Which Interpretation Do You Set Camp With?

An interpretation is unverifiable by de3finition ANYWAY. That's why there's more than one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would like you to provide independent evidence supporting your claim please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a valid question, but I don't try to solve problems that I don't have the tools to solve.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The brain, consistant of billions upon billions of atoms, is the only tool you need.

 

Well then, if it's made of billions upon billions of atoms!

(As opposed to what?)

 

What do you mean independent evidence? The claim is that there is no physics in an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Interpretations cannot be verified experimentally, which is why there is more than one.

Should I use pictures?

 

''Interpretations cannot be verified experimentally, which is why there is more than one.''

Ben... Hi...

I'm having some problems with your terminology.
Instead, based upon your line above, i would have said, ''Not every interpretation can be proven entirely, which is why there is more than one.''

 

It's an interpretation of a measurement. Whether there are many worlds or wavefunctions or magic pixies is of no consequence---the only thing that matters is that you can calculate with it. An interpretation of quantum mechanics is entirely consistent, so long as it doesn't contradict any experiments.

So, I disagree---no interpretation can be proven AT ALL. It can only be shown to be inconsistent with data, and thus not a good interpretation.

 

Sherlock Holms once said, ''If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must remain the truth.''

My point being that once all the interpretations have been reduced to one, after (as you put it), ''they have been contradicted,'' you will have the correct interpretation...

So I disagree.

 

So tell me, oh great physicist, what experiment would you do to eliminate one of the interpretations?

 

''oh great physicist''

This attitude is not needed at all.

''what experiment would you do to eliminate one of the interpretations?''

There might be ways (if we create mini horse black holes successfully) and contain them without the worry of them receding to the centre of the earth, we might be able to use them to probe extra dimensions... indeed, if we don't find them, bye bye brane theory.
But this is just an idea. It might not even be realistic.
But if YOU REALLY REALLY WANT ME TO, i will think about it some more.

But my/Sherlock Holms principle, still accounts.

 

Surely it is. You people seem to be speaking fairly authoritatively on the subject---I figured I MUST be in the company of physicists.

Almost every scentence in this paragraph is wrong. Aside from that, the appearance of extra dimensions is completely consistent with every interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, including, I should add, my newly discovered Magic Pixie interpretation.

Yes, I do. Please tell me how we can experimentally determine the differences in interpretations of quantum mechanics.

 

''Surely it is. You people seem to be speaking fairly authoritatively on the subject---I figured I MUST be in the company of physicists.''

Really? I must express my language quite well then, because i am not great, nor do i 'class' myself as a physicist. At best,an amature scientist, and writer.

''Almost every scentence in this paragraph is wrong. Aside from that, the appearance of extra dimensions is completely consistent with every interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, including, I should add, my newly discovered Magic Pixie interpretation.''

I dare say, maybe it is... But can you be more specific so i can defend my case.

''Yes, I do. Please tell me how we can experimentally determine the differences in interpretations of quantum mechanics.''

Ok.. Give me a day or two... then come back to this.

 

Also,quantum theory DOES NOT predict extra dimensions. That is a mistake of string theory. Quantum Theory, can be worked very well in 4-dimensions. The only reason why string theory works, is because it works in 11-dimensions...

 

Ben... the question was not retorical. If you cannot be arsed answering my question, why should i even bother spending my time contemplating yours?

 

I know very well the predictions of string theory, I have written a Master's thesis on the subject, and am in the process of writing a Ph.D dissertation.

The point that I made and continue to make is this: the only thing that matters for an ``interpretation of quantum mechanics'' is that it be consistent with data. Any other deciding factors are not scientific, i.e. ``Occam's Razor''. To claim that one interpretation of QM is better than another is PURELY an aesthetic statement.

Responding to threads in physics fora is not my job, and I will do so at my convenience. Currently I am watching football, and trying to figure out the low energy effective field theories of fifteen string models that I have just built.

Plus, I don't know which question you are talking about.

 

Be more specific about what? The Magic Pixie interpretation? Or how you are wrong?

 

How i am wrong... be easy on me... It was an off-the-top-of-my-head-answer.

 

Fair enough.

There are no ways to differentiate experimentally between the interpretaitons of QM. That's why there are more than one.

I don't know what a ``horse black hole'' is, and I have never heard the term.

They decay via hawking radiation before we can capture them. The only way that we would know that we have created a black hole is by the decay products.

this is just not true. One can always adjust the radius of the extra dimension to be smaller than the energy scale that we can test at. LHC cannot disprove brane theory, it can only constrain the parameter space.

 

A Horse Black Hole, is a special brand of black hole that does not evaporate.

so...

''They decay via hawking radiation before we can capture them. The only way that we would know that we have created a black hole is by the decay products.''

Cannot be applied here... so far Ben, for someone who allegedly saw numerous mistakes, you've made a few yourself.

My postulate still holds. Make a black hole, and probe the dimensions,if there are any... also, they would perfect catalysc to finding dark energy curled up in these dimensions, as they would be able to detect matter...