4 ms·
This is correct. As it is usually applied in practice in the literature, the measurement device decoheres the quantum system and becomes entangled with it --- a
by beevai142 10y ago
This is correct. As it is usually applied in practice in the literature, the measurement device decoheres the quantum system and becomes entangled with it --- and at the end of the calculation, Copenhagen interpretation is applied on the measurement device. It works fine in practice, but in the end it is philosophically just the Copenhagen interpretation.
If something is not accepted by the wider physics community, it's very likely the correctness of the thing in question is not that clear.
- lisper 10y ago> in the end it is philosophically just the Copenhagen interpretation No, it isn't. The wave function never collapses. This is easily demonstrated with a simple thought experiment which is described in the first two references that I link to.
- FrostyElsa 10y agoPeople are so dumbfounded by the Everettian interpretation. It may take more time (with Quantum computing help) to prove that the wave function indeed never collapses and that there are infinite number of probabilistic worlds in actual existence. Hello graveyardigans.
- beevai142 10y agoI wrote about the interpretation usually used in published papers, and obviously decoherence alone does not solve the measurement problem as it only shuffles it to the bigger system, you need many worlds / Copenhagen / etc. I don't bother watching youtube videos of what someone thinks quantum mechanics is about.
- lisper 10y agoYou don't have to watch a video. My first reference is to a paper.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- akvadrako 10y agoMany worlds is just a way of describing the results of entanglement. It doesn't add any structure or dynamics to the wave function. Those worlds are precisely those slices the parent is talking about.