Recent content by DrChinese

You’re probably thinking “duh”. But that’s actually the title of the article that was published yesterday. Physicists disagree wildly on what quantum mechanics says about reality, Nature says If there was any confusion in your mind about the confusing nature of physicists’ viewpoints… this...

I mostly object to ascribing any kind of inferred existence to intermediate unobserved states*, a well-accepted position in the community. I can easily say orthodox QM is forward in time, of course acknowledging generally accepted quantum nonlocality (as mentioned in literally thousands of...

I looked, not much in the past 20 years. He co-authored this, but it's a survey from 2013: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069 Edit: shortly after writing this, saw a new survey. It’s in a separate post. Zeilinger does weigh in!

If there is down conversion, the photon count is 2. If not, count is one and those are different Fock states... right? That can be observed. By Vaidman's rule, those are 2 worlds with different proportional weights.

I'm fine with all this. The question is whether the rules of MWI impose an additional constraint (which of course advocates would likely deny). See for example the statements of Vaidman's Plato MWI in my post #15. Those are 2 specific claims. I am trying to apply them, and again having a...

I'm not worried that decoherence might occur while traveling to the intersection point, as that is always possible to some small degree. In MWI, an interaction with a crystal should (this is what I am confused about) be a branching event; because in one branch you have 1 particle emerging (very...

I agree that at first glance, it shouldn't matter. It's the second glance that is bothering me. A single photon enters the 2 crystal apparatus. It must down-convert in both (a very rare event in either crystal), and must do so (give or take) 10 picoseconds apart. Then everything you say...

Great point about beam splitters. But the reason I chose PDC crystals is because (unlike 50:50 splitters), the weighting is more like 1:1 million. The traditional Mach-Zehnder setup brings together those beams in a manner certain to lead to recombination. And in fact those beams originate in...

Here is an interesting experiment* from over 20 years ago, and it highlights the difficulty of making statements about particles when they are not observed. Take a single photon and send it to a beam splitter which then routes it either to Alice or Bob. If Bob detects it, then with certainty...

You can't speculate on what happens between (or outside of) measurements! How many times has this message been said about QM? While it is true that Bob's outcome is certain (as you say), it is conditioned on Alice's choice. And it is equally true that Alice's outcome is conditioned...

1. I follow this idea. But as I said to PeterDonis: I would certainly expect that a V> photon interaction with a V crystal produces decoherence, since the resulting branches are quite different: a single 351 nm V> photon; versus two 702 nm H> photons. How has decoherence not occurred? Neither...

I would certainly expect that a V> photon interaction with a V crystal produces decoherence, since the resulting branches are quite different: a single 351 nm V> photon; versus two 702 nm H> photons. How would the evolving Schrödinger wave "know" to hold off on decoherence/branching? Doesn't...

In my estimation, decoherence occurs too often to explain the results. There won’t be enough entangled pairs produced. Due to weighting, it’s off by a large factor.

There may be intermediate states, I don’t know what happens in between. They just cannot be the ones claimed. That is 100% classical logic, and fails.

Calling MWI knowledgeable members and advocates! My question includes a deep dive into how Type I parametric down conversion (PDC) entanglement is created, and specifically mapping the narrative for the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI). Here is a seminal reference on Type I PDC: Ultra-bright...