3 ms·

I didn't read the paper yet and it really might contain some valuable insights into the nature of quantum mechanics (I'll take a look at it later today), but I

by cygx 15y ago

I didn't read the paper yet and it really might contain some valuable insights into the nature of quantum mechanics (I'll take a look at it later today), but I find this debate about whether the wave-function is a real object or not hilarious: It completely fails to take into account that the wave function is not defined on space-time, but rather on an abstract configuration space - it confuses the mathematical model with physical reality. The general problem with QM is that it's an algebraic and not a geometric theory, ie you know the rules, but have no real concept about what they mean. However, QM strongly resembles the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of classical mechanics, and the geometry of that is known (see eg http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0604063 http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0604063 ). The quantum numbers basically select a leaf of the foliation of our phase space, and the wave function is some sort of probability distribution on that (but not really ;)), which can be represented by a function on configuration space (which is, in general, NOT space-time, in particular if multiple particles are involved). It's closest classical analogon is the action function S (or rather, its differential dS), and you don't see many people arguing that dS is a real object: it doesn't make a lot of sense to do so, and the same holds true for the wave function.

cygx 15y ago
I just read the paper. The authors actually make no claim about the reality of the wave function, so disregard anything I said above (which is still true, but not relevant). However, they do claim to have disproven the statistical interpretation of QM. This, however, is impossible: It can't be disproven from within QM, as all it says is the following: "We have no idea what happens when performing individual measurements. However, let me tell you what you'll see when you repeat the experiment often enough." All the authors have shown is that their λ mechanism is flawed.

by cygx 15y ago

cygx 15y ago

I just read the paper. The authors actually make no claim about the reality of the wave function, so disregard anything I said above (which is still true, but not relevant). However, they do claim to have disproven the statistical interpretation of QM. This, however, is impossible: It can't be disproven from within QM, as all it says is the following: "We have no idea what happens when performing individual measurements. However, let me tell you what you'll see when you repeat the experiment often enough." All the authors have shown is that their λ mechanism is flawed.