In Quantum Field Theory, as far as I know, a field is itself regarded as a real physical thing (which can be visualized as a mattress with springs). — Andrew M
So - two 'Alices'? — Wayfarer
Yes, that's the result of the unitary evolution of the quantum state according to the Schrodinger equation. — Andrew M
You didn't understand MW enough to know that Alice is in both of them? Argument from incredulity? One of the main points of MW is to do away with action at a distance.Thank you. Perhaps one of them has indeed gone through the looking glass. — Wayfarer
You didn't understand MW enough to know that Alice is in both of them? Argument from incredulity? One of the main points of MW is to do away with action at a distance. — noAxioms
It does at least make a hash of ones dualistic notions of personal identity.It totally destroys the notion of realism whatever ones notion of realism must be. — Rich
One still.How many of me does there exist? — Rich
I'm not asserting the position here, just being amused at the boggling. It solves the problem of effects happening well before their causes, something that is not mind boggling, but still a violation of a lot of principles of physics. So I ask you to say what the difference in experience would be if MW turned out to be how things are objectively? Surely there must be a difference if it is so implausible. — noAxioms
You didn't understand MW enough to know that Alice is in both of them? — noAxioms
They'll even present a never ending, every growing universe of multi-verses. — Rich
Of course, one can buy into an infinite number of universes to avoid non-locality. But then, what is being observed in all of these experiments? Bohm would say the quantum potential acting at a distance. — Rich
Thank you. Perhaps one of them has indeed gone through the looking glass. — Wayfarer
Any physicist who regards a field as a real thing, has got a very strange ontology. It cannot be visualized as a mattress with springs, because numerous fields can occupy the same place, and mattresses can't do that. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's a philosophical choice. Local action or spooky action. — Andrew M
B) An a never ending,, growing number of unverifiable, unknowable universes. — Rich
[3] The Copenhagen model - quantum mechanics with a wave function collapse postulate (inherently random, wave-particle duality, paradoxes including EPR, Schrodinger's cat). — Andrew M
Foreword to The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, published in 1930.On the whole the book contains nothing that is not to be found in previous publications, particularly in the investigations of Bohr. The purpose of the book seems to me to be fulfilled if it contributes somewhat to the diffusion of that 'Kopenhagener Geist der Quantentheorie' [i.e., Copenhagen spirit of quantum theory] if I may so express myself, which has directed the entire development of modern atomic physics. — Werner Heisenberg
The term 'Copenhagen interpretation' suggests something more than just a spirit, such as some definite set of rules for interpreting the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, presumably dating back to the 1920s.However, no such text exists, apart from some informal popular lectures by Bohr and Heisenberg, which contradict each other on several important issues. It appears that the particular term, with its more definite sense, was coined by Heisenberg in the 1950s,[3] while criticizing alternate "interpretations" (e.g., David Bohm's[4]) that had been developed.[5]
Absolutely. All in one universe so we can actually explore the phenomenon. — Rich
I think it can be stated that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement undermines scientific realism, but again that's a philosophical observation. — Wayfarer
I mist-stated the position. There is an Alice in both of them. I initially said that Alice is in both of them. The reference to an objective identity doesn't work. — noAxioms
Heliocentrism was once considered unrealistic. — Andrew M
But I have learned that if you can accept the idea that there are parallel universes, which myself and many others thinks is an absurd idea, then clearly there is no line of argument that can be used against it. — Wayfarer
The interpretation that comes closest to reality, for me, is Carlo Rovelli's RQM — daldai
But again, what is the motivation behind the mathematics? What is the problem that the maths is trying to solve? Why go to the bother? — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.