[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1021 KB, 1058x785, 1333725425356.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4617421 No.4617421 [Reply] [Original]

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-function-reality.html

> In a new paper, physicists Roger Colbeck of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, and Renato Renner of the Perimeter Institute who is based at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, have presented an argument strongly in favor of the objective reality of the wave function, which could lead to a better understanding of the fundamental meaning of quantum mechanics.

What's going on here guys?

>> No.4617436

Quantum physicists still have no idea why their models give good predictions.

>> No.4617440

Educated shots in the dark, OP.

>> No.4617448

>This inherently probabilistic nature of quantum theory differs from the certainty with which scientists can describe the classical world, leading to a nearly century-long debate on how to interpret the wave function
But if the classical world is just a multitude of quantum particles...how come we can predict classical world so well?

>> No.4617457

>>4617448

Lucky assumptions.

>> No.4617463
File: 24 KB, 632x467, 1268354634678.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4617463

I'll be completely honest.
I've been waiting for this day for a while now, folks.
We are on the verge of some serious break throughs here.

You have no idea just how crazy this world is about to become.

>> No.4617464

nothing here is really new. that paper is more philosophy-oriented, btw.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html

>> No.4617466

>>4617448
>>4617457
i suppose you could consider decoherence a lucky assumption, but it's more of an \hbar -> 0 limit.

>> No.4617472

Chemistry, Biology, Neurology, holy shit, this is going to rock the world of science if this goes through.

>> No.4617526

Wait, doesnt everyone already think this?

>> No.4617554

>>4617526
Science is based on evidence and facts, not bullshit philosophical circlejerking.

>> No.4617557

>>4617526
everyone educated, over 20, and under 60. It's the proper statistical interpretation, and if the elderly didn't get distracted by philosophy back in the day, this wouldn't be news.

still nice to hear, though. the wheel of science grinds fine, if often slow.

>> No.4617560

>>4617526
everyone sane, yes.

>> No.4617893

It should be noted that in modern subjective accounts of quantum mechanics, the observer's knowledge of the system is in general represented by a density matrix, not a wavefunction. There is no doubt that density matrices represent subjective statistical knowledge except in the special case when they are pure states (when they are equivalent to a wavefunction). And decoherence makes it pretty much impossible for the quantum state to be a pure state at the time a conscious observer looks at the system.

I think it's a mistake to see the Copenhagen interpretation as being in contention with the ontological interpretations. Copenhagen doesn't say that there can't be an objectively real wavefunction; it just doesn't say there is one.

Every ontological interpretation I'm aware of has an objective wavefunction in one form or another, so this result isn't very earth-shaking. And like most of these philosophical theorems, it's based off of assumptions (in this case "freedom to independently choose the measurement setting") which seem plausible, but which are probably easy to circumvent.

>> No.4617913

Lets go through history
So first there were these GOD OF GAPS arguments
And then there were these "only possibly to describe mathematically through formulas and probability" arguments
i wonder what it would sound like in future?