Hi Richard,

On 24 Oct 2012, at 13:46, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno,

What is your opinion of Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics TIQM,
a 4th possible interpetation of QM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation "More
recently he [Cramer] has also argued TIQM to be consistent with the
Afshar experiment, while claiming that the Copenhagen interpretation
and the many-worlds interpretation are not.[3]"
[3] ^ A Farewell to Copenhagen?, by John Cramer. Analog, December 2005.

Feynman used waves coming back from the future to solve his Quantum
Electrodynamics QED, the most experimentally accurate physics theory
extant, which in my mind lends TIQM credence. Such teteological
effects are expanded on for living systems in Terrence Deacon's book
"Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter".

I don't see how Cramer's interpretation make disappear the terms of the superposition, it is only a post selection for which Everett can provide the epistemology.

The many world is a direct consequence of linearity of evolution, and linearity of the tensor product.

(I don't pretend the MWI solves all conceptual problems of QM, note).



And does Afshar's experiment negate MWI? QM?

I have not studied the details of Afshar's experiment, nor so much think about it, so I can't say. I doubt it can negate MWI, or QM, or comp, as the MW idea, like the everything idea, seems compelling at the start, and rather "natural" to me.

Feel free to present the argument if you have studied it and find it compelling.

Bruno



On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 23 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb

There are a number of theories to explain the collapse of the quantum wave
function
(see below).

1) In subjective theories, the collapse is attributed
to consciousness (presumably of the intent or decision to make
a measurement).


This leads to ... solipsism. See the work of Abner Shimony.




2) In objective or decoherence theories, some physical
event (such as using a probe to make a measurement)
in itself causes decoherence of the wave function. To me,
this is the simplest and most sensible answer (Occam's Razor).


This is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. It forces some devices into NOT
obeying QM.




3) There is also the many-worlds interpretation, in which collapse
of the wave is avoided by creating an entire universe.
This sounds like overkill to me.


This is just the result of applying QM to the couple "observer + observed".
It is the literal reading of QM.




So I vote for decoherence of the wave by a probe.


You have to abandon QM, then, and not just QM, but comp too (which can only
please you, I guess).

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to