3 ms·

Isn't that common knowledge? First, there's no consensus among physicists on any particular interpretation, so right off the bat that should tell you that we ar

Isn't that common knowledge? First, there's no consensus among physicists on any particular interpretation, so right off the bat that should tell you that we are missing something really deep. Second, the Copenhagen interpretation itself is completely nonsensical. I'm convinced it is responsible for most of the millions made by Deepak Chopra.

gus_massa 12y ago
> Second, the Copenhagen interpretation itself is completely nonsensical. The problem is that most of the discussions about quantum mechanics interpretation are handwaving without enough linear algebra background. My two favorite questions before starting a discussion are: * ) What are the eigenvalues of the matrix / 0 1 \ \ 1 0 / * ) Why are they important for quantum mechanics?
- raverbashing 12y ago
  Well, the "shut up and do the math" interpretation of QM is very successful :P I'm sorry I can't answer your question, I only learned about the Schroedinger's Equation
- hessenwolf 12y ago
  Oh, that's not fair. Answers, please.
  - ivan_ah 12y ago
    * ) the eigenvectors are [1,1] and [1,-1], via http://live.sympy.org/?evaluate=X%20%3D%20Matrix(%5B%5B0%2C1%5D%2C%5B1%2C0%5D%5D)%0A%23--%0AX%0A%23--%0AX.eigenvects()%0A%23--%0A http://live.sympy.org/?evaluate=X%20%3D%20Matrix(%5B%5B0%2C1... * ) The standard basis B_s = {[1,0],[0,1]} and the Hadamard basis B_h={[1,1],[1,-1]} are a mutually unbiased bases, which means any basis vector lies exactly "in between" the vectors from the other basis. The use of mutually unbiased bases has applications in quantum crypto: if the same basis is used for encoding and decoding a bit of information the bit will be transmitted faithfully, else if a different basis is used for decoding than the basis used for encoding, the receiver will decode pure noise (i.e. a 50-50% random bit). This "uncertainty about which basis is used to encode the message" is the key idea behind the BB84 protocol.
analog31 12y ago
>>>> First, there's no consensus among physicists on any particular interpretation, so right off the bat that should tell you that we are missing something really deep. One thing it should tell you is that we have not been "interpreting quantum mechanics wrong this whole time" because we've made relatively little effort to arrive at an interpretation at all. During my time as a physics student, deeper philosophical issues weren't mentioned in class, and it seemed like the Copenhagen interpretation was grudgingly accepted as a de facto standard in order to just get on with life. We knew there was some activity in the area of finding a more philosophically pleasing interpretation, and one or two seminar speakers talked about it, but it just wasn't a big deal. Many physicists even questioned the value or physics-ness of the pursuit.

gus_massa 12y ago

> Second, the Copenhagen interpretation itself is completely nonsensical. The problem is that most of the discussions about quantum mechanics interpretation are handwaving without enough linear algebra background. My two favorite questions before starting a discussion are: * ) What are the eigenvalues of the matrix / 0 1 \ \ 1 0 / * ) Why are they important for quantum mechanics?

raverbashing 12y ago
Well, the "shut up and do the math" interpretation of QM is very successful :P I'm sorry I can't answer your question, I only learned about the Schroedinger's Equation
hessenwolf 12y ago
Oh, that's not fair. Answers, please.
- ivan_ah 12y ago
  * ) the eigenvectors are [1,1] and [1,-1], via http://live.sympy.org/?evaluate=X%20%3D%20Matrix(%5B%5B0%2C1%5D%2C%5B1%2C0%5D%5D)%0A%23--%0AX%0A%23--%0AX.eigenvects()%0A%23--%0A http://live.sympy.org/?evaluate=X%20%3D%20Matrix(%5B%5B0%2C1... * ) The standard basis B_s = {[1,0],[0,1]} and the Hadamard basis B_h={[1,1],[1,-1]} are a mutually unbiased bases, which means any basis vector lies exactly "in between" the vectors from the other basis. The use of mutually unbiased bases has applications in quantum crypto: if the same basis is used for encoding and decoding a bit of information the bit will be transmitted faithfully, else if a different basis is used for decoding than the basis used for encoding, the receiver will decode pure noise (i.e. a 50-50% random bit). This "uncertainty about which basis is used to encode the message" is the key idea behind the BB84 protocol.

analog31 12y ago

>>>> First, there's no consensus among physicists on any particular interpretation, so right off the bat that should tell you that we are missing something really deep. One thing it should tell you is that we have not been "interpreting quantum mechanics wrong this whole time" because we've made relatively little effort to arrive at an interpretation at all. During my time as a physics student, deeper philosophical issues weren't mentioned in class, and it seemed like the Copenhagen interpretation was grudgingly accepted as a de facto standard in order to just get on with life. We knew there was some activity in the area of finding a more philosophically pleasing interpretation, and one or two seminar speakers talked about it, but it just wasn't a big deal. Many physicists even questioned the value or physics-ness of the pursuit.