Bell made the comment in an article that examined major position of modern phycisists—or at least, positions of some authors of physics textbooks. Woo was not his topic.
None of the physics textbooks I have ever read have required any special qualifications for a system to play the role of measurer, and in many cases use elementary particles as the measurers. There are only three places I recall hearing that claim: Werner Heisenberg, confused non-physicists, and advertising for quantum woo.
In context, the quote is not directed at anyone, and is just a rhetorical question leading straight to “no of course not.” Out of context it quite naturally looks like it’s directed at some group, changing the meaning a bit.
The quotes from Landau and Lifshitz definitely made me “what,” but so did the solutions Bell proposed. 1990 is 20 years ago, I guess.
Fair point—pulling the quote out of context does change the way it comes across. To me, the out-of-context quote seems to target pop sci accounts of QM that talk in a misleading way about observation causing collapse. (The woo account of QM takes this misapprehension and runs with it, so I can see how your original rejoinder came about.)
This quote does not argue against some major position of modern physicists, but is instead arguing (probably ineffectively) against self-help woo.
Bell made the comment in an article that examined major position of modern phycisists—or at least, positions of some authors of physics textbooks. Woo was not his topic.
None of the physics textbooks I have ever read have required any special qualifications for a system to play the role of measurer, and in many cases use elementary particles as the measurers. There are only three places I recall hearing that claim: Werner Heisenberg, confused non-physicists, and advertising for quantum woo.
If you like, PM me an email address and I’ll send the article there.
Too late, I went and found it online elsewhere :P
In context, the quote is not directed at anyone, and is just a rhetorical question leading straight to “no of course not.” Out of context it quite naturally looks like it’s directed at some group, changing the meaning a bit.
The quotes from Landau and Lifshitz definitely made me “what,” but so did the solutions Bell proposed. 1990 is 20 years ago, I guess.
Fair point—pulling the quote out of context does change the way it comes across. To me, the out-of-context quote seems to target pop sci accounts of QM that talk in a misleading way about observation causing collapse. (The woo account of QM takes this misapprehension and runs with it, so I can see how your original rejoinder came about.)
Just remember, 2011 will be 20 years ago in 2031! ;-)
It’s as it is said: we learn new things all the time, so everything we know now is wrong.