3 ms·

> The reduction from QM to newtonian mechanics is very easy This is just not true. For example when enanglement is involved all of this goes out the window. I

> The reduction from QM to newtonian mechanics is very easy This is just not true. For example when enanglement is involved all of this goes out the window. Indeed, the next few decades of quantum computing is going to be completely non-reducible to newtownian mechanics. > QM is not acausal. I disagree entirely. QM is exactly acausal. Also known as the measurement problem.

wyager 10y ago
> For example when enanglement is involved all of this goes out the window. Fair enough, this is sort of a counter example to the "increase the action" trick, but it does work for any local effects. > Also known as the measurement problem. There is no need to violate causality to solve the measurement problem. Even superluminal solutions don't allow for the superluminal transmission of information, so causality is preserved. There are huge families of solutions that don't require superluminality at all (einselection, many worlds, etc.).
- mathgenius 10y ago
  > violate causality I'm not suggesting to violate causality, I'm saying there just is no cause. > to solve the measurement problem I don't think there is any solution. The physical laws of the universe are incomplete, they do not determine what "happens." There are constraints in the form of probabilities, so it's not like anything can happen at any time. But what actually happens, it's spontaneous, un-caused. > huge families of solutions This is a vast area of research that has spanned decades and yielded very little in the way of solutions. Hence my use of the term "boneheaded" above.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > There are constraints in the form of probabilities, so it's not like anything can happen at any time. But what actually happens, it's spontaneous, un-caused. Ah, your problem is that you only seem to be aware of the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations available that work just as well, but don't have anything as inconvenient as nondeterminism. > This is a vast area of research that has spanned decades and yielded very little in the way of solutions. No, you are wrong here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einselection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einselection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation

wyager 10y ago

> For example when enanglement is involved all of this goes out the window. Fair enough, this is sort of a counter example to the "increase the action" trick, but it does work for any local effects. > Also known as the measurement problem. There is no need to violate causality to solve the measurement problem. Even superluminal solutions don't allow for the superluminal transmission of information, so causality is preserved. There are huge families of solutions that don't require superluminality at all (einselection, many worlds, etc.).

mathgenius 10y ago
> violate causality I'm not suggesting to violate causality, I'm saying there just is no cause. > to solve the measurement problem I don't think there is any solution. The physical laws of the universe are incomplete, they do not determine what "happens." There are constraints in the form of probabilities, so it's not like anything can happen at any time. But what actually happens, it's spontaneous, un-caused. > huge families of solutions This is a vast area of research that has spanned decades and yielded very little in the way of solutions. Hence my use of the term "boneheaded" above.
- wyager 10y ago
  > There are constraints in the form of probabilities, so it's not like anything can happen at any time. But what actually happens, it's spontaneous, un-caused. Ah, your problem is that you only seem to be aware of the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations available that work just as well, but don't have anything as inconvenient as nondeterminism. > This is a vast area of research that has spanned decades and yielded very little in the way of solutions. No, you are wrong here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einselection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einselection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation