David Albert - What Does Quantum Theory Mean?Albert is a physicist-turned-philosopher, and he explains this pretty well.Quantum theory may be weird—superposition and entanglement of particles that in our normal world would make no sense—but quantum theory is truly how the microworld works. What does all this weirdness mean? How to go from microworld weirdness to macroworld normalcy? Will we ever make sense out of quantum mechanics?
He goes on to say that more and more physicists are adopting the many-worlds interpretation. He says it is counter-intuitive, but does not reject it for that reason. He rejects it because it does not explain the world.
In his opinion, it does not really solve the measurement problem, for two reasons.
(1) it tries to explain the definite outcomes as an illusion. Maybe this position could be justified some day.
(2) it cannot explain the probabilities we see, as many-worlds says all outcomes are determined.
He admits that physicists have done a lot of contortions to try to get around these issues, but they have failed.
"At the end of the day, it does not account for our experience."
I agree with him on these points. Perhaps mathematical physicists will develop a decoherence theory showing that the wave function branching resembles what we see. It hasn't happened yet, but it is possible.
But many-worlds will never explain the probabilities, because the whole point of many-worlds is to reject probabilities. The parallel worlds arise because probabilities are interpreted as world splittings, and all possibilities are realized in inaccessible alternate worlds.
So why are more and more physicists adopting such a wrong theory? No answer given. Physicists are losing their grip on reality.
Confusing a probability (a second hand calculation based on data, data I might add you acquired in THIS universe) with reality (what happened) is the fundamental problem, it's a logical fallacy dependent upon a sleight of hand reification or just good old fashioned sloppy thinking.
ReplyDeleteIf you base your second hand calculation on data dependent upon measurements taken in this universe, you can say nothing about other universes, since you neither observed or measured them in any way, it isn't valid logical reasoning and definitely violates scientific methodology.
You can believe whatever you wish independent of observation, data, and measurement, but that is faith, not science, and I'm not buying.
Dear CFT,
Delete>> "If you base your second hand calculation on data dependent upon measurements taken in this universe, you can say nothing about other universes, since you neither observed or measured them in any way, it isn't valid logical reasoning and definitely violates scientific methodology."
Well, CFT, the point isn't whether you "observe"ed or "measure"ed them.
The point is that this position says, like a Brahmin CS UG student at IIT of the yesteryears, also sympathetic to "merit" and "capitalism" but *never* quite willing to defend it (just as in any other matter), now rather bluntly and in this way:
It doesn't *matter* whether you can obseve them or not. *I* with my *BramhaN* Authority say that they exist but *you* can't in priciple see them because you were not pure enough, or didn't clear the JEE, the proof being in the Crores/annum *AMERICAN* JOBS *I* *can* have, but *you* wouldn't, ever, because God(s) didn't ordain for *you* to have them. May be, if you follow some 11 Rules or Tanta NOW, in "your" next life.
The (infinity of the) in principle hidden something(s) translates to that i.e. means that.
The point isn't whether you actually observed them. The point is that they *can* exist even if *you* can *never* observe them. Logical. The last *is* the IITian (JPBTI) point. Also BJMC. Etc.
Best,
--Ajit
An indirect reference also was to the "Multi-Versity"'s I^2IT, also to the "Flame" "University" complete with Physics Professors from IITs and IISc.
DeleteAlso to your RICH Americans' lovely Mukesh Ambani's UDCT, now called UICT, IIMA Gujaraath, and The Emergency Jailed Prakash Jawadekar's Institute of Dr. Anil D. Sahasrabudhe's Institute of Eminence Promoting Biology in NOT FE BUT FY BTech. Compulsory. Why? Because Vinay Sahasrabuddhe's younger brother, willing to sport beard too, come what may, an no matter what, it looks like a "saadhu", says so.
Best,
--Ajit
Rather III Class.
DeleteBest,
--Ajit