Recent content by bg032

The de Broglie-Bohm "predicts" classical mechanics. More precisely, it explains in a simple way the quasi-classical evolution of the macroscopic world, which is not the case for ortodox quantum mechanics.

Mainstream QFT is exactly the kind of QFT which makes you so unsatisfied. I had a problem very similar to yours, and I found the book of meopemuk very useful.

If splitting is considered the representation of a pattern of the universal wave function, (like clouds are the representation of a pattern of the density of water vapor), I don't see any problem with relativity. Suppose that the two vectors \Psi(t) and \Psi'(t) represent the same universal wave...

I agree, but I do not see problems; now the universe is cooled and now we observe a quasi-classical realm.

JesseM, in my previous post (posted I think at the same time of yours) is explained why I have no problem with approximately defined branches. For me branches are patterns of the wave function, and patterns may be evident even though vaguely defined. Branches are like clouds in a sky with well...

My position is that the universal wave function has a pattern which strongly suggests a preferred decomposition. Suppose for example that \Psi(t) is the sum of spatially well separated (in 3N configuration space) wave packets which remains separated under time evolution. Bohm has extensively...

Let \Psi(t)=U(t)\Psi_0 be the universal wave function. According to de Witt, at every t there is a (approximately defined) preferred decomposition of \Psi(t) into the sum of orthogonal vectors (worlds): \Psi(t)=\Psi_1 + \ldots + \Psi_{n_t}. The problem of how to define this...

Do you mean that the notion of "wave function of the universe" is not correct or appropriate?

Many physicists claim that decoherence determines the emergence of the worlds in the Many World Interpretation (MWI). I have always found such a claim elusively proved and actually wrong. Recently I wrote a paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3708 addressing such a subject, and I sent it to...

It seems to me that the MI collocates your system of axioms in the context of the Copehagen interpretation, where a macroscopic classical realm, including notions such as measuring apparatuses, is assumed to exist independently of the the quantum realm. For me this is unsatisfactory, because it...

For me the problem here is that we oscillate between the rigour of Wightman axioms and what you call the "rigor of theoretical physics". I had no problem if the rigour of Weinberg were the same of Wightman. On the other hand, Weinberg makes true physics and obtain empirical predictions, while...

Ok, I did not mention that the fields are required to be causal (I also did not mention the spectrum condition for the energy-momentum operators P_\mu and the existence, uniqueness and translation-invariance of the vacuum). I will change the post. However this simply reinforce my question...

I am very interested in this question rised by Eugene. I would like to reformulate it in a more general form as follows. Basically standard QFT is based on the following two assumprions: 1) A representation of the Poincaré group is defined on the Hilbert space of a relativistic quantum...

I agree!

I do not understand. In 3.5.12 (Weinberg) the interaction energy density field H(x) is required to transform covariantly according to the non-interacting representation U_0.