3 ms·
In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation has been proven wrong by fellow lisper Ron Garret. You can read his paper here: www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf and watch hi
by replax 15y ago
In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation has been proven wrong by fellow lisper Ron Garret. You can read his paper here:
www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf
and watch his google talk about it here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc .
The problem is, that most people (not scientists, mind you) do not really care anyway, and the Copenhagen interpretation gives you a nice story to tell, which is fairly "strange", yet somewhat understandable. I hate the fact that even science magazines still 100% subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation, just to attract a greater readership and to be able to use catchier headlines.
- 3lit3H4ck3r 15y agoGreat contribution replax. Systemically, I follow his argument. Please, allow me to study this topic further. In my gut "something" does not feel right regarding his conclusion.
- 3lit3H4ck3r 15y agoKind of what my gut was telling me (from the Google Talk comments): "I feel like a lot of assmptions were made in this lecture. We've thrown formulas out the window before because they didn't agree with newly experimental data. Using the schroedinger equation to prove the results of the quantum eraser is pretty much equivalent to using old newtonian formulas to prove that you can travel faster than the speed of light - it doesn't hold water. I'm not saying Ron Garret is wrong, but too many assumptions were made in this proof, i'd rather trust experimental data." Still reading. Thanks!