View Single Post
Demystifier
Demystifier is offline
#28
Feb24-12, 02:52 AM
Sci Advisor
Demystifier's Avatar
P: 4,496
Quote Quote by lugita15 View Post
Demystifier, let's call the conclusion of the Kochen-Specker theorem "fakeness". If you have a set of noncommuting observables, does Kochen-Specker state that all of them are fake, or just that just at least one of them must be fake? The reason I'm asking is that position and momentum are non-commuting.
KC theorem says that, if you have a set of noncommuting observables, then at most one of them can be genuine (i.e., not fake).

Quote Quote by lugita15 View Post
On an unrelated note, doesn't Bohmian mechanics suffer from its own fine-tuning problems, namely that the universe got into just the right state that comports with the Born rule? I think this is a somewhat odd issue for BM, because decoherence can easily explain why the Born rule seems correct in practice. Why can't this explanation be carried over into BM, which anyway utilizes decoherence in its reduction of quantum uncertainty to classical uncertainty?
First, I don't see how decoherence explain the Born rule, and I would be very happy if you could explain it to me or give a reference where it is explained.

Second, BM can explain the Born rule for positions, without postulating it and without using decoherence. See e.g.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403034
and Ref. [16] therein.

Third, BM can explain the Born rule for other observables by combining the Born rule for positions with the theory of decoherence.