Recent content by Sambuco

Interesting! I'd never thought of it that way. Lucas.

Sure, that's precisely why I said that no one is looking for an underlying mechanism to "explain" time dilation in special relativity! This does not happen in quantum mechanics, where the prediction of entanglement and the violation of Bell's inequalities are not usually accepted at face value...

Yes, and I agree that this is closely related to the fact that there is no consensus on how to reconstruct the formalism of the theory from clear physical principles, as is the case with special relativity. I'm not sure, but this paper might interest you: Höhn et al., "An operational approach...

There is a possibility that there is no underlying mechanism that explains the phenomenon, just as there is none to explain, for example, the phenomena of time dilation in special relativity. Lucas.

Yes, I agree. I didn't mean anything else. Objective collapse theories (GRW, CSL, and so on) are the typical example. Lucas.

I believe that "established" is a reasonable word to refer to those interpretations whose predictions are considered to coincide with those of orthodox/textbook quantum mechanics. Lucas.

If you're interested in reading about the indivisible interpretation, it might be best to start with one of the earlier works. The proof of the theorem is here, although I think this is the clearest work regarding the interpretation. Regarding locality, Barandes addresses the issue in a...

You're right! Modern Copenhagenish interpretations postulate what is known as anti-##\psi##-ontology, as discussed here. Lucas.

Yes, I'm also a big "fan" of this article. And I'm certainly a big fan of Padmanabhan in general. I'm thinking right now about that wonder that is "Sleeping beauties in theoretical physics." Yes, I agree, but my point is that Hobson, on the one hand, goes into great detail discussing how "even...

I haven't read his book "Field and their quanta", but I must say that many of the things he asserts in this paper are, at the very least, "controversial". First, it is not clear what he means by something like "the universe is made of fields". To accurately address notions such as the...

Although it is a "problematic" term, I think the definition of realism in quantum foundations is generally linked to the idea that systems possess properties outside of measurements (just as in the EPR paper), whereas Barandes' quote refers specifically to "wave function realism", more in line...

Yes, I understand. My comment, somewhat independent of @iste's opinion, is that Barandes' interpretation has the curious characteristic of combining a well-defined ontology with dynamic laws that don't speak directly about it, but only about what each observer can say about it, in the spirit of...

I think what @iste points out is interesting and reveals something particular about Barandes' interpretation. It's common to postulate a primitive ontology in ##\psi##-ontic interpretations, such as Bohmian mechanics or many-worlds. In those cases, the actual configuration of the system appears...

Thanks @A. Neumaier! Is this true if we limit ourselves to a single basis? I understand that the work referred to projectors associated with definite configurations. Lucas.

As a quick aside, as I mentioned in post #94, Mott has nothing to do with Coleman's argument. Mott's analysis is correct, and in fact it is considered one of the first works on decoherence, even in the early years of QM (his paper is from 1929). Lucas.