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