- #1

- 690

- 6

- Thread starter Schrodinger's Dog
- Start date

- #1

- 690

- 6

- #2

- 2,471

- 1

MWI of course

- #3

- 690

- 6

Of course but why?

- #4

- 2,471

- 1

2. It is deterministic

3. It is realistic

4. It allows our Universe to start from very simple or null initial conditions at t=0

5. It is compatible with Max Tegmarks MUH

6. It's weirdness is beautiful

- #5

- 2,471

- 1

I believe in MWI, so QM is *already* complete, and all these collapse things is just invention of the tortles.

- #6

- 1,159

- 0

Shut-up-and-calculate is even simpler.

2. It is deterministic

3. It is realistic

4. It allows our Universe to start from very simple or null initial conditions at t=0

5. It is compatible with Max Tegmarks MUH

6. It's weirdness is beautiful

- #7

- 2,471

- 1

- #8

- 690

- 6

Would you argue with Dirac or Feynman?

- #9

- 2,471

- 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

"Shut up and calculate" is just a slogan. It really means 'When we do experiments we can forget about these weird things'. Like Big Bang, which is not a Bang at all...

- #10

RUTA

Science Advisor

- 1,249

- 312

Relational Blockworld

- #11

- 2,425

- 6

- #12

- 1,159

- 0

Is there somewhere a detailed description of each interpretation to learn "officially" or at least sufficiently professionally?There are many interpretations on the market.

- #13

- 11,056

- 3,750

- #14

tom.stoer

Science Advisor

- 5,766

- 161

I tend to agree.

String / M and LQG are not interpretations of QM. In addition the list of interpretations is both incomplete and not detailed enough. If you read papers and books carefully you will learn that the experts are familiar with QM and philosophy; as such two people preferring the "same" interpretation will mostly differ in the details. Even Feynman was a realist in his normal course of life. He surely believed in the continuous existence of his bedroom during his labor time in the office. But of course Feynman would have never agreed to a realistic interpretation of QM. You will find many more examples ...

So I would suggest to read a book on the subject. e.g.

- Bernard d'Espagnat: On Physics and Philosophy

- Jeffrey Bub: Interpreting the Quantum World

- #15

- 10

- 0

- It explains the whole process of "wave function collapse". Wave function does not magically disappeared after it is collapsed. It canceled out as the transaction is completed.

- Wave function is physically "real" wave.

- It's time symmetric.

- Observer has no special role in collapse of wavefunction. Emitter and Absorber(Observer) of wave function are the same

http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/AAAS_20060621.ppt

- #16

- 11,056

- 3,750

What are emitters and absorbers? Does this interpretation say that there are objects not defined by wave functions? Is Schrodinger equation violated at the places where emitters and absorbers are present?I Like Transactional Interpretation.

- It explains the whole process of "wave function collapse". Wave function does not magically disappeared after it is collapsed. It canceled out as the transaction is completed.

- Wave function is physically "real" wave.

- It's time symmetric.

- Observer has no special role in collapse of wavefunction. Emitter and Absorber(Observer) of wave function are the same

- #17

- 10

- 0

Emitter and Absober are exactly the charged particle that radiate the wave. E.g., electron emits/absorbs a photon during transition to another energy state.What are emitters and absorbers? Does this interpretation say that there are objects not defined by wave functions? Is Schrodinger equation violated at the places where emitters and absorbers are present?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory" [Broken]. The idea of Transactional Interpretation came from this theory.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #18

- 2,471

- 1

Observer, or emitter, or absorber are not well defined and magic

- #19

- 11,056

- 3,750

Can you write down equations that govern the behavior of this particle? Is it the classical equation of motion? Also the question that I have already asked but you didn't answer: Is Schrodinger equation violated at the positions of charged particles? Finally, what about particles without charge?Emitter and Absober are exactly the charged particle that radiate the wave. E.g., electron emits/absorbs a photon during transition to another energy state.

- #20

- 11,056

- 3,750

Good point, but I'm afraid that the problem with the transactional interpretation could be even much worse than the problem with CI.

Observer, or emitter, or absorber are not well defined and magic

- #21

- 2,471

- 1

In any case, TI is a collapse interpretation, which saves the realism at cost of assuming actions backward in time.

Regarding the collapse it has the same problems as CI. For example, a mirror or a lense is not considered to be an 'absorber' even photon iteracts with atoms of the glass, while our retina is considered to be an absorber.

- #22

- 36

- 0

MWI on the other hand is an abomination - the most extreme violation of Ockham's Razor one can imagine and I can't see how it solves anything as there still has to be some kind of a "collapse." Something has to determine which possibility happens to each observer since there is at least one special observer - the one in which my conscious resides - and this special observer is only experiencing one possibility and not the other so there has to be a "collapse" to determine which one it is.

- #23

- 2,471

- 1

1 No, it is minimalistic. It had been discussed many times. MWI does not introduce additional postulated hence it is minimalistic1

MWI on the other hand is an abomination - the most extreme violation of Ockham's Razor one can imagine and

2

I can't see how it solves anything as there still has to be some kind of a "collapse."

3

Something has to determine which possibility happens to each observer since there is at least one special observer - the one in which my conscious resides - and this special observer is only experiencing one possibility and not the other so there has to be a "collapse" to determine which one it is.

2 Quantum Decoherence

3 How do you know that your consiousness resides in only one branch?

- #24

- 36

- 0

1. It postulates existence of immense/infinite number of additional unobservable universes whose number is constantly growing and which are being created out of nothing.1 No, it is minimalistic. It had been discussed many times. MWI does not introduce additional postulated hence it is minimalistic

2 Quantum Decoherence

3 How do you know that your consiousness resides in only one branch?

3. Experience, there is always only one possible outcome available to my consciousness.

- #25

- 2

- 0

firstto be able to calculate on its own, 6 and a half days a week, while not closing one's eye on alternative interpretations on the basis of philosophical prejudice, but only do it on spare time. The vast majority of working physicists is not working on foundations, and they mostly "shut up and calculate". As far as I can tell, I have seen too often, on this very forum, people arguing about such interpretation while not being able to calculate, and I think it is vain.

Agree 100%. I am also a fan of "Shut up and Calculate" and if you cannot Calculate then you should Shut Up. In the past I thought that it was quite fun and harmless to debate interpretations but now with so much quantum babble going around I am not so sure any more.