Hot answers tagged

11

At present, mainstream physics posits that the underlying level of all natural phenomena is quantum mechanical. There exists the standard model of particle physics, a mathematical model, where it is posited that the elementary particles and their interactions build up matter as we know it, classical theories emerging smoothly from the underlying quantum ...


9

In short: No. Based on the Many-Worlds-Interpretation of QM, you can make statements of this kind, but as the name says, it is just an interpretation, whose ontological statements are highly controversial. There are other interpretations which provide the same physical results, which do not state the existence of multiple worlds, which at least shows that ...


5

If you want to use nonrelativistic quantum mechanics you have to first start with the basics. Firstly it doesn't handle particle creation or destruction, so you need to fix how many particles you have of each type. Then you want a function from the configuration space $\mathbb R^{3n}$ into the joint spin state $\mathbb C^{k_1}\otimes\mathbb C^{k_2}\otimes ...


4

Just because all things are possible, does not mean that all possibilities actually exist. And then, to say they simultaneously exist goes even further. They merely exist as "possibilities", or possible outcomes but last I checked, possibilities do not fit into the same category of physical realty. I never understood why something is assumed to automatically ...


3

Here is a related paper that analyses the same data looking for the connection with Bohmian mechanics. Comment on "Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer" Timothy M. Coffey, Robert E. Wyatt Kocsis et al. (Science, Reports 3 June 2011, p. 1170) state that the experimentally deduced average photon ...


3

The oldest work on this preceeds quantum mechanics by more than 100 years. it was done by Malus in 1809 about experiments with polarized light. See http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers/physpapers.html#CQlightslides


2

Can someone tell me the practical difference of "world splitting" in MWI, and the original "wavefunction collapse"? Even if there is no such thing as an "abrupt" split, I don't see why you couldn't also argue the same for the "collapse". There is no world splitting. A state that starts out as having a single value for some relevant observable gradually ...


1

You have confused counting worlds with computing probabilities. They are different things. If you measured $m$ systems identically prepared to give one of $n$ result $v_1,$ ...$v_n$ with respective frequencies $p_1,$ ... $p_n$, then there are $n^m$ aggregate outcomes. But the MWI doesn't predict different probabilities than any other interpretation. Both ...


1

Let's be careful here. The contested statement seems to be this: Someone on-line, who actually seems fairly intelligent, but troll-ish, claims that there is good reasons for it, not from any philosopher, but physics. And this is indeed true, while not proven there are good reasons for it. Here "good" means that it's good enough to write articles about ...


1

Concerning the question: "Is it theoretically impossible to realize entanglement-like phenomena (e.g. non-local behavior or violation of some sort of Bell inequality) using a Couder-Fort experiment?", I have recently discussed this with John Bush from MIT, one of the experts of these experiments. I believe it is possible that a Bell inequality can indeed be ...


1

For the sake of argument, I will assume that all of the calculations of the authors are correct- I don't see any obvious reason that they cannot be. A few notes: As the authors note, the measurements independence criterion of the Bell Inequality is a well-known assumption. So pointing it out, by itself, is not an interesting contribution. What one could ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible