Copenhegen interpretation or Many World Interpretation?

  • Thread starter backward
  • Start date
Try to read:

Quantum Theory as a Universal Physical Theory
David Deutsch, 1985 section 8: A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

It is a little odd, but you asked for even thought experiments, so... Here it is. I don't know how satisfied this will leave you, though.
 
1,456
365
There were other stuff I could find, like...

http://arXiv.org/abs/0809.4422v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1564v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3445

I'd also reccomend reading:

Understanding Deutsch’s probability in a deterministic multiverse
H. Greaves (2004)

Worlds in the Everett interpretation
David Wallace
Studies in History and Philosophy of
Modern Physics 33 (2002) 637–661

Everett and structure
David Wallace
Studies in History and Philosophy of
Modern Physics 34 (2003) 87–105

Everettian rationality: defending Deutsch’s
approach to probability in the Everett
interpretation
David Wallace
Studies in History and Philosophy of
Modern Physics 34 (2003) 415–439

The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:
Many Worlds or Many Words?
Max Tegmark

Nine formulations of quantum mechanics
Daniel F. Styer, a) Miranda S. Balkin, Kathryn M. Becker, Matthew R. Burns,
Christopher E. Dudley, Scott T. Forth, Jeremy S. Gaumer, Mark A. Kramer,
David C. Oertel, Leonard H. Park, Marie T. Rinkoski, Clait T. Smith,
and Timothy D. Wotherspoon

Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of
quantum mechanics
Maximilian Schlosshauer
REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, VOLUME 76, OCTOBER 2004

Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical
Wojciech Hubert Zurek
REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, VOLUME 75, JULY 2003

If one day I have time, I'll try reading all of them as well... It is just that we need to have a job to put food in our tables, so there is not always time to put in the reading of almost 300 pages of very interesting physics...

This is what I could find that would be relevant enough in a first search.
 
1,456
365
Thanks for the thorough list. When I return to study next year (I hope) I will have my university credentials to access some of the material you cite.
 
9,188
2,098
In principle... probably, yes. Every interpretation of a model has implications along with it, and it is just a matter of time before someone clever enough comes along and sees a way to measure the reality of one set of implications verse another.
That's not true.

Many interpretations have been deliberately cooked up so its impossible to tell the difference between it and the formalism.

In fact most (but not all) interpretations is simply an argument about the meaning of probability.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

Thanks
Bill
 
9,188
2,098
Right, so, just to emphasize: what you're calling Copenhagen is known in philosophy of science as instrumentalism, and in the context of QM is generally called shut-up-and-calculate. .
Yes and no. It is part of a group of interpretations that has observations as its primitive (philosophers likely would call it instrumentalist - although I wouldn't because it goes well beyond instruments in actual experiments) that differ purely in how the interpret probability. I would classify all those in the shut-up and calculate group.

Thanks
Bill
 

Related Threads for: Copenhegen interpretation or Many World Interpretation?

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
94
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
547
Replies
119
Views
6K
Replies
58
Views
10K
Replies
22
Views
6K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top