Timeline for Can existing quantum computers be considered evidence for parallel universes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2022 at 8:11 | comment | added | alanf | @JuanPerez Collapse is unnecessary: arxiv.org/abs/1212.3245 | |
| May 23, 2022 at 3:27 | comment | added | Juan Perez | I completely disagree. The "quantum mechanical equations of motion" (by which I assume you mean unitary evolution) have no physical meaning, and can't make experimental predictions. You need the "ad hoc" postulates like collapse, to relate the numbers in your equations to the results in the lab. Unitary evolution alone makes for some beautiful math, but it is not physics. | |
| Feb 12, 2015 at 10:23 | comment | added | alanf | The question is about whether a working quantum computer is relevant to judging the multiverse theory. It is not relevant because the alternatives have not been used to make clear predictions about whether the computer should work or not. Some of them can't be used to make any predictions, for others the issue is unclear. The papers have pay walled versions that are peer reviewed. The first explains the multiverse. The second explains some specific experiments involving entanglement. The multiverse solves problems other theories don't, which is how it should be judged. | |
| Feb 12, 2015 at 10:13 | history | edited | alanf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 35 characters in body
|
| Feb 12, 2015 at 1:12 | comment | added | ChrisR | I'm not sure how this helps in answering the question. It seems to me that you're just making a point of interpretations not being theories by citing from arXiv (which is a great source, yet not peer reviewed). Please let me know how I misunderstood your answer. | |
| Feb 11, 2015 at 11:27 | history | answered | alanf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |