4 ms·
To be clear, my statement about the wave-function being probabilistic is intended to be a Copenhagen reference. My impression is that this paper intends to refu
by TTPrograms 12y ago
To be clear, my statement about the wave-function being probabilistic is intended to be a Copenhagen reference. My impression is that this paper intends to refute 1). Personally I think 2 and 3 are pretty much equivalent, as we don't have any reason to think we could run an experiment that would distinguish between universe splitting and wavefunction collapse.
I'm unclear on which point you disagree.
- millstone 12y agoMy point of disagreement is giving the mainstream view as "the wavefunction is the fundamental description of reality". I claim that the mainstream view, as seen in type 3 theories, treats the wavefunction as a mathematical object, not a fundamental (i.e. physical) one. For example, Griffiths (who introduced consistent histories) describes the wave function as "a mere mathematical tool or pre-probability for calculating probabilities which can, if one wants, be obtained using different solutions to Schrödinger’s equation." He goes on to contrast this to MWI and Bohmian mechanics, which treat the wave function as fundamental, are both deterministic, and are minority viewpoints. [1] 1: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3932v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3932v2.pdf
- URSpider94 12y agoI would tend to agree -- the way I always learned quantum mechanics was that the wavefunction was merely a representation that happens to give the right answers when operated on by the Hamiltonian. In much the same way, I don't think that particle physicists really think that matter is made of tiny strings. I might actually buy a copy of this paper, I'd be curious to see what new experiments they have done to more closely demonstrate the physicality of the wavefunction.