Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
How many branches are possible after measurement/splitting?
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Fra, post: 6900301, member: 76451"] Some reflections... If you already in the premises, assume that you have a gaussian, you implicitly assume that you are working in a continuum model, and infinite capacity to encoded information, thus there seems to be uncountably many branches? - unless there is something else in the theory that forbids this. Even if you could "measure" the position with infinite precision, the observer might not be able to hold and encode this information with infinite precision and objective 100% confidence. Ie. the "receiver-end" gets saturated, and are forced to selectively discard information. So the other flip of the coin is to ask, what is the resolution of observation and representation of the observer/measurement device? This would constraint the distinguishable branchings from the perspective of this observer. In the classical copenhagen view, the whole macroscopic environment is what represents the "observer" with a potential classical network of measurement apparatouses. And unless we gets into cosmology this is effectively assumed infinite. So Then such infinite precision and encoding would seem possible because the whole macroscopic environment is never saturated. But then we ignore the timescale required for post-processing of this massive amount of data, and what happens if this exceeds the "measurement timescale" by orders of magniture? Here the current theory can't handle this or even pose these questions properly? In a generalied view, of not necessarily classicale measurement devices, one can imagine that the number of branches is simply scaling with the complexity(mass) of the measurement device, which in itself may "explain" it's brownian like motion of collapses, as seen by another more complex observer. I think a conceptual metaphor for such a "brownian observer" is that it is itself "100% confident" about it's observations, but "wrong", which is why it keeps getting "corrected". It's like you can, to your best of capability be "confident" in something, and still be wrong when putting it to test. It's also along the saying that "the more you learn about something, the more you realize how little you really know". /Fredrik [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
How many branches are possible after measurement/splitting?
Back
Top