Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

[Dmitry67]

Would you care to elaborate a little further?
How does "partial decoherence" in ANYWAY give "proof" to MWI over any other interpretation such as Bohm?
Explain exactly what you mean by that if you don't mind...

I have seen - don't find right now - decription of studies of decoherence. Sorry, I can't find it right now - have to go to work soon. In brief, they studied the "shoedinger cats state". So, what happens when you open an ideal box and look inside? You start receiving photons. Is 1 photon enough to conclude that cat is dead or alive? no. 2? not enough. 100? yes.

So they studies a small system and measured how the absorption of these photons affected the system. As I remember, after receiveing 5 photons system is significantly decoherenced (but not to 100%).

 

[Dmitry67]

Can we discuss how different interpretations can be falsified – not now, but in principle (say, after TOE is discovered). Note: I am talking about the possibility of falsification

What I know:
• TI – without BIG RIP there are no absorbers for many particles. So it has problems even now.
• MWI – has problems with Born rule, but not clear how it can be used for the subject. On the contrary, if there will be found a rigorous mathematical proof that we can derive what we see from QM formalism alone, if would be an very strong argument for MWI
• BM – Quantum Gravity can ruin it, if the very notion of particle is frame-dependent (different accelerated frames do not agree on the number of real particles constituting macroscopic events)
• Objective Collapse – not an interpretation, is directly testable
• CI?
• Others?
Any additions?

 

[QMister]

I have seen - don't find right now - decription of studies of decoherence. Sorry, I can't find it right now - have to go to work soon. In brief, they studied the "shoedinger cats state". So, what happens when you open an ideal box and look inside? You start receiving photons. Is 1 photon enough to conclude that cat is dead or alive? no. 2? not enough. 100? yes.

So they studies a small system and measured how the absorption of these photons affected the system. As I remember, after receiveing 5 photons system is significantly decoherenced (but not to 100%).

Thanks,

Looking forward to more indepth explanation.

I'm a little confused, why can't this apply to say, dBB, or ANY other objective interpretation without collapse (yes people like Gerard 't Hooft etc. is working on something)?
Remember Bohm was on of the guys discovered decoherence, and the first EVER to apply it to a interpretation: dBB, so why wouldn't this support the existence of a pilot wave and be strong evidence for dBB?

 

[molinaro]

What I know:
• TI – without BIG RIP there are no absorbers for many particles. So it has problems even now.

But isn't it true that in a cosmological constant dominated universe that all photons are absorbed at the horizon?

 

[Dmitry67]

horizon itself does not absorb anything because it is always far from an object. However, horizon generates hawking-like radiation. So universe will still be filled with the very low energy photons. And there is a very low probability that 'our' photon hits the hawking photon, completing the transaction. no matter how low the probability is, there is an infinite time for it. So I think it is true even without big rip...