Recent content by Sambuco

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.

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...