- #1

universal_101

- 325

- 3

The probabilistic nature of QM seems apparent(in theoretical formulation as well as experimentally), then why do most of the physicists give the credit of in-determinism to the nature itself and look for many worlds, abruptly collapsing observer conscious experiment setups, and the likes.

Whereas it seems that in-determinism lies with the fact that there are far too many degrees of freedom involved in QM. That is, why does that cat has to be dead and alive at the same time or one cat dead and other alive in two different worlds, when it is perfectly understandable that we don't know the state of the cat because there are more degrees of freedom involved for which we can solve this particular setup.

Similarly, why do we make the Quantum Entanglement superior than the classical case of a pair of shoes at different places? Is it because, the in-determinism of QM is currently considered fundamental in nature and therefore the states of the two annihilation photons must be entangled somehow so as that when we measure the spin of one photon the spin of the other photon is known simultaneously?

Thanks

Whereas it seems that in-determinism lies with the fact that there are far too many degrees of freedom involved in QM. That is, why does that cat has to be dead and alive at the same time or one cat dead and other alive in two different worlds, when it is perfectly understandable that we don't know the state of the cat because there are more degrees of freedom involved for which we can solve this particular setup.

Similarly, why do we make the Quantum Entanglement superior than the classical case of a pair of shoes at different places? Is it because, the in-determinism of QM is currently considered fundamental in nature and therefore the states of the two annihilation photons must be entangled somehow so as that when we measure the spin of one photon the spin of the other photon is known simultaneously?

Thanks

Last edited: