Recent content by bhobba

Agreed. But Wallice in the Emergent Multiverse goes further on page 302, where he describes the interpretation I currently favour: that QFT is literally ontologically real. He calls it spacetime state realism (although he admits the name is a bit of a misnomer). This view is presented in Art...

Indeed, he does, although he does not give a detailed discussion of the connection, but does examine it (see page 91 - The Decoherent Histories Framework). But as I said, if you read the Emergent Multiverse and, instead of thinking in terms of ontologically real worlds, you think in terms of...

Actually, I would say entanglement is an easier concept to understand in Quantum Field Theory (QFT). It's just an excitation of the underlying quantum field that permeates all space of two particles. The 'configuration' of such an excitation can be localised or spread across a large volume...

I think QFT sheds light on this. The system is a disturbance in a quantum field or fields; there are no paths or positions (they are disturbances we can sometimes interpret as such). A measurement is an interaction between the fields of two quantum systems that yields a result (number on a...

I have posted this many times, but I will do it again: Basically, decoherent histories (also called consistent histories) is many worlds, except that all possible outcomes are treated as on equal footing rather than real. Personally, I think it's just a semantic distinction, but you can...

Indeed welcome. Hang around, and you will be surprised by what you learn. Thanks Bill

It is surprising how much of what we discuss is, to a large extent, semantics. I know we don't discuss philosophy here, but many of Wittgenstein's ideas centred on this (yes, I know he started as an aeronautical engineer). His mentor Bertrand Russell was 7th wrangler. Those were the days...

As an 18-year-old, QED has been suggested as a good place to start (and I agree). The following video suggests the next books to read (but are above what I would expect of the usual 18-year-old, although certainly not beyond their capability if you want to go deeper): The next would be...

I like her, but sometimes she can be, how to put it, sensationalist. Although I think she is right, saying things like "researchers don't fully understand QM", which, while correct, IMHO, is misleading for beginners. Best to let the usual considered responses just proceed without the hoopla...

What we deal with in ordinary non-relativistic QM is a very good approximation to the non-relativistic limit of Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which is the best theory we currently have. Without going into details (it has to do with ordinary QM does not imply that anti-particles must exist and...

It's trivial in QFT. Ordinary QM is only an approximation to the relativistic limit of QFT. There are no antiparticles in ordinary QM as required by the relativistic limit; there is just one Schrodinger equation - not two - but since antiparticles are rare in our world for the vast majority...

I thought I was the only one nutty enough to do that o0)o0)o0)o0)o0) Thanks Bill

Some nice papers/videoes here - well worth the time to read/watch. Thanks Bill

The wave function, and its Born interpretation, in ordinary non-relativistic QM, is simply the consequence of modelling observations as Hermitian operators via Gleason's Theorem. It can be used for individual or composite systems. The real issue is why observations are modelled as hermitian...

I never knew it was that popular, but it certainly is an interpretation, just not to my taste. My interpretation is that it's just the consequences of the symmetry definition of an inertial frame, the POR (which is very intuitive), and a fixing of a constant that naturally occurs in the theory...