You should read some of the papers by Kryukov. He models the
environment by random Hamiltonian and recovers wave-function collapse
within Schroedinger eqn evolution:
Quantum Paradoxes and the Quantum-Classical Transition under Unitary
Measurement Dynamics with Random Hamiltonians
Authors: Alexey A. Kryukov
Abstract: We develop a dynamical framework for quantum measurement based
on stochastic but unitary evolution in projective state space. Random
Hamiltonians drawn from the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble generate
stochastic unitary dynamics of the quantum state, while equivalence
classes reflecting finite detector resolution define classical
observables as well as classical configuration-space and phase-space
submanifolds. When the evolution is constrained to the phase-space
submanifold, free Schrödinger dynamics reduces to Newtonian motion,
while stochastic motion constrained to the classical configuration-space
submanifold yields ordinary Brownian motion in classical space.
Transition probabilities under the stochastic dynamics satisfy the Born
rule, whereas the constrained classical evolution produces the normal
probability distributions characteristic of classical measurements. We
show that, in this setting, measurement, state reduction, and the
quantum-classical transition emerge from unitary dynamics alone, without
invoking nonunitary collapse or additional postulates. Entanglement and
EPR correlations arise geometrically from the evolution of joint states
in composite state space, preserving locality in spacetime. The
framework provides a unified dynamical account of measurement and
classicality compatible with the structure of quantum mechanics.
arXiv:2601.17976
Brent
On 11/15/2024 6:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:02:14AM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote:
As I see it, JC's core claim about the MWI is that it follows from S's
equation
It comes about by not making any further assumptions, like the
wavefunction collapse of CI, or pilot waves of Bohmian mechanics which
privilege one branch over the others.
; namely, that anything the can happen (has a non-zero probability),
must happen (in some world). I fail to see anything in S's equation to support
this claim. And, I fail to see JC argue for this claim. Thus, IMO, I've put the
nail in the coffin to the MWI. AG
You think!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d6c4c702-6e09-40cd-b76d-37c1ee4cb291%40gmail.com.
