New answers tagged

0

That off-the-cuff-one-liner is pure sophistry and an example of the muddled thinking inherent in the first knee-jerk response to the question. No doubt science and philosophy share the same logical underpinnings and the same rational methodologies but start from different assumptions and ask different questions. To un-muddle one's mind, one might start by ...


0

This is a profound question at the heart of science. Indeed no little effort has been devoted to trying to understand whether the mathematics of quantum mechanics are simply a contrivance or reflect reality. Surprisingly, Bell discovered an experimental method to answer the question and the result is that quantum weirdness is an intrinsic aspect of nature. ...


0

To Rococo: Your notes do not address the question and the model that is referred to in the article. To be sure we are talking about the same thing, the question is whether the article http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0901 (published in Found. Phys. 2016) is correct in its main claim, namely that local hidden-variable models that include a background field are ...


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


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 ...


-1

In multiverse there is a multiversal scientist that interacts with an electron that is in two states: up and down. The interaction causes the multiversal scientist to start to evolve to all kinds of directions in Hilbert-space. After a while two distinct blobs in Hilbert-space have been formed: Blob 1 consists of scientists that say: "I interacted with an ...


-1

Water surface plays the role of energy and impulse transfer,while in vacuum the particle is exposed by forses of the unknown energy transfering fields that fluctuate by the magnitude and diversion,thus making particle motion chaotic and intermittent. The main difference is that the transfer of energy from vacuum to particle and within the vacuum are not ...


0

Water surface plays the role of energy and impulse transfer,while in vacuum the particle is exposed by forses of the unknown energy transfering fields that fluctuate by the magnitude and diversion,thus making particle motion chaotic and intermittent. The main difference is that the transfer of energy from vacuum to particle and within the vacuum are not ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...



Top 50 recent answers are included