Recent content by Morbert

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.

There can be different groupings depending on criteria, and Omnes and Griffiths are often grouped together because of their focus on minimal decoherence criteria. But as far as interpretations go, I read Omnes's work as less a distinct interpretation and more a logical grounding of Copenhagen QM.

Omnes does not give ontic significance to histories. So e.g. if you have two histories: one where a particle has x spin-up before it is measured, and one where a particle has x spin-down before it is measured, and the physicist performs an x spin measurement and records an outcome "up", then...

My language was clear. If you take issue with it, be specific. Griffith's account is not a Copenhagen perspective at all, as he describes measurement as revealing pre-existing properties of a system. While his focus might not be cosmology, his ontology is much more aligned with Gell-Mann and Hartle.

I'm not sure if what the author calls "Many-Worlds variant of CH" is distinct from Many-Worlds, where choice of "history space" is a choice of description of the fundamental state (https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0103092). Re/ The Emergent Multiverse. Two issues with reading it as a CH textbook...

The formalism of CH aligns with a few different interpretations. David Wallace uses it heavily when presenting the Many-Worlds interpretation. Roland Omnes (one of the primary developers of the formalism) uses it to flesh out a "neo-Copenhagen" interpretation. I could see it readily applied to...

It has reproducibility problems. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222897740_Gravity_modification_experiment_using_a_rotating_superconducting_disk_and_radio_frequency_fields

Now you're charging him with not "promoting" a distinction, and you're contriving a misreading. I don't know if there is much substance here for me to respond to. And even if they exist in this narrow metaphysical sense, they are not law-like, and hence we should not expect a theory to reproduce...

He shows we can interpret quantum systems as systems with a definite, classical configuration, evolving unistochastically in time. The ontology is similar to Bohmian mechanics, but without the guiding nomology.

They are Barandes's words. They are in the correspondence paper abstract. He explicitly says "can be". I mean regular and expressible as a law. An omniscient observer might observe something, but that doesn't mean they will observe the same thing again under the same initial conditions. The...

"This paper argues that every quantum system can be understood as a sufficiently general kind of stochastic process." The correspondence is not a necessary condition for the interpretation. Yes we have discussed this earlier, and I said the knowing of something by an omnipotent being does not...