Recent content by Husserliana97

Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the...

Lately I've been trying my hand at consistent/deconsistent histories. To measure my understanding, I'm trying to apply formalism to concrete cases - in this case, the sacrosanct double-slit experiment. I would therefore have liked to submit this little sketch to you. There are two main stories...

You're welcome ! Glad to contribute something for once :)

Here https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09231

And what about fidelity and Bures Distance, in quantum information theory ?

I don't understand... since Hilbert space is normed, we can define a distance in it, can't we? That's why it's a metric space... This distance measures the degree of difference between the two quantum states represented by their respective vectors. The greater the distance, the more different...

I'm sorry, but I don't think I said that scalar product = distance, you're saying things that aren't mine. I said that the possibility of operating a scalar product in Hilbert space made it possible to define a distance, which is not the same thing. Because it can be used to define a norm, which...

Certainly -- this creation being an attestation of the intricate nature (and therefore not local in this sense) of the regions of the field in the vacuum state, do we agree? Yet in that case, it seems strange to me that some authors take this Taj Mahal's example

Indeed -- That's a much better formulation than mine (in my terminology, ontic = that which is measured), and I humbly concur. But I was under the impression that PeterDonis was arguing something else.

Indeed -- Indeed, I should have said that the non-deterministic character was also an appearance, in the Everett framework. My initial paragraph seems to me to correspond to the instrumental, or conventional, point of view. But I confess that I find it hard to see how observables, by which I...

Operators corresponding to physical quantities are not unitary (they are hermitian). Furthermore, the reduction (generally) associated with measurement violates the unitarity of the evolution operator. So the Q.M. has 2 parts, deterministic unitary evolution when there is no measurement, the...

Well then, my apologies for this over-interpretation of your previous comment. I'm interested in quantum entanglement in all its forms, without restricting myself to Bell pairs - whose formalism, for that matter, I believe is within my grasp. I read in certain articles (and in Susskind's...

I meant “implication” in the logical sense: the theorem implies the entanglement of the field in the vacuum state. But as far as the Taj Mahal is concerned, I have to admit that your example speaks for itself...!

I don't see how this question is relevant. It was a way of specifying that an answer referring to too advanced concepts, such as those of the AQFT, would be indigestible to me. Nevertheless, one can be interested in the (in this case fascinating) implications of a theorem, and try, at least...

I hear. But in an Everettian interpretation, wouldn't this operation be purely epistemic, rather than physical? A simple.acquisition of knowledge rather than a physical action on the state (exactly like measurement, associated with a reduction that is also non-unitary)?