Demystifier's latest activity

On the contrary, it's crucial to it, for the reasons I and others explained several times.

Because if you can prove it, you have solved the problem of measurement in QM and deserved the Nobel prize. :partytime:

Do you think that there is a specific trajectory?

You already asked me and I already answered. See #108.

And my claim is that it depends on what one means by "seeing a definite trajectory". It is correct in interpretation B (in which...

Yes, my post #106 is also written in that spirit, so we basically agree on that.

Given that you don't know that, are you still certain about your claim in the post #105?

As a quick aside, as I mentioned in post #94, Mott has nothing to do with Coleman's argument. Mott's analysis is correct, and in fact it...

The state ##|C_1\rangle## corresponds to the trajectory ##T_1##, while the state ##|C_2\rangle## corresponds to the trajectory ##T_2##...

OK, now I understand where the controversy comes from. @PeterDonis has already explained it in one of the posts, so I will just rephrase...

Why irrelevant? I have a very elementary question for you, related to the Mott-Coleman argument. Let ##|C_1\rangle## be a state (of the...

One additional note. The error in the Mott-Coleman argument is conceptually similar to the error of failing to distinguish proper and...

Here is a more general version of my argument that the projector ##L## with the desired properties does not exist. Since ##L## is a...

Well, the associated eigenspace of L with eigenvalue +1 is the entire space of possible linear superpositions of straight-line tracks...

In case it helps, I'll share my interpretation of what Coleman is trying to say. He begins by defining the operator ##L## as having...