4 ms·

> Actually, what I actually said is more accurate than my off-the-cuff paraphrase in the above comment. There is no flaw in the reasoning. The reasoning is corr

> Actually, what I actually said is more accurate than my off-the-cuff paraphrase in the above comment. There is no flaw in the reasoning. The reasoning is correct, and I say that in the presentation too. It is the premises that are false. In that case, I think your presentation was accurate to what you wanted to convey, but I disagree that the Copenhagen interpretation has a major problem. It is perhaps harder to get a good grasp of than another interpretation, but the really hard parts of QM is in the math. >> My understanding is that all the different accepted interpretations are mathematically equivalent > Yes, that's true. The part of the Copenhagen interpretation that is scientifically untenable is the non-mathematical part, the part that says that there is this physical phenomenon called the collapse of the wave function which is non-unitary and outside the scope of the theory, but which causes real measurable effects (i.e. the destruction of interference). I was not quite clear. I meant that all of the predictions are identical (thus leading to the math calculating them being the same). If that is not true, either I have been terribly mislead or you have a groundbreaking result in QM. > That's all bullshit. QM is not hard to understand. The really hard part about understanding quantum mechanics is dealing with the underlying math. It is not intuitive. Complex numbers tend to make an intuitive understanding hard. Properly understanding the Quantum Fourier Transform is not easy, and that doesn't even use measurement. I never touched the Copenhagen interpretation in my study of the QFT and it was still hard.

lisper 9y ago
There's a difference between understanding QM and doing QM. (See the preface of Griffith's book [1] for an explanation of what I mean by that distinction.) Doing QM is indeed hard. But it has been claimed by many (with again Feynman being the canonical example) that understanding QM is hard too, so hard in fact that one should not even try. That is false. Anyone who understands high school algebra and what a complex number is can understand QM. > I meant that all of the predictions are identical That depends on what you mean. Formally, yes, all the predictions are identical. But informally, the Copenhagen interpretation predicts that the EPRG experiment should yield FTL communications. > If that is not true, either I have been terribly mislead or you have a groundbreaking result in QM. I don't know how groundbreaking they are, but QIT has led me to profound insights that Copenhagen could not, e.g. [2] [3]. It also leads to interesting questions, for example: on QIT it is immediately obvious that it is not possible to undo an entanglement without bringing the entangled particles physically back together again (because if this were possible that would lead to FTL). So it is a deep mystery why the two-slit experiment works at all, because every photon must be entangled at a minimum with the particle that emitted it. I don't know, but I suspect that if you pursued this line of thought it would lead to some insight about how lasers work. [1] http://www.fisica.net/mecanica-quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Introduction%20to%20quantum%20mechanics.pdf http://www.fisica.net/mecanica-quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Intr... [2] http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/12/quantum-teleportation-demystified.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/12/quantum-teleportation-dem... [3] http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...

lisper 9y ago

There's a difference between understanding QM and doing QM. (See the preface of Griffith's book [1] for an explanation of what I mean by that distinction.) Doing QM is indeed hard. But it has been claimed by many (with again Feynman being the canonical example) that understanding QM is hard too, so hard in fact that one should not even try. That is false. Anyone who understands high school algebra and what a complex number is can understand QM. > I meant that all of the predictions are identical That depends on what you mean. Formally, yes, all the predictions are identical. But informally, the Copenhagen interpretation predicts that the EPRG experiment should yield FTL communications. > If that is not true, either I have been terribly mislead or you have a groundbreaking result in QM. I don't know how groundbreaking they are, but QIT has led me to profound insights that Copenhagen could not, e.g. [2] [3]. It also leads to interesting questions, for example: on QIT it is immediately obvious that it is not possible to undo an entanglement without bringing the entangled particles physically back together again (because if this were possible that would lead to FTL). So it is a deep mystery why the two-slit experiment works at all, because every photon must be entangled at a minimum with the particle that emitted it. I don't know, but I suspect that if you pursued this line of thought it would lead to some insight about how lasers work. [1] http://www.fisica.net/mecanica-quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Introduction%20to%20quantum%20mechanics.pdf http://www.fisica.net/mecanica-quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Intr... [2] http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/12/quantum-teleportation-demystified.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/12/quantum-teleportation-dem... [3] http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...