Recent content by Maaneli

You can take dq to be virtual displacements of q, which keeps time fixed.

It is true that Nelson's theory is inconsistent with special relativity in the sense that the dynamics of the particles in his theory is nonlocal, and hence picks out a preferred foliation of spacetime. But this isn't particular to Nelson's theory. Even deterministic hidden-variable theories...

Can you clarify what you mean by stochastic mechanics?

I think we're talking past each other. I made an assertion about what are the major alternative interpretations and formulations of QM, not just relativistic measurement theory. The information I gave wasn't intended to support my claim, but in any case, once you see that the claim I made...

You're welcome. I'd be interested in your reactions to some of the references I shared, once you've had time to look through them. BTW, I agree with your comment about an interpretation/formulation being untenable if it cannot ultimately hold up in a QFT context. I would only emphasize that...

I'm not even sure that's true. In fact, Schlosshauer paints a picture of the field that seems to contradict your assertion: "Environment-induced decoherence and superselection have been a subject of intensive research over the past two decades, yet their implications for the foundational...

Small correction - The latter set of papers is for (4), not (2).

It seems that you're committing a hasty generalization here. The fact that the MWI papers you've read were of low quality is in no way an indication of the quality of the papers on other interpretations/formulations. But don't take my word for it - have a look for yourself at the papers I cited...

This is NOT the mainstream view among physicists who specialize in the field of quantum foundations. It's not even the mainstream view of the average physicist (the average physicist doesn't even think deeply enough about these issues to have a well-formed view). It may be the predominant view...

Well then you may be interested to know that (1), (2), and (4), do predict new physics. OK, but how do you know that the OP is a particle theory student? Maybe he's currently undecided, or is working in condensed-matter theory, or quantum gravity, or statistical mechanics, or many other...

You're making unwarranted assumptions. How do you know the OP isn't already learned in standard formulations of QFT? Also, it is dismissive and ignorant to suggest that interpretation is irrelevant to QFT. Maverick, to answer your question, there are a few major alternative formulations of QM...

1 - The MWI does, but only if can be shown to be an empirically adequate interpretation of QM to begin with. And I don't think it is. 2 - It doesn't break statistical causality (i.e. that operators corresponding to physical observables commute at spacelike separations), but it does break Bell's...

Thenewmans, Something like this has already been done by Rod Sutherland: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0601095

I'm point out to the OP that Zambrini shows that, contrary to his assumption that there is no room for cancellation, there is in fact an interference of transition probabilities in the Euclidean case. No. Once again, his question is about how one would reproduce the prediction of...

This is a different question, and it doesn't invalidate the answer to the OP's question. Also, Zambrini does actually show how one can transform between the Euclidean and real-time diffusions (the real-time diffusions also properly describe two-slit interference). What one has to do is change...