Micaiah_Chang comments on Ask an experimental physicist - Less Wrong

35 Post author: RolfAndreassen 08 June 2012 11:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (294)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 10 June 2012 06:19:43PM 2 points [-]

Run a two-particle, single-spatial dimension, time dependent sim of the Schroedinger equation, starting with a high level of quantum independence, and you will see decoherence as plain as day.

Please feel free to post a link to such a sim. I'm almost willing to bet real money against it. That you would even propose that decoherence can be observed without including the environment in the simulation tells me how much of QM you really understand.

The Collapse postulate breaks CPT symmetry, violates conservation the quantum hamiltonian, violates Liouvilles theorem, violates relativistic locality, is non-linear, is non-unitary, is non-differentiable, inherently stochastic, poorly defined, anthropocentric and formulated in deep confusion.

You mean, the straw collapse EY constructed and happily demolished. The windmill you are fighting has nothing to do with the orthodox formulation of QM, which is perfectly compatible with decoherence.

Comment author: Micaiah_Chang 10 June 2012 08:19:33PM 1 point [-]

So what is the orthodox formulation of QM, which is perfectly compatible with decoherance and doesn't resemble the straw man? I'm sorry if you've posted this elsewhere, but I'd really like to know what you think.

Comment author: shminux 10 June 2012 09:13:28PM 1 point [-]

See my reply to MagnetoHydroDynamics.