21–30 of 98 posts
Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea. Gravity is local and apparent collapse is non-local; it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
Why not? Gravity is (probably) mediated by a particle, and therefore all matter will interact with all other matter ... so why shouldn't gravity therefore cause a collapse?
Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea. Gravity is local and apparent collapse is non-local; it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
Collapse is only mysterious to people who never learned thermofield theory, or non-equilibrium quantum dynamics. Unfortunately this is also a sizable fraction of all physicists. Thus we have articles like this :/ Basically all the work in getting large scale quantum computers to work lies in these fields. They will continue to grow.
Oh yeah? Then what is the physical explanation for collapse?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Collapse is only mysterious to people who never learned thermofield theory, or non-equilibrium quantum dynamics. Unfortunately this is also a sizable fraction of all physicists. Thus we have articles like this :/ Basically all the work in getting large scale quantum computers to work lies in these fields. They will continue to grow.
>Collapse is only mysterious to people who never learned thermofield theory, or non-equilibrium quantum dynamics. Oh yeah? Then what is the physical explanation for collapse?
Flash news. Nobody has ever produced any.
To the contrast we have lots of lines of evidence that an observer described by quantum mechanics should, upon observing a quantum experiment, be thrown into a superposition of observers. Each of which appears to have observed collapse. The notion is utterly repugnant to our biases so many reject the idea out of hand.
But as we create ever more complex but controlled systems, we can perform ever more elaborate experiments verifying that quantum mechanics works exactly as predicted. At some point if we take seriously the idea that the most successful scientific theory of all time is an accurate description of ourselves, then we have to accept that perhaps there is no collapse after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Collapse is only mysterious to people who never learned thermofield theory, or non-equilibrium quantum dynamics. Unfortunately this is also a sizable fraction of all physicists. Thus we have articles like this :/ Basically all the work in getting large scale quantum computers to work lies in these fields. They will continue to grow.
>Collapse is only mysterious to people who never learned thermofield theory, or non-equilibrium quantum dynamics. Oh yeah? Then what is the physical explanation for collapse?
Apparent wave function collapse can be explained using quantum decoherence.
Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea. Gravity is local and apparent collapse is non-local; it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
>Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea. Why not? Gravity is (probably) mediated by a particle, and therefore all matter will interact with all other matter ... so why shouldn't gravity therefore cause a collapse?
Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea. Gravity is local and apparent collapse is non-local; it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
>Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea. Why not? Gravity is (probably) mediated by a particle, and therefore all matter will interact with all other matter ... so why shouldn't gravity therefore cause a collapse?
Electromagnetism is also mediated by particles (photons) and the quantum states can survive a lot of electromagnetic interactions without collapsing. One of my favorites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experime...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Collapse is only mysterious to people who never learned thermofield theory, or non-equilibrium quantum dynamics. Oh yeah? Then what is the physical explanation for collapse?
What is the physical evidence that collapse actually happens? Flash news. Nobody has ever produced any. To the contrast we have lots of lines of evidence that an observer described by quantum mechanics should, upon observing a quantum experiment, be thrown into a superposition of observers. Each of which appears to have observed collapse. The notion is utterly repugnant to our biases so many reject the idea out of ha…
This is what I never understood about MWI, in what physical sense can the many worlds be said to exist? Where are they in our universe? What direction would we have to travel to find them? Do they exert gravity on us? If not, then how can we claim that they exist in a physical sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the physical evidence that collapse actually happens? Flash news. Nobody has ever produced any. To the contrast we have lots of lines of evidence that an observer described by quantum mechanics should, upon observing a quantum experiment, be thrown into a superposition of observers. Each of which appears to have observed collapse. The notion is utterly repugnant to our biases so many reject the idea out of ha…
But this doesn't answer the question. If you claim that all of these possible observers 'exist', how does this have a physical meaning? This is what I never understood about MWI, in what physical sense can the many worlds be said to exist? Where are they in our universe? What direction would we have to travel to find them? Do they exert gravity on us? If not, then how can we claim that they exist in a physical sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the physical evidence that collapse actually happens? Flash news. Nobody has ever produced any. To the contrast we have lots of lines of evidence that an observer described by quantum mechanics should, upon observing a quantum experiment, be thrown into a superposition of observers. Each of which appears to have observed collapse. The notion is utterly repugnant to our biases so many reject the idea out of ha…
But this doesn't answer the question. If you claim that all of these possible observers 'exist', how does this have a physical meaning? This is what I never understood about MWI, in what physical sense can the many worlds be said to exist? Where are they in our universe? What direction would we have to travel to find them? Do they exert gravity on us? If not, then how can we claim that they exist in a physical sense?
I think there’s also an experimental setup, whose name I forget, but which is essentially nested Schrödinger's cat setups: Alice is in a box, Bob is in a box which contains Alice’s box, Carol is outside; Alice goes into superposition of |Alice+> and |Alice->, Bob opens the box and Carol can now demonstrate that Bob is in a superposition of |observing Alice+> and |observing Alice-> instead of the combination of 100%|observing> and a superposition of |Alice+> and |Alice->.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the physical evidence that collapse actually happens? Flash news. Nobody has ever produced any. To the contrast we have lots of lines of evidence that an observer described by quantum mechanics should, upon observing a quantum experiment, be thrown into a superposition of observers. Each of which appears to have observed collapse. The notion is utterly repugnant to our biases so many reject the idea out of ha…
But this doesn't answer the question. If you claim that all of these possible observers 'exist', how does this have a physical meaning? This is what I never understood about MWI, in what physical sense can the many worlds be said to exist? Where are they in our universe? What direction would we have to travel to find them? Do they exert gravity on us? If not, then how can we claim that they exist in a physical sense?
But anyway, the other worlds do effect our world - that's why we get interference patterns in double slit experiments.