Recent content by Sambuco

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.

As a addition to my post #92, Coleman's argument is not equivalent to what Mott presents in his seminal 1929 work. Mott demonstrates that if an ##\alpha## particle is emitted in a cloud chamber such that its initial state is spherically symmetric, and we assume that it ionizes atoms in its path...

In case it helps, I'll share my interpretation of what Coleman is trying to say. He begins by defining the operator ##L## as having straight line for the ionization track in the cloud chamber as an eigenstate with eigenvalue +1. Then, by linearity, this means that a superposition of straight...

Within non-relativistic quantum mechanics, as you say, a tension arises between these two concepts because spacetime is assumed to be classical. Ultimately, if the gravitational field were inherently quantum and we interpreted it in the same way, there would also be no instants in time when the...

When I say "in relation to a third system" I'm talking about the relational interpretation, where the entanglement between two physical systems ("system" and "friend" in Wigner's friend experiment) can only exist with respect to a third system ("Wigner") for which the system-friend interaction...

Within RQM entanglement represents the information a physical system possesses about the correlations that may exist in the outcomes of certain future interactions, given some available information about past interactions. In other words, entanglement is a property associated with the...

RQM proposes an event-based ontology, in which information is exchanged between different physical systems. However, this raises the question of the existence of physical systems themselves, independent of events. On this point, there is no consensus as discussed in this paper. Some argue that...

I tend to agree with you regarding the comparison between Bohmian mechanics, many-worlds, and objective collapse. However, I think this is too narrow a view of realism, which traditionally associated "realism" with a ##\psi##-ontic stance. Likewise, the concept of realism is also associated with...

That's the most common criticism, but I think QBism is somewhat more complex. In short, it doesn't deny the possible existence of a physical world beyond our experience, but rather argues that QM only addresses the latter, not the former. An excerpt from the paper arxiv:2108.13977 by Jacques...

Hi everyone! I'd like to add a few comments to the discussion: Although @PeterDonis's answer is absolutely correct in that all interpretations make the same predictions, I think something more can be said about how the preferences in the community have changed over time. First of all, it is...

A new paper (arxiv:2602.23491) seems relevant to the issues we're discussing here. Given its length, I need to reread it to draw conclusions. In summary, the authors criticize Barandes' formulation/interpretation (particularly in section 7 of the article), pointing out several issues. To mention...

Can we really be sure that the trajectories will be discontinuous? I think so, but the fact that the formalism only deals with epistemic probabilities makes me doubt it. I think he's talking about the creation/annihilation of particles in the relativistic regime (QFT), not the possibility of...