= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MagnetoHydroDynamics 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)
Okay, the Orthodox QM is an informal specification of anticipated experimental results, and acknowledges decoherence as a thing. That is good to know.
My base claim is that decoherence can and will become macroscopic given time. Some physicists seem to disagree. Why? To my best expertise it is obviously implied by the mathematics behind it.
I am well aware the Born Rule is a mystery. Where the Born Probabilities come from, idk. Mangled Worlds seems like it might have the structure of a good explanation, it smells right, even if it isn't.
Now that was uncalled for.
OK, as pragmatist pointed out, calling it orthodox is misleading. Sorry. From now on I'll be calling it instrumentalist. As for "informal", it's as formal as it gets, pure math.
That's an experimental fact, you don't need to claim anything.
Really? Who?
Feel free to outline the math. The best sort-of-derivation so far, as far as I know, is given by Zurek and is known as einselection.
Perception of groups are often skewed. Mine was.
That update out of the way, why are we arguing? We do not disagree.
Aumann ftw!