@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 ?
-
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
-
-
Thinking of entanglement...in one sense it seems like there's non local communication within the system...yet the components move sublight to get seperated... timeline separated...
-
I've thought about the EPR paradox a bit and I don't think that the fact that information cant be used for communication is a resolution in any deep sense. It just seems like a weaseling out of the problem by putting all of the ontological weight in the word "superposition"..
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's why I think we're missing something. I think understanding the basic structure of spacetime itself will explain why quantum mechanics is the way it is. .we might have to give up things like locality in a sense
-
I agree we don’t have it figured out yet. Better experimental tests can help distinguish good and bad interpretations, and maybe scientists need to dismantle some of their philosophical prejudice.
End of conversation
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.