On 1/2/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[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 didn't say it was radical. The SE is linear which means the linear combination of any
two solutions is also a solution. It's sufficient to preserve probability, but not necessary.
Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so
surely not an assumption at all?
CPT symmetry is a consequence of Lorentz symmetry. But CP is violated...so.
Brent
--
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.
