Recent content by Sambuco

The first sentence is a response to those who argue that RQM would be a solipsistic interpretation. Somehow, the typical confusion arises regarding the definition of certain terms that are commonly used in the community. The first sentence states that RQM is consistent with what is commonly...

I interpret Candiotto's work as suggesting that relations/interactions are fundamental and that objets/entities emerge from them, while Dorato suggests that a system that does not interact with others can be given an entity by taking into account its predisposition to reveal certain information...

Thanks for the reference @martinbn! I've been reading a bit about all this and I'd like to add something that I think is interesting... and confusing. In the paper I refer to in post #66, Rovelli states that the ontology of RQM consists of the instantaneous quantum events. Furthermore, he...

In RQM, what matters is the transition probability between two events involving the particle. If there is a gravitational field, it is included in the Hamiltonian. Lucas.

A very clear explanation of what constitues the ontology of RQM, taken from this paper: "The standard objection to the epistemic interpretation of the wave function is that instrumentalism about it (i.e. treating it as a bookkeeping device) is simply giving up on physics. But if quantum events...

In fact, Rovelli developed the relational interpretation inspired by his work in loop quantum gravity. He discusses this in section 4(c) of this paper. Lucas.

Hi @PeroK! Your objections relate to certain metaphysical assumptions that you take for granted, but which RQM rejects. First, I would like to briefly summarize the essence of the relational interpretation. Taking events/interactions as the central element, if information exists about the...

I'll make one last attempt! In any case, we may disagree and that's perfectly fine. :smile: Yes, that's true, but Rovelli mentions it because it favors that interpretation. To reinforce it, he adds: "The quantum leaps from one orbit to another constitute their way of being real: an electron is...

Yes, absolutely! That's why it's a matter open to interpretation. I'm not entirely sure I understand this question. According to the RQM, the ontology of the theory is given by interactions/events. From these, it's possible to construct everything else. For example, if there exists a sequence...

This idea can be found in several places throughout Rovelli's writings. As an example, in the book we mentioned earlier ("Reality is not what it seems"), he explicitly wrote: "This is the second cornerstone of quantum mechanics, its hardest key: the relational aspect of things. Electrons don’t...

Rovelli says: "The question of ‘what happens between quantum events’ is meaningless in the theory. The happening of the world is a very fine-grained but discrete swarming of quantum events, not the permanence of entities that have well-defined properties at each moment of a continuous time."...

It is consistent. In fact, this is the type of ontology on which the relational interpretation (https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0312) is based. This is due to the usual conservation laws that prevent such a transition. This is because the mathematical formalism is the same as in textbook's...

That was not the idea behind my comment and the reference to Schrödinger's text. See my previous post. As I said, this depends on the interpretation. My preference for an ontology made up of discrete events doesn't align with your thermal interpretation. Lucas.

That means that what we call a particle may not exist beyond measurements/observations/interactions. What is "real" are the detection events. Of course, it's a matter of interpretation, but in my opinion, thinking in terms of "permanent entities," as Schrödinger called them, is a step in the...

I would like to add that the idea that a quantum object exists at all times and possesses objective properties is nothing more than a metaphysical prejudice that favors a continuous description of physical phenomena. In that sense, I like the way Schrödinger addresses this topic in Chapter VI of...