Recent content by colorSpace

  1. C

    Quantum interpretations

    Are you sure we will *never* be able to calculate these constants? But that is another question. The point here is that nobody assumes that constants have a physical existence. They only describe the relationship between physical events, but they are not physical themselves. They are...
  2. C

    Quantum interpretations

    I know. It was an argument for that in MWI there *are* parallel universes. I was saying that to see MWI as not having parallel worlds wouldn't make sense. Call them branches, or worlds, it is the same: In MWI there are trillions multiple versions of each human being, each experiencing something...
  3. C

    Quantum interpretations

    If it is, then it is. If not, then not. For me that would be like believing that floating point numbers have a physical existence. But each world would have conscious human beings, you would be conscious in each of many worlds which result from you observing a quantum phenomenon, since there...
  4. C

    Quantum interpretations

    To 1) I'm not talking about decoherence from a mathematical point of view, all the formulas may be there... but they appear as a high-level formula with a missing low-level explanation, which is a problem of the wavefunction in general. A sum of probabilities with a complex amplitude that can...
  5. C

    Quantum interpretations

    To 1) No problem with the surprise factor, the appearance of randomness is a given. However unless there is decoherence (which is the trivial case in both MWI and CI), MWI says the probabilities interact simply by mathematical operation, the physical process, the mechanics are still missing...
  6. C

    Quantum interpretations

    Right. Once the wavefunction is decoherent, the probabilities can't cancel each other out (interact) anymore, as they do in an interference pattern. Let me approach it from a slightly different side: In CI, the selection of a possible result has no mechanics which explains why that result...
  7. C

    Quantum interpretations

    That's a rather long article. As far as I can tell, it explains what happens to the other parts of the wavefunction after measurement. But the wave function still remains an odd thing of complex-interacting probabilities. The fact that the photon appears only in one place is an expression of...
  8. C

    Quantum interpretations

    That's just explaining-away the randomness. To me the real paradox of quantum physics is that the probabilities of flying through either slit will interact with each other, but in the end the photon will appear only in one place, not smeared out like butter. And trying to measure the path will...
  9. C

    Quantum interpretations

    MWI seems to remove the randomness from the collapse, but isn't the collapse still there? In the double-slit experiment, you still register each photon at a specific location on the screen. There is still the wave/particle duality which results in seeing a photon register at a specific...
  10. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    Additional to the above comment: Perhaps more specific to the intent of the question, but still speaking generally in terms of the principle: In order to detect an interference pattern at Bob, it is necessary to filter out a specific set of photons. The information required to do so must be...
  11. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    "Random", in the sense of Heisenberg-uncertain, here means that the pattern can be thought of as a superposition (overlay) of multiple interference patterns (at least in the absence of which-way-information) such that the above-average amounts of one interference pattern are canceled out by the...
  12. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    Right, there are two questions: 1. Is it possible to create an experiment where interference can be detected depending on an entangled particle, but without classically obtained data from that particle. (Apparently not.) 2. If not, what is the explanation a) specifically within any (thought-)...
  13. C

    Deterministic Quantum Mechanics?

    Perhaps, if you apply this idea of converging branches to the measurement process, and find that a measurement of a property in superposition will converge all branches, then you are perhaps back to something like the Copenhagen interpretation. :) Of course, if there are no hidden variables...
  14. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    Preliminary answer from a layman: Netpattern1 (interference) consists (except for some noise) of an superposition of multiple interference patterns. Without patternB, the remaining patternA does not have a completely random distribution anymore. Netpattern2 does not contain the same patternA...
  15. C

    FTL communication: might QM entanglement trump relativity?

    From my message above: Here is link describing photon emission from a change in electron energy level: http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Planck.html (see at the bottom of the page). Not that I would expect anyone here to actually require this reference, yet I hope University of...
Top