= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Ask an experimental physicist - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (294)
And your comment makes obvious that you are not a physicist, and have learned QM from someone who is not a physicist. Quick, without looking it up- what percentage of physicists subscribe to MWI? What are two alternative interpretations of QM besides Copenhagen and MWI?
This is entirely the wrong attitude to have.
I'm a physicist and I wouldn't know that myself. Especially because I seem to recall different surveys giving vastly different results.
Sure! The approach is the informative part, and I should have worded my post better to make that clearer. Something along the lines of "why do you believe that many physicists reject MWI for those reasons?" would have been less confrontational and probably more communicative.
Yes I am not a physicist, I will at best be a first year CS bachelor student in a little over a year from time of posting. I am, however, really good at mathematics. Good enough in fact to be able to solve partial differential equations in complex scalar fields, and simulate them accordingly with custom written C programs as a hobby.
I might not know the first equation of QTF, but I can write a Schroedinger-wave-packet equation, derive the time dependent differentialtion, discretize it and simulate it in a two dimensional discrete hilbert space with dependent potential wells and set the initial state to high independence.
I don't know, but apparently not enough. I seem to misremember having heard a figure of more than half.
Transitional Wave and Bhomian Mechanics, or however they are spelt. The former is something tricky to do with time-reversed wave-packets, the latter postulates point-shaped particles in addition to the wave packets and was disproven early on.
Yes it is, I am sorry, it was a rethorical slip up.