HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>Every state in [0,0.5] was turned into a state in [-0.5, 0] and similarly (0.5,1] -> [0.5,1].

I hadn't heard this version, but it doesn't make sense to me. So these microscopic worlds each change when a quantum event occurs? If they can change, then why not think that there's only one world, which changes when you measure something? It's a lot simpler and seems to handle everything that this theory does. Of course, if they don't change, then we're in a microscopic world with a precise configuration at any given moment, and every observable has a value, and Einstein was right, and we wouldn't observe Bell's inequalities. But we do, and anyway, the whole reason we postulate this stuff is because we think that things in our world (you know, the one I'm sitting in, microscopic or otherwise) actually evolve according to the wave function.

BTW, if your picture is Bohmian mechanics, then you only need one world, where every particle has a well-defined position all the time, and these evolve according to the wave function. These different possible histories are epistemically possible because we don't know what region of the wave function the particle currently inhabits. But that's not a continuous infinity of worlds, microscopic or otherwise, unless you're just using the word "world" that way.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: