shminux 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 11 June 2012 01:43:37AM 2 points [-]

Okay, the Orthodox QM is an informal specification of anticipated experimental results, and acknowledges decoherence as a thing. That is good to know.

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.

My base claim is that decoherence can and will become macroscopic given time.

That's an experimental fact, you don't need to claim anything.

Some physicists seem to disagree.

Really? Who?

Why? To my best expertise it is obviously implied by the mathematics behind it.

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 June 2012 02:01:48AM 1 point [-]

Perception of groups are often skewed. Mine was.

That update out of the way, why are we arguing? We do not disagree.

Comment author: shminux 11 June 2012 04:02:35AM 0 points [-]

Aumann ftw!