2 ms·

> But, broadly, interacting with an object in superposition in a way that depends on that superposition will cause entanglement. This doesn't explain the caus

> But, broadly, interacting with an object in superposition in a way that depends on that superposition will cause entanglement. This doesn't explain the cause of entanglement. It just explains the circumstances under which entanglement occurs. > I appreciate that this must sound exactly as vague as the definition of a measurement That's because it is beyond the mathematics. > But for those familiar with QM it really isn't. This is not true. I'm familiar with QM and it is vague to me. >they're very clear on which physical circumstances give rise to entanglement But, none explain the cause of entanglement. Just as none explains the cause of collapse of a wave function which is called a measurement. > Ok, but what would the subjective experience of that look like? I wouldn't know, because it's not what can be experienced. Some folks argue this is exactly what makes many worlds unscientific. > Just by looking at the wavefunction, Interesting. What kind of microscope are you using to look at wave functions? Or do you mean at the mathematical expression of the wavefunction? I'm not arguing that decorherence theories are mathematically sound and a neat theory. I'm just challenging that they offer some physical explanations beyond Copenhagen. They just take the unexplained things and replace them with other unexplained things. > emergent property Another empty word. > Finding yourself in one specific branch is somewhat mysterious Yes. And if you think about it, this is the same mystery which makes Copenhagen so unsatisfactory, just put into a different framework.

lmm 7y ago
> This doesn't explain the cause of entanglement. It just explains the circumstances under which entanglement occurs. "Entanglement" is just a term for a particular kind of behaviour that (some) solutions to the Schrodinger equation exhibit. I can't tell you why physical reality conforms to the Schrodinger equation, but I believe we're all agreed that it does. > That's because it is beyond the mathematics. No it isn't. It's right there in the mathematics. > This is not true. I'm familiar with QM and it is vague to me. With all due respect, if entanglement is vague to you then you're not familiar with QM. Entanglement is a basic quantum phenomenon and the results of quite simple experiments cannot be understood without it. You will find respected authorities on QM who disagree on interpretations, or disagree on how we should think about measurements. But you will not find any who disagree on what the phenomenon of entanglement is or when it occurs, regardless of what interpretation of QM they subscribe to. > I wouldn't know, because it's not what can be experienced. Some folks argue this is exactly what makes many worlds unscientific. Just the opposite: blithely asserting that you're not in a superposition, based on zero scientific evidence, is what's unscientific. Unless and until we can come up with some experiment that would distinguish being in a superposition from not being in a superposition, we should be agnostic about whether we're in a superposition, and have no particular reason to favour a theory that claims we're in a superposition over one that claims we're not (or vice versa). > What kind of microscope are you using to look at wave functions? Or do you mean at the mathematical expression of the wavefunction? If you're claiming that the wavefunction is a physically real thing then the Copenhagenists will kick you out :P. > Another empty word. Not at all; while it's a word that's frequently abused, it does mean something specific and well-defined. > Yes. And if you think about it, this is the same mystery which makes Copenhagen so unsatisfactory, just put into a different framework. I don't think it is so mysterious: if that mathematical description of reality is accurate, what else could we possibly expect to experience? To claim that subjective experience is messy and complicated is a much smaller assertion than to claim that this messy complication exists in objective physical reality, as the Copenhagenists do.
- edna314 7y ago
  > blithely asserting that you're not in a superposition, based on zero scientific evidence, is what's unscientific. If this was true I would offer another theory: an untraceable Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for QM. You won’t be able to gather any evidence against it, so you cannot rule it out. This theory would be on par with your many worlds theory. I can also write down physically looking equations which describe its behavior. I think the gist of science over religion is exactly the requirement to provide evidence for the claims it makes not evidence against opposing claims. Otherwise science is dogma.
  - lmm 7y ago
    > If this was true I would offer another theory: an untraceable Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for QM. You won’t be able to gather any evidence against it, so you cannot rule it out. This theory would be on par with your many worlds theory. I can also write down physically looking equations which describe its behavior. Just the opposite: positing a collapse phenomenon which makes no difference to observable reality is on a par with positing an untraceable Flying Spaghetti Monster. Many-worlds is not an extra assumption but the absence of one: it's the assumption that we behave like normal physical objects, and all the normal, experimentally-established phenomena of quantum mechanics (such as superposition) apply to us just as they apply to other matter we experiment on.

lmm 7y ago

> This doesn't explain the cause of entanglement. It just explains the circumstances under which entanglement occurs. "Entanglement" is just a term for a particular kind of behaviour that (some) solutions to the Schrodinger equation exhibit. I can't tell you why physical reality conforms to the Schrodinger equation, but I believe we're all agreed that it does. > That's because it is beyond the mathematics. No it isn't. It's right there in the mathematics. > This is not true. I'm familiar with QM and it is vague to me. With all due respect, if entanglement is vague to you then you're not familiar with QM. Entanglement is a basic quantum phenomenon and the results of quite simple experiments cannot be understood without it. You will find respected authorities on QM who disagree on interpretations, or disagree on how we should think about measurements. But you will not find any who disagree on what the phenomenon of entanglement is or when it occurs, regardless of what interpretation of QM they subscribe to. > I wouldn't know, because it's not what can be experienced. Some folks argue this is exactly what makes many worlds unscientific. Just the opposite: blithely asserting that you're not in a superposition, based on zero scientific evidence, is what's unscientific. Unless and until we can come up with some experiment that would distinguish being in a superposition from not being in a superposition, we should be agnostic about whether we're in a superposition, and have no particular reason to favour a theory that claims we're in a superposition over one that claims we're not (or vice versa). > What kind of microscope are you using to look at wave functions? Or do you mean at the mathematical expression of the wavefunction? If you're claiming that the wavefunction is a physically real thing then the Copenhagenists will kick you out :P. > Another empty word. Not at all; while it's a word that's frequently abused, it does mean something specific and well-defined. > Yes. And if you think about it, this is the same mystery which makes Copenhagen so unsatisfactory, just put into a different framework. I don't think it is so mysterious: if that mathematical description of reality is accurate, what else could we possibly expect to experience? To claim that subjective experience is messy and complicated is a much smaller assertion than to claim that this messy complication exists in objective physical reality, as the Copenhagenists do.

edna314 7y ago
> blithely asserting that you're not in a superposition, based on zero scientific evidence, is what's unscientific. If this was true I would offer another theory: an untraceable Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for QM. You won’t be able to gather any evidence against it, so you cannot rule it out. This theory would be on par with your many worlds theory. I can also write down physically looking equations which describe its behavior. I think the gist of science over religion is exactly the requirement to provide evidence for the claims it makes not evidence against opposing claims. Otherwise science is dogma.
- lmm 7y ago
  > If this was true I would offer another theory: an untraceable Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for QM. You won’t be able to gather any evidence against it, so you cannot rule it out. This theory would be on par with your many worlds theory. I can also write down physically looking equations which describe its behavior. Just the opposite: positing a collapse phenomenon which makes no difference to observable reality is on a par with positing an untraceable Flying Spaghetti Monster. Many-worlds is not an extra assumption but the absence of one: it's the assumption that we behave like normal physical objects, and all the normal, experimentally-established phenomena of quantum mechanics (such as superposition) apply to us just as they apply to other matter we experiment on.