3 ms·
> which is probably wrong IMO. There are so many IMO's floating around when it comes to foundations of QM. I think that is fascinating in and of itself. > Str
by mathgenius 10y ago
> which is probably wrong IMO.
There are so many IMO's floating around when it comes to foundations of QM. I think that is fascinating in and of itself.
> Straightforward, clean, unitary, and the math is promising.
My IMO definitely does not coincide with your IMO :-)
- wyager 10y agoMy "IMO" in this case means "by Occam's razor". We don't have enough physical evidence to strongly prefer one theory on the other, so all we have to go by is simplicity.
- mathgenius 10y agoTo me these arguments involving decoherence only show that the classical world is consistent with the quantum world, and indeed place constraints on the two theories in order to achieve this consistency. But in no way does decoherence (exponential suppression of off-diagonal terms in a density matrix) imply collapse of the state vector. In other words, we don't know why anything happens! It's such a beautiful perplexing quandry, and I just don't understand this attitude of "nothing to see here, move along".