On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I just have reservations >> about it, not so much that it's wrong, but that it doesn't really solve the >> problems it claims to - which implies criticism of the position that MWI >> has solved all the problems of interpreting QM. A lot of the above claimed >> advantages knocking down straw men built on naive interpretations of Bohr. >> Some are just assumptions, e.g that physics must be time reversible and >> linear. >> >> I thought linearit was probabilities adding up to one, which isn't a > radical assumption??? > > I think you might be thinking of unitary vs. non-unitary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_(physics)
> Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle > interactions, so surely not an assumption at all? > > I agree, things like CPT symmetry, determinism, etc. aren't just assumptions, but underlie every other known physical law that is known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry The *CPT theorem* says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_invariant> local quantum field theory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory> with a Hermitian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-adjoint_operator> Hamiltonian<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)> must have CPT symmetry. Collapse of the wave function would be the only phenomenon in quantum mechanics that is non-unitary, non-linear, non-differentiable, and discontinuous. It would also be the only principle in physics that non-local, non-causal, non-deterministic, and violates special relativity. I can understand that Brent's ambivalence toward MWI, it may not be the final answer, but I think it is a good step in that direction. However, I am surprised that anyone well-versed in the known physics of today, could consider collapse as anything but a wild, unsupported, and almost-certainly-false conjecture. There is so much well-established physics that must be given up; for apparently no other reason than the ontological prejudice some harbor for the idea that the universe is no bigger than we previously thought. Jason -- 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
