Recent content by Morbert

He should have watched this video

What concern do you have with entanglement and this correspondence?

This discussion felt a lot more substantive than the discussion with Maudlin, largely because a higher level of familiarity with the relevant issues was assumed. Albert seems bothered by the fact that, in the framework of stochastic processes, the dynamical laws that govern subsystems are...

The momentum uncertainty is just ##\sqrt{\langle p^2\rangle - \langle p \rangle^2}##.

The wavefunction is zero outside the box, so you don't strictly have two exact but opposite momenta. Also, these two momenta are further from the mean the smaller the box is, increasing uncertainty.

Entanglement is the quantum mechanical generalization of correlation, so within the framework of a quantum theory we can say interaction or selection gives rise to entanglement analogous to the way we can say interaction or selection gives rise to correlation in a classical framework. That's...

As an aside: There are analogous interpretational debates around special and general relativity. See e.g. substantivalist vs relationalist spacetime, or kinematical vs dynamical/neo-Lorentzian accounts. I suspect they are not as energetic as QM debates because relativity doesn't assault our...

QBism, Copenhagen (Asher Peres's variety), Consistent Histories, the Oxford branch (no pun intended) of Everettianism, Relational interpretation (Rovelli), Ensemble is at least agnostic. None of these involve superluminal influence of one system on another.

There are well established interpretations with no spooky action at a distance.

Barandes's correspondence is quite general. There's no reason to think it wouldn't extend to QFTs. Though it would be a worthy exercise, because as far as I know all existing presentations of the correspondence only consider a finite-dimensional Hilbert space.

You might be thinking of a decoherence timescale/rate (see eq 5.38 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105127 )

From the paper: ##\psi## and ##\phi## are rendered as such throughout. Is this a formatting error?

A paper some people might find interesting: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25335 Froehlich's work has come up a few times here (E.g. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/jurg-frohlich-on-the-deeper-meaning-of-quantum-mechanics.972179/ ). It's a stochastic, histories based approach, but centers...

There's the ETH interpretation of QM. ETH stands for events, trees, and histories, but I suspect it is a nod to ETH Zurich.

I've touched on SSR occasionally here, as it's useful for understanding MWI and locality. But the issues SSR addresses are not issues in CH, as CH associates properties/true propositions with projectors on Hilbert space, not quantum states.