5 ms·

That is correct but I think you are talking about a different area of quantum physics than the article is. In particular the Bell paradox seems to show that the

by lacker 6y ago

That is correct but I think you are talking about a different area of quantum physics than the article is. In particular the Bell paradox seems to show that there is no local interpretation of quantum physics, which seems quite unintuitive with the speed of light limitations, even under a “many universes” explanation.

jiggawatts 6y ago
The many universes interpretation is the only one that makes Quantum Mechanics even vaguely intuitive. Every other interpretation is just nonsense, but physicists have just stubbornly refused to give in and admit that this is so.
AgentME 6y ago
The Bell paradox tells us that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local realism. Local referring to the idea that nothing is faster than light, and realism referring to the idea of there being a single objective world. You only have to sacrifice either locality or realism to make sense of the Bell paradox. The Many-Worlds Interpretation sacrifices realism but not locality. Faster-than-light communication isn't necessary for MWI to work.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem says: > In the vernacular of Einstein: locality meant no instantaneous ("spooky") action at a distance; realism meant the moon is there even when not being observed. That's not what you said. MWI is a realist model; in fact, there's an argument that it's realism turned up to 11.
  - AgentME 6y ago
    In MWI, there isn't the same moon there or even any moon in many "worlds"; its existence depends on your point of view's world. Realism in this context is about the idea that probabilistic events and measurements end up having a single objective result. In MWI, different points of view can see the same event have different results (because they're branching apart). MWI can be described as realist if you're considering all the branches real, but then you're not using the same definition of realism as the specific thing that the Bell Paradox is said to rule out.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      By this argument, 3D perspective is non-realist, because a cube looks like a square from some perspectives and a hexagon from others – it depends on your point of view! MWI is the most realist theory, because it says that everything is there when not being observed – in fact, it eliminates the concept of observation entirely. I think the tricky thing here is that MWI says that you are part of the system, which means that the intuition you've built up around collapse theories (where the “observer” has a privileged position outside and above the bits of physics they're “observing”) kind of falls over. Wikipedia thinks it's realist.
wizzwizz4 6y ago
The Bell paradox shows there's no local collapse theory (colloquially “single universe”, even though all quantum interpretations are single universe so it's a misnomer). The relative state formulation is consistent with the Bell “paradox”; in fact, the only thing it fails to explain is where the Born rule comes from (which, to be fair, is a pretty massive hole).

by lacker 6y ago

jiggawatts 6y ago

The many universes interpretation is the only one that makes Quantum Mechanics even vaguely intuitive. Every other interpretation is just nonsense, but physicists have just stubbornly refused to give in and admit that this is so.

AgentME 6y ago

The Bell paradox tells us that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local realism. Local referring to the idea that nothing is faster than light, and realism referring to the idea of there being a single objective world. You only have to sacrifice either locality or realism to make sense of the Bell paradox. The Many-Worlds Interpretation sacrifices realism but not locality. Faster-than-light communication isn't necessary for MWI to work.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem says: > In the vernacular of Einstein: locality meant no instantaneous ("spooky") action at a distance; realism meant the moon is there even when not being observed. That's not what you said. MWI is a realist model; in fact, there's an argument that it's realism turned up to 11.
- AgentME 6y ago
  In MWI, there isn't the same moon there or even any moon in many "worlds"; its existence depends on your point of view's world. Realism in this context is about the idea that probabilistic events and measurements end up having a single objective result. In MWI, different points of view can see the same event have different results (because they're branching apart). MWI can be described as realist if you're considering all the branches real, but then you're not using the same definition of realism as the specific thing that the Bell Paradox is said to rule out.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    By this argument, 3D perspective is non-realist, because a cube looks like a square from some perspectives and a hexagon from others – it depends on your point of view! MWI is the most realist theory, because it says that everything is there when not being observed – in fact, it eliminates the concept of observation entirely. I think the tricky thing here is that MWI says that you are part of the system, which means that the intuition you've built up around collapse theories (where the “observer” has a privileged position outside and above the bits of physics they're “observing”) kind of falls over. Wikipedia thinks it's realist.

wizzwizz4 6y ago

The Bell paradox shows there's no local collapse theory (colloquially “single universe”, even though all quantum interpretations are single universe so it's a misnomer). The relative state formulation is consistent with the Bell “paradox”; in fact, the only thing it fails to explain is where the Born rule comes from (which, to be fair, is a pretty massive hole).