3 ms·

The Pilot Wave Interpretation is one of the strangest contortions I've ever seen. You go to all the trouble to set up the wave equation acting on phase space o

The Pilot Wave Interpretation is one of the strangest contortions I've ever seen. You go to all the trouble to set up the wave equation acting on phase space of the entire universe, but then you remember that you think particles are fundamental elements of reality, so you drop them in and say they're guided by your wave equation. If you take Pilot Wave Interpretation and just take out the particles, you're left with the Many Worlds Interpretation with exactly the same predictions. To paraphrase Netwon, there's no need for that hypothesis.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
> If you take Pilot Wave Interpretation and just take out the particles, you're left with the Many Worlds Interpretation with exactly the same predictions. To paraphrase Netwon, there's no need for that hypothesis. And if you take Many World and simply add a particle you have Pilot Wave hypothesis. No need for the crazy multiple universes nonsense. All 3 produce (including Copenh) the exact same predictions, so that's not gonna be the distinguishing factor. Which is more contorted? Waves are physical and particles exist? Or we live in a countless number of simultaneously subdividing universes? It's fascinating to hear people discuss PW vs MWs - because (in my opinion) it becomes very clear which they became comfortable with first. If you were to stop a random person on the street and give them a summary of the two theories it's pretty clear that someone unfamiliar with both would say the PW is a ton simpler. But it's fascinating to see that a good number of people who are comfortable with many worlds will argue that it's less complex. My view is obviously their opinion is shaped by what they've been exposed to first.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  Copenhagen isn't even a proper theory, because it never tells you precise criteria for when wavefunction collapse occurs. It's not a surprise that nobody noticed this at the time, because the Copenhagen Interpretation was invented prior to the foundational work on computation and formalization of what an algorithm is. But looking at it now, it should be clear that there's no formal definition of what a "measurement" is. As soon as you give precise criteria for wavefunction collapse, then you have a difference in predictions between Copenhagen and MW. And PW is strictly more complicated than MW, because you still need to track the same wavefunction on phase space, but then you add this particle to have something to point to and say "this is reality". But all the complexity of the wavefunction is still there. If you try to reduce this complexity by collapsing the wave function, you're back to having the same problems as Copenhagen.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

> If you take Pilot Wave Interpretation and just take out the particles, you're left with the Many Worlds Interpretation with exactly the same predictions. To paraphrase Netwon, there's no need for that hypothesis. And if you take Many World and simply add a particle you have Pilot Wave hypothesis. No need for the crazy multiple universes nonsense. All 3 produce (including Copenh) the exact same predictions, so that's not gonna be the distinguishing factor. Which is more contorted? Waves are physical and particles exist? Or we live in a countless number of simultaneously subdividing universes? It's fascinating to hear people discuss PW vs MWs - because (in my opinion) it becomes very clear which they became comfortable with first. If you were to stop a random person on the street and give them a summary of the two theories it's pretty clear that someone unfamiliar with both would say the PW is a ton simpler. But it's fascinating to see that a good number of people who are comfortable with many worlds will argue that it's less complex. My view is obviously their opinion is shaped by what they've been exposed to first.

Simon_says 9y ago
Copenhagen isn't even a proper theory, because it never tells you precise criteria for when wavefunction collapse occurs. It's not a surprise that nobody noticed this at the time, because the Copenhagen Interpretation was invented prior to the foundational work on computation and formalization of what an algorithm is. But looking at it now, it should be clear that there's no formal definition of what a "measurement" is. As soon as you give precise criteria for wavefunction collapse, then you have a difference in predictions between Copenhagen and MW. And PW is strictly more complicated than MW, because you still need to track the same wavefunction on phase space, but then you add this particle to have something to point to and say "this is reality". But all the complexity of the wavefunction is still there. If you try to reduce this complexity by collapsing the wave function, you're back to having the same problems as Copenhagen.