debating the issue without any problem.

It was based on Theoretical Physicist Carlo Rovelli's Relational interpretation of QM.

Carlo Rovelli is an Italian theoretical physicist and writer who has worked in Italy, the United States and, since 2000, in France.1 He works mainly in the field of quantum gravity and is a founder of loop quantum gravity theory. He has also worked in the history and philosophy of science. He collaborates with several Italian newspapers, including the cultural supplements of the Corriere della Sera, Il Sole 24 Ore and La Repubblica.

His popular science book, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, was originally published in Italian in 2014. It has been translated into 41 languages[2] and has sold over a million copies worldwide.[3] In 2019, he was included by Foreign Policy magazine in a list of 100 most influential global thinkers.[4]


I only post this to show that this isn't some crackpot interpretation. So what's the problem?

It was also based on the recent Wigner friend experiment.

Experimental test of local observer independence

The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most markedly exposed in Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether the observers’ narratives can be reconciled has only recently been made accessible to empirical investigation, through recent no-go theorems that construct an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers. In a state-of-the-art six-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by five standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.


Again, you have questions on here about Schrodinger's cat. These questions and the answers are mostly OPINIONS because there has never been a Schrodinger's cat experiment. I think those questions are great, I just don't think it's fair to anyone on this site to close my thread because a few people were crying because they can't debate the issue. Other were debating it without any problem.

| |
  • $\begingroup$ Original question: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/541077/… $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Apr 2 at 22:32
  • $\begingroup$ Followup question: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/541119/… $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Apr 2 at 22:34
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ “You have no reason to close this thread because you can't debate the issue ... others are debating the issue. People were debating” This is a Q&A site, not a discussion forum. Debates are simply not part of the format. If you want a debate you need to go to a different forum $\endgroup$ – Dale Apr 2 at 22:39
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ BTW, Stack Exchange sites are not forums, as I mentioned in the chat thread. They do not work like forums, and you are likely to get into frustrating situations if you try to treat them like discussion forums. $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Apr 2 at 22:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Please note our Code of Conduct. Personal attacks on other members are not allowed. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Apr 2 at 22:48

I read your closed post and the reason for the closure has nothing to do with the relational interpretation. There are plenty of open questions about the relational interpretation and there are plenty of closed questions on Schrödinger’s cat, so your complaint here in meta is completely irrelevant to the issue that caused the closure.

SE is a question and answer site, not a discussion forum. So concrete questions about the relational interpretation seeking a direct factual answer are appropriate here. Your post read more like a blog post than a question. The few questions you had buried in the blog were more like discussion starters than actual answer-seeking questions. This impression was confirmed by your complaint here where you repeatedly mention “debate”. That is not the purpose of this site and posts that seek to generate debate simply do not fit with this format.

This site is for obtaining direct answers to direct questions. It is not for discussion and not for debate and it is not a physics blog. Your “question” was appropriately (IMO) closed and the closure had nothing to do with the relational interpretation topic.

There is nothing wrong with debate and discussion. But when you want to drive a nail into a board you grab a hammer and not a saw. Similarly, debate is for a discussion forum, not a Q&A site. SE is simply the wrong tool for that job.

| |
  • $\begingroup$ That doesn't make any sense. If this site is about debate why do people get to add comments after the answers? It's because they debate the answer that was given as to whether they think it's right or not. If this site was just about answers there would be no comments allowed when someone gives an answer. THAT"S A DEBATE! Someone answer a question then someone comments I don't agree with your answer because... THEY"RE DEBATING HIS ANSWER! My post was perfectly fine. $\endgroup$ – Genetic Avatar Apr 3 at 9:52
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Comments are not intended for debate, they are for suggesting improvements to the question or the answer. Often they are misused for argument (like here), but that is not their intended purpose on a Q&A site. $\endgroup$ – Dale Apr 3 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ I'm looking over comments to answers and THERE"S NOTHING BUT DEBATE! Why have comments at all if it's just about questions and answers? Here's a question on here about Tachyons, that's right, I said TACHYONS! Are tachyons time travelers? TIME TRAVELERS? My question gets closed which is based on published experiments and there's questions about Tachyons and time travelers? The answer to that question was PURE DEBATE! Anyone can look it it up. Give me a break! My question was closed because I talked about observer dependence that's supported by scientific evidence not tachyons and time travel! $\endgroup$ – Genetic Avatar Apr 3 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ Here's another question @dale How do we know tachyons don't exist? WHAT?? How do we know a hypothetical particle doesn't exist? This question is okay but my question about the Relational interpretation, many worlds and the ad hoc universal wave function of Everett isn't okay? Are you kidding me? The first line: As I mentioned yesterday, Hollywood screenwriter working on a TV pilot about physics trying to get the details right. A TV PILOT! I'm talking about real physics not fantasy and my question get's closed?? $\endgroup$ – Genetic Avatar Apr 3 at 10:48
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well, regarding evidence, 5 net upvotes on my answer and 9 net downvotes on your question is at least evidence that more members of this community agree with my assessment than yours. IF you wish to participate in this community then it might be helpful to understand it. Anyway, comments are not for debate and that is what you want, so I am done. If you have a constructive suggestion for improving my answer then I will respond. Otherwise, best of luck in understanding and adapting to this site. You still seem to struggle with understanding that the closure was not about the topic $\endgroup$ – Dale Apr 3 at 11:20
  • $\begingroup$ Of course you got 5 upvotes, there were 5 o 6 people who complained to the moderators about my question. They complained because it was persuasive in destroying any notion of an observer independent wave function in favor of the Relational interpretation which is observer dependent. You have questions on here about faster than light communication using a warp drive metric! You guys lose all credibility when you complain about my question but time travelers, tachyons and FTL communication is okay? These are all highly speculative and opinion based. To separate debate from comments makes 0 sense $\endgroup$ – Genetic Avatar Apr 3 at 11:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .