Minimal no collapse interpretation

[meBigGuy]

Is this a proper summary of a minimal-no-collapse interpretation? (I like to call it the fuzzy world interpretation, but I suppose I'm the only one)

When objects entangle, it constrains their degrees of freedom. As they entangle with more and more objects, their degrees of freedom are limited more and more. This results in the appearance of what we call classical behavior. But there is still superposition and fuzziness, just too small to observe. This provides the appearance of collapse. It is all driven by the principle that all entangled entities must correlate.

Assuming I'm not too far off (but I may be), what about this interpretation is considered inadequate, and is supplied (not simply undefined) by other interpretations.

Be gentle :)

 

[vanhees71]

I don't know what you mean by "When objects entangle, it constrains their degrees of freedom". Could you elaborate on this?

 

[naima]

Dop a drop of ink in a glass of water. At the beginning ink is in a small volume (small dof)
then entropy grows (greater volume, greater dof)
So higher entropy is associated to higher degrees of freedom.
Maximally entangled particles are associated to a maximal entropy

 

[bhobba]

You won't get to the bottom of it that way.

You need to understand the math.

What you may be describing is the ensemble or ignorance interpretation that I hold to:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5439/1/Decoherence_Essay_arXiv_version.pdf

It explains apparent collapse - actual collapse is far more problematic.

Thanks
Bill

 

[meBigGuy]

What I said is way too mushy. Let me think a bit more.

 

[craigi]

Is this a proper summary of a minimal-no-collapse interpretation? (I like to call it the fuzzy world interpretation, but I suppose I'm the only one)

When objects entangle, it constrains their degrees of freedom. As they entangle with more and more objects, their degrees of freedom are limited more and more. This results in the appearance of what we call classical behavior. But there is still superposition and fuzziness, just too small to observe. This provides the appearance of collapse. It is all driven by the principle that all entangled entities must correlate.

Assuming I'm not too far off (but I may be), what about this interpretation is considered inadequate, and is supplied (not simply undefined) by other interpretations.

Be gentle :)

Interpretations of quantum mechanics tend to differ on how they describe what's actually going on when a wave function appears to collapse and how they deal with the EPR paradox.

You seem to lean towards a belief in physical collapse, but really you're just describing decoherence. When the superposition becomes too small to observe how do you think the prominent state is determined?

You should look at the EPR paradox too and decide how you think that should be resolved.

 

[meBigGuy]

When the superposition becomes too small to observe how do you think the prominent state is determined?

I'm stuck on that at the moment. (The derivation of pointer states, and objectification through redundancy). (not stuck so much as still learning. That's the mushy part of what I originally posted)

As for favoring collapse, I have a problem with "collapse" (discontinuities) , but I'm inconsistent in expressing it. I definitely favor "appearance of collapse", and am slowly progressing in understanding it.