5 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

A new and interesting hypothesis offers a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics that explains many of the stranger aspects by the proximity of alternate universes. An intriguing aspect of the theory is that it may also be testable. For those who can understand the math, it is available to study from the abstract for free.

http://www.eurekaler...u-gsp102914.php

https://journals.aps...cknowledgements

[nowayout]

I find many-worlds interpretations very inelegant.  It is not clear that they are necessary or sufficient to explain quantum mechanics; in my opinion expressing a preference for many-worlds interpretations seems more like a symptom of someone's lack of understanding quantum mechanics. 

 

Conventional single-world interpretations (e.g., the consistent histories interpretation) can explain all of quantum mechanics very well, except for the "basis problem."  But many-world interpretations also fail to provide a satisfactory explanation of the basis problem, so there is no reason to prefer many-worlds and various reasons (e.g. economy) to reject them.  

 

I bet this interpretation doesn't explain the basis problem either.  But I'll have a look at this later. 

[Clacksberg]

Maybe the right kind of program in a quantum computer might show if information can flow between 'universes' lol 

[Clacksberg]

Guess we've read david deutschs ideas for testing MWI?

[platypus]

I find many-worlds interpretations very inelegant.  It is not clear that they are necessary or sufficient to explain quantum mechanics; in my opinion expressing a preference for many-worlds interpretations seems more like a symptom of someone's lack of understanding quantum mechanics. 

 

Conventional single-world interpretations (e.g., the consistent histories interpretation) can explain all of quantum mechanics very well, except for the "basis problem."  But many-world interpretations also fail to provide a satisfactory explanation of the basis problem, so there is no reason to prefer many-worlds and various reasons (e.g. economy) to reject them.  

 

I bet this interpretation doesn't explain the basis problem either.  But I'll have a look at this later. 

Interesting, what do you think of the Bayesian interpretation?

[Lazarus Long]

Has anyone bothered to read the actual article yet and and test the mathematics for consistency and validate that portion at least?