4 ms·

Either you believe in collapse, so there are two of you, who each observed different things, and one of those will at some point cease to exist, or you embrace

Either you believe in collapse, so there are two of you, who each observed different things, and one of those will at some point cease to exist, or you embrace the Everett interpretation, and so there are two of you who each observe different things and go on to live their separate lives.

criddell 6y ago
Both paths you laid out are built upon the idea that superposition happens. Is there any serious consideration these days that superposition itself is dead end?
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  There’s kind of a massive amount of experimental evidence that superpositions happen.
  - criddell 6y ago
    I didn't know that. If you have more information I'd love to learn about it. I was under the impression that collapse wiped out all information about any other states.
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  In a word, no. When people compare QM theories they often do so on basis of the original experiments that were used to develop them. But as a discipline physics has moved well past those. Superposition has been proven and tested to exist, and we have long since moved past that phase and started building things, like quantum computers, on top of it. At this point, pretty much the only way superposition doesn't exist is that every time a physicist does something that superposition needs to work, a devil figures out what kind of result is needed to fake it and does that. Trying to challenge superposition would kind of get same kind of results from physicists as trying to challenge the existence of electrons would get from people who build circuits. Like, if you have some interesting new theory, I am intrigued, but do understand that to get people to follow it you will need to explain how it replicates the results of what superposition would do in so many different cases that you won't be able to enumerate them in a week.

4 ms·

Either you believe in collapse, so there are two of you, who each observed different things, and one of those will at some point cease to exist, or you embrace

by Tuna-Fish 6y ago

criddell 6y ago
Both paths you laid out are built upon the idea that superposition happens. Is there any serious consideration these days that superposition itself is dead end?
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  There’s kind of a massive amount of experimental evidence that superpositions happen.
  - criddell 6y ago
    I didn't know that. If you have more information I'd love to learn about it. I was under the impression that collapse wiped out all information about any other states.
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  In a word, no. When people compare QM theories they often do so on basis of the original experiments that were used to develop them. But as a discipline physics has moved well past those. Superposition has been proven and tested to exist, and we have long since moved past that phase and started building things, like quantum computers, on top of it. At this point, pretty much the only way superposition doesn't exist is that every time a physicist does something that superposition needs to work, a devil figures out what kind of result is needed to fake it and does that. Trying to challenge superposition would kind of get same kind of results from physicists as trying to challenge the existence of electrons would get from people who build circuits. Like, if you have some interesting new theory, I am intrigued, but do understand that to get people to follow it you will need to explain how it replicates the results of what superposition would do in so many different cases that you won't be able to enumerate them in a week.