Many-Worlds and Schroedinger's First Quantum Theory · HackerPapers discussions

Many-Worlds and Schroedinger's First Quantum Theory — mentioned by jostylr

Mon, 07 Dec 2020 14:28:10 GMT

One thing to look at is how is the theory formulated. Standard QM seems to build its Hilbert space of wave functions from functions over R^3N. It has a Hamiltonian built out of the notions of that space. So configuration space seems pretty crucial. But configuration of what? If you say particles with positions do not exist, then what exactly is the relevance of this space? What is the primitive stuff whose behavior can be right or wrong from our perspective? It is also odd to say that position cannot be measured. We can tell in an experiment whether something ended up over there or over here.…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Many-Worlds and Schroedinger's First Quantum Theory — mentioned by lisper

Sun, 21 Jul 2019 22:45:41 GMT

> We decide to have a theory about particles. I would say that's exactly where Bohm runs off the rails. The fact of the matter is that quantum systems are not particles. They are waves [1]. They can sometimes bunch up into very small spaces and behave to a very good approximation as if they were particles, but they aren't. If you insist that your theory talk about particles, then Bohm is a not-entirely-unreasonable place to end up. But that's kind of like saying that if you insist that your theory tell you how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that 42 is a not-entirely-unreasonable…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Many-Worlds and Schroedinger's First Quantum Theory — mentioned by jostylr

Sat, 22 Sep 2018 09:47:28 GMT

In a perfectly mathematically coherent version of Everett: https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2211, the idea is to integrate out the wave function to get a mass density on 3 space. This mass density on 3-space is a mess at any particular moment, but one can witness its evolution over time to pick out particular correlated histories. There is no particular splitting into separate worlds. And, indeed, the whole picture of discrete spin measurements is misleading. It is always spatial measurement stuff ultimately going on and so plenty of smearing. The relevant probabilities are not derived by number of…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Many-Worlds and Schroedinger's First Quantum Theory — mentioned by jostylr

Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:09:26 GMT

I have never understood what the classic Many World Interpretation actually is. Splitting of universes has the same problem as collapse and probabilities become rather nebulous since presumably all possibilities do happen, after all. But there is a version of it which does make sense: https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2211 The basic question for all theories is, "what is fundamentally real?" and the wave function of quantum mechanics just doesn't work in that role. This is why Bohmian mechanics adds particles; that is what is real in that theory. But to make a MW theory, one can integrate out the…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Many-Worlds and Schroedinger's First Quantum Theory — mentioned by jostylr

Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:53:22 GMT

You have to be clear about what is real in the theory. Many worlds presentations often suffer from this as they often talk about splitting universes, whatever that would mean. A nice version which might coincide with what is in mind for einselection is to take the wave function and integrate it out to get a mass density on three space. This mass density will the various different "worlds" present in it by means of the evolution; any given time will not tell us what belongs to which world, but as time evolves, we can see which pictures correspond to which ones, like fuzzy tv sets. See…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Many-Worlds and Schroedinger's First Quantum Theory — mentioned by jostylr

Tue, 24 Feb 2015 01:19:57 GMT

Try reading http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2211.pdf This basically presents many worlds as a mass density obtained by integrating out the wave function. The worlds we see can be traced through the evolution, like two videos overlain on each other can be deduced over time.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Many-Worlds and Schroedinger's First Quantum Theory — mentioned by jostylr

Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:13:06 GMT

If you want a rigorously defined and clear version of many worlds, I recommend http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2211.pdf It uses the (uncollapsed) wave function to have a mass density on physical space. There are many realities, if you like, implied, but they all move about in a self-consistent way. The analogy is that it is as if two tv channels were overlying each other. You can follow each separately if you watch the evolution, but at any one time it would look a bit like a mess. The problem with just having the wavefunction and nothing else is that it is not at all clear what the probabilities…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Many-Worlds and Schroedinger's First Quantum Theory — mentioned by jostylr

Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:57:40 GMT

The clearest version of Many Worlds that I have seen is from the "Bohmians": http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2211.pdf Basically, you get a mass density on physical space by integrating over the wave function. Then you have correlations of changes in the mass density. Reality becomes a bit like fuzzy tv reception with overlapping channels. There is no splitting of the universe or any other nonsense. I still don't like the theory, but at least it is a well-defined theory.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.