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
Nature Physics on quantum foundations
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Fra, post: 6801990, member: 76451"] I read the Frölich paper and I fail to connect to this thinking or choice of analysis in any significant sense. Perhaps I missed something but I see some some vauge exceptions... [I]"We must therefore clarify what should be added to the formalism of QM in order to capture its fundamentally probabilistic nature and to arrive at a mathematical structure that enables one to describe physical phenom- ena (“events”) in isolated open systems S, without a need to appeal to the intervention of “observers” with “free will” – as is done in the conventional “Copenhagen Interpretation of QM”[/I] Indeed one could ask what the freedom to choose detector settings in bell type of gedanken experiments, translates to, when imagine describing the WHOLE system must [I]evolve unitarily[/I]? ie. when we try to include and "agent" in the system, but described from the perspective of another agent, what does the "freedom to choose measurement" correspond to? I share the idea that this is indeed a kind of random process. Ie. the agents making measurements must be a kind of spontaneous and random stoastich process. In my personal views, I see the agent as doing a random walk (or basically throwing dice). So the "free will" is allowed from the perspective of the external agent, but from the agent itself I think it's just doing a random walk. If we label the freedom to make a random step as free will, then it does not take anything else. But of course the random walk could be "guided", but the agents subjective bias. So from the external agent, it doesn't not necessarily appear random as randomness would be subjective. Randomness just means inability to predict, which may be due to limited information processing capacity, not too dissimilar to pseudorandom generators. [I]"(H;U) do not tell us anything interesting about the physics of S, beyond spectral properties of the operators U(t; t0)"[/I] If I interpret what they want to say, they say the Hamiltonian does not say anything about the "internal structure" of S, and thus the "physics of the internal interactions". I symphatize with this, as the hamiltonian is inferred "as a whole" from the outside, which is why for complex systems it lacks insight of the origin, and often bings us into a fine tuning situation. But I do no not see how the EHT view solves anything as i see it. I would prefer to phrase this subquesion so that, if S containts of "interacting observers", then to understand the physics of S (and how it's parts are put together) we need to understand the physics of interacting observers on part with any interacting and to construct larges systems from parts, from allowing the parts to "communicate" and see how the Hamiltoninan of such a system emerges from it's parts. This would give us the insight of the physics of S, AND the overally hamiltonian of the composite S; as seen from an external perspective. But this to me, requires a new theory, and I do not how their EHT stance helps out in that quest? The beef with how unitary evolution of the whole system, may not be consistent with the stepwise evolution with internal measurements, where one assumes that that the classical results obey the bell-type correlations does not seem like a problem to me as the latter sitation is injecting information that does not exist in the original state, so there is not reason why the two expectations should be the same, as I don't consider the latter case an isolate system, so there is no paradox. That the "expectations" on a isolated system, is violated when the assumption of isolation is broken, is not a conceptual problem. /Fredrik [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Nature Physics on quantum foundations
Back
Top