- #1
joegibs
- 47
- 1
Is there a possibility that none of the current interpretations of QM are right?
Or is the current interpretations all that there will be on the table?
Or is the current interpretations all that there will be on the table?
Of course.joegibs said:Is there a possibility that none of the current interpretations of QM are right?
Do you think that an interpretation as follows could be possible in the future?mfb said:It is not even clear if "right" is a meaningful classification.
It is possible that new interpretations will be developed in the future.
Which part?mfb said:Quite sure that is ruled out by Bell tests.
We have https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614 which shows that if collapse of a Bell state is a physical process, it's not one that propagates at sublight speeds. And of course the (too many to list here) observed violations of Bell's inequality show that no theory in which the wave function is objectively real can be local.joegibs said:Which part?
Is it possible that it really does propagate faster than light? Is it possible that relativity is incomplete?Nugatory said:We have https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614 which shows that if collapse of a Bell state is a physical process, it's not one that propagates at sublight speeds. And of course the (too many to list here) observed violations of Bell's inequality show that no theory in which the wave function is objectively real can be local.
Retrocausal interpretations would meet these criteria. Such models are consistent with Special Relativity and restore locality to nonrelativisitc quantum mechanics. They also restore time-symmetry to microphysics. See:joegibs said:Do you think that an interpretation as follows could be possible in the future?
The wave function is objectively real (no hidden variables). There is wave function collapse but it doesn't happen instantaneously, it's a physical process that occurs at sublight speed. And it is a local theory. Is this a possible future interpretation?
mfb said:Would be surprising. Everything faster than light in one reference frame is backwards in time in other reference frames. There is no indication that any reference frame would be special, and violating causality unnecessary would be odd as well.
The type of FTL phenomena that accounts for the correlations in distant measurements (no matter/energy or information transfer) doesn't appear to be in conflict with relativity.joegibs said:Is it possible that it really does propagate faster than light? Is it possible that relativity is incomplete?
It is different. For MWI you don't have to agree when worlds split, different observers can have different conclusions without issue. If you assume a physical collapse process, you have to define when it happens.durant35 said:MWI suffers from similar flaws when combined with SR
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mwi-and-special-relativity.412608/
mfb said:It is different. For MWI you don't have to agree when worlds split, different observers can have different conclusions without issue. If you assume a physical collapse process, you have to define when it happens.
I don't see where. MWI is local, all the experiments don't depend on what is happening at spacelike separation. If you look at coincidence counts later it does matter, but comparing those results happens at lightlike or timelike distances. Every observer can assume that branching happens according to their reference frame, because there is no need to agree on a time-ordering of the processes.durant35 said:But if you assume some type of cloning of worlds while branching, it still sounds confusing. So you would say that there are absolutely no issues when combining MWI and SR?
joegibs said:Is there a possibility that none of the current interpretations of QM are right?
Or is the current interpretations all that there will be on the table?
dkotschessaa said:All scientific theories have a possibility of being wrong.
It's not clear that they're useful even for that purpose.newjerseyrunner said:Are interpretations even useful for anything other than theorizing about GUT?
Nugatory said:It's not clear that they're useful even for that purpose.
So if you look at Price, he says in Q2 that in MWI the wave function is objectively real, and in Q12 that MWI is local.Nugatory said:We have https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614 which shows that if collapse of a Bell state is a physical process, it's not one that propagates at sublight speeds. And of course the (too many to list here) observed violations of Bell's inequality show that no theory in which the wave function is objectively real can be local.
This construction would fit into the general scheme of an Einstein-local realistic theory as used in Bell's theorem, thus, would forbid violations of the Bell inequalities. Thus, it would not be a QM interpretation.joegibs said:Do you think that an interpretation as follows could be possible in the future?
The wave function is objectively real (no hidden variables). There is wave function collapse but it doesn't happen instantaneously, it's a physical process that occurs at sublight speed. And it is a local theory. Is this a possible future interpretation?
I personally make out of this that MWI is pseudoscience. Nothing in this interpretation is well-defined, it makes not even sense to talk about probabilities, but they nonetheless "prove" that their "probabilities" follow the Born rule, and, as usual in inconsistent theories, one can derive everything. Sorry, I could not resist.Zafa Pi said:
It's the most well defined intrinsically, as an interpretation of the Schrodinger equation itself. But when it comes to extrinsic interpretation, namely to interpretation of the experimental observations in terms of those equations, MWI has serious problems.mfb said:MWI is the interpretation you necessarily get if you take the equations of quantum mechanics and don't add any magic. It is the most well-defined interpretation.
You also have to take the wavefunction as representing a real wave and you have a lack of clarity with the Born rule. This can be sorted out, but MWI after sorting out the Born rule has very similar ambiguities to other interpretations.mfb said:MWI is the interpretation you necessarily get if you take the equations of quantum mechanics and don't add any magic. It is the most well-defined interpretation.
I see that differently, but this has been discussed a lot already and I don't want to start yet another iteration of that discussion.Demystifier said:But when it comes to extrinsic interpretation, namely to interpretation of the experimental observations in terms of those equations, MWI has serious problems.
If at some point you want to discuss it, it would be interesting to hear as even most MWI authors don't see it that way. They see getting experimental observations out as requiring a lot of additional structure with the details unresolved.mfb said:I see that differently, but this has been discussed a lot already and I don't want to start yet another iteration of that discussion.
I disagree. You have to add a lot of magic. And the equations of quantum mechanics are simply ignored.mfb said:MWI is the interpretation you necessarily get if you take the equations of quantum mechanics and don't add any magic. It is the most well-defined interpretation.