4 ms·

So this is not a new idea, it's been around for decades, and just fallen in and out of vogue. And now they present an [their] opinion piece on the topic. I ha

So this is not a new idea, it's been around for decades, and just fallen in and out of vogue. And now they present an [their] opinion piece on the topic. I hardly think "shakes foundations" in the HN title and more of the same hyperbole in the article is warranted

gammarator 15y ago
They've found a theorem that can subject the physical reality of the wavefunction to experimental tests. That's new, and it means this potentially won't be a matter of opinion any longer. "Shakes foundations" is the title of the Nature summary, and it reflects the enthusiasm of the distinguished theoretical physicists quoted in the article.
robinhouston 15y ago
This article is about a new theorem that was uploaded to the preprint server earlier this week[1], and the article quotes several quantum theorists who describe this new result as important (or even ‘seismic’). On what basis do you think it’s been around for decades? 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328 http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
- Jach 15y ago
  The actual formal theorem is new and great, but the general battle of asserting the wave function's existence vs. non-existence (whatever either are supposed to mean) vs. saying "I don't know tell me more about the wavefunction and its experimental predictions working/failing" has been around for quite some time. Here's a nice write-up of the ridiculousness of someone definitively saying "I don't know why this works and therefore it doesn't exist!" http://lesswrong.com/lw/q5/quantum_nonrealism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q5/quantum_nonrealism/
- Dn_Ab 15y ago
  I believe mindstab is talking about debates as to whether a quantum wavefunction posses any objective reality. That is an old argument. For example Everett's Many World Interpretation from the 1950's posits a real universal wave function. It is also deterministic. The one this paper purports to disprove are the ones which say wave functions are not real but a probability distribution representing your lack of knowledge of the total system state and collapse from measurement is not so different from choosing to condition on the probability distribution. I am sympathetic with the view of quantum mechanics as a bayesian complex probability theory and so will wait till more knowledgeable people critic the paper.

gammarator 15y ago

They've found a theorem that can subject the physical reality of the wavefunction to experimental tests. That's new, and it means this potentially won't be a matter of opinion any longer. "Shakes foundations" is the title of the Nature summary, and it reflects the enthusiasm of the distinguished theoretical physicists quoted in the article.

robinhouston 15y ago

This article is about a new theorem that was uploaded to the preprint server earlier this week[1], and the article quotes several quantum theorists who describe this new result as important (or even ‘seismic’). On what basis do you think it’s been around for decades? 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328 http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

Jach 15y ago
The actual formal theorem is new and great, but the general battle of asserting the wave function's existence vs. non-existence (whatever either are supposed to mean) vs. saying "I don't know tell me more about the wavefunction and its experimental predictions working/failing" has been around for quite some time. Here's a nice write-up of the ridiculousness of someone definitively saying "I don't know why this works and therefore it doesn't exist!" http://lesswrong.com/lw/q5/quantum_nonrealism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q5/quantum_nonrealism/
Dn_Ab 15y ago
I believe mindstab is talking about debates as to whether a quantum wavefunction posses any objective reality. That is an old argument. For example Everett's Many World Interpretation from the 1950's posits a real universal wave function. It is also deterministic. The one this paper purports to disprove are the ones which say wave functions are not real but a probability distribution representing your lack of knowledge of the total system state and collapse from measurement is not so different from choosing to condition on the probability distribution. I am sympathetic with the view of quantum mechanics as a bayesian complex probability theory and so will wait till more knowledgeable people critic the paper.