Is this a new theory, an enhanced theory or just philosophy?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ftr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Philosophy Qm Theory
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the implications of the Frauchiger-Renner thought experiment, which challenges the consistency of quantum theory when applied to observers within quantum systems. Participants debate the assumptions made by the authors, particularly regarding the certainty of measurements and the Many Worlds interpretation. The conversation highlights the philosophical nature of the paper, suggesting that it raises more questions than it answers about the foundations of quantum mechanics. Key references include the original Frauchiger-Renner paper and various discussions on Physics Forums.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly the Many Worlds interpretation.
  • Familiarity with the concepts of measurement and observer effects in quantum theory.
  • Knowledge of thought experiments in physics, specifically the implications of Schrödinger's cat.
  • Basic understanding of diagrammatic notation used in quantum mechanics and computer science.
NEXT STEPS
  • Read the Frauchiger-Renner paper for a detailed understanding of their assumptions and conclusions.
  • Explore discussions on Physics Forums regarding the implications of the Frauchiger-Renner paradox.
  • Investigate the Many Worlds interpretation and its critiques in the context of quantum mechanics.
  • Study diagrammatic reasoning in quantum theory, including Feynman diagrams and Penrose notation.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, philosophers of science, and students of quantum mechanics seeking to deepen their understanding of the complexities and philosophical implications of quantum theory and observer effects.

  • #31
But none of the above authors mention anywhere that ##f(t,x)## and ##g(t,x)## would represent two different kinds of particles...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
vanhees71 said:
It's utter nonsense to begin with. There's no "photon wave function" to begin with, because there's no position representation for photon states, because there's no photon position operator definable.
ftr said:
I am no expert in the field but many papers like following seem to be genuine physics.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300173
Auto-Didact said:
Bialynicki-Birula is definitely a serious theoretician who has a long record of multiple insightful works; I have read some of his work in the past. If one is willing to disparage his work as 'nonsense' then I believe practically no theorist is safe from criticism.
The confusion is explained by the fact that the term ''wave function'' is ambiguous.

If the term is reserved for the position representation with Born's probability interpretation then vanhees71 is right. But there is a wave function in the momentum representation with a proper probability interpretation, and Bialynicki-Birula discusses its Fourier transform, which also deserves the name ''wave function''. Though it doesn't have a probability interpretation it completely describes the state.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mattt and Auto-Didact

Similar threads

Graduate MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Undergrad A Bold New Take on Quantum Theory
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
Undergrad What false hints of new physics were most notable?
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
Graduate Discussing Predictions of the LHC: String Theory, LQG, and Beyond
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Graduate It all began with an end - New theory on origin and future of the universe
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 241)
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K