Re:Interpretations of quantum theory: A map of madness
by n4r9 on Thursday September 17, 2015 @05:51AM
(#10232428)
I don't like to sound glib, but...
> In fact, there is no randomness and non-predictability in quantum mechanics.
Depends on the interpretation.
> wave function collapse in a quantum system is the consequence of coupling the system to a larger, external one that becomes entangled with the "small" quantum system
Depends on the interpretation.
> we ourselves are described by a quantum wave function
Depends on the interpretation.
> Different interpretations of quantum mechanics like the "Many Worlds" or the "Copenhague" varieties are basically just arguing about what happens with a wave function after it "collapses".
You only really need to worry about "what happens with a wave function" if you have a decidedly psi-ontic view of it. Otherwise, collapse is not itself a physical process.
> To my knowledge there is no way to discriminate between different alternatives here
The same author recently uploaded a paper which argues that there is a way to discriminate between interpretations based on physical principles. See http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03641v1.pdf .
> In fact, there is no randomness and non-predictability in quantum mechanics.
Depends on the interpretation.
> wave function collapse in a quantum system is the consequence of coupling the system to a larger, external one that becomes entangled with the "small" quantum system
Depends on the interpretation.
> we ourselves are described by a quantum wave function
Depends on the interpretation.
> Different interpretations of quantum mechanics like the "Many Worlds" or the "Copenhague" varieties are basically just arguing about what happens with a wave function after it "collapses".
You only really need to worry about "what happens with a wave function" if you have a decidedly psi-ontic view of it. Otherwise, collapse is not itself a physical process.
> To my knowledge there is no way to discriminate between different alternatives here
The same author recently uploaded a paper which argues that there is a way to discriminate between interpretations based on physical principles. See http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03641v1.pdf .