• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Quantum theorem shakes foundations

Whether it pans out or not, Depak Chopra will find a way to work this into his wibble as if it was obvious all along.
 
Limbo said:
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392

I would be interested in hearing JREF perspectives on this. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

My (very quick) response (to the Nature report and the ArXiV abstract, I haven't read the paper itself yet) but it sounds like the paper claims to find an inconsistency in an obscure and ill-formulated interpretation of quantum mechanics, i.e. the "statistical interpretation". I don't know anyone who ever really liked the statistical interpretation, and I wasn't aware that a complete statistical interpretation had even been written down in a way that invited disproof, so I don't think that this result has any impact on the rest of us who have been assuming Many-Worlds or Copenhagen all along.

On the other hand, they quote a "quantum foundations" expert as saying it's interesting, but I don't know the guy they quote. I'd be interested in hearing the response from Aharonov or Zeilinger.
 
I agree mostly with what ben_m wrote. While I haven't read the preprint yet (will do so this weekend), I will note the article stated it is simply a theorem - my main sticking point now is to note that Bell's theorem was an interesting theoretical argument until such a time as it was confirmed (at least in part) experimentally, at which point it became much more than a theoretical argument. This idea seems to be in the beginning stages, being "an interesting theorem", and not much more.

That said, I'll give the preprint a gander.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom