@InertialObservr If I’m correct, you’re a proponent of Many Worlds interpretation of QM. How can we know this interpretation represents an accurate description of reality ?
-
Hard to say...I think many worlds carries way too much baggage. I think we're missing something big...
It really doesn't carry much baggage when you think about it as a "broken symmetry" as observed from any particular branch.. The name makes it sound more ontologically heavy than it is
-
-
Interesting. I don’t know enough to have a position yet, but I don’t see a good reason Copenhagen interpretation rejects any statements about the position of the particle before it is observed.
-
Unfortunately Bell's inequality is difficult to understand.. but the idea is that if you say that it has to exist somewhere prior to its measurement then you have to give up locality
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes and no, but where do all the branches live? They all have a physical existence somewhere. Separated from each other in some abstract space. My other difficulty is the lack of experimental differentiation...might as well say Langoleers eat the wave function :p
-
hahah I agree but copenhagen and every other interpretation suffers from the exact same problems.. "where does a particle go when it's in a superposition?" etc. The idea behind these interpretations currently is to try to deduce something from other principles we hold dearly
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.