You keep ignoring the fact that the dominant eigenstate is derived from nothing but the unitary evolution and the limitations of the observer. This is not a "new theory" or an interpretation of any kind. Since you are not willing to discuss that part your comments regarding the validity of my approach are entirely meaningless. You criticize my work based on the results which are not to your liking, and not with respect to the methods used to obtain these results. So I beg you one last time, let us rationally discuss my arguments, and not what you... (read more)
This would be a lot simpler if you weren't avoiding my questions. I have asked you whether you have understood and accept the derivation of the dominant eigenstate as the best possible description of the state of a system that the observer is part of. I have also asked if you have read my blog from the beginning, because I need to know where your confusion about what I am saying comes from.
The Stern Gerlach experiment goes like this in my theory: The superposition of the spins of the silver atoms must be collapsed already at the moment the beam splits up, ... (read more)
There must be something that you have fundamentally misunderstood. I will try to clear up some aspects that I think may cause this confusion.
First of all, the scattering processes presented in the paper are very generic to demonstrate the range of possible processes. The blog contains a specific realization which you may find closer to known physical processes.
Let me explain in detail again what this section is about, maybe this will help to overcome our misunderstanding. A photon scatters on a single qubit. The photon and the qubit each bring in a two dim... (read more)
Your question is absolutely valid and also important. In fact, most of what I write in my paper and the blog is about answering precisely this.
My observer is well defined, as a mechanism that is part of a quantum system and who interacts with the quantum system to gather information about it. He is limited by the locality of interaction and the unitary nature of the evolution. I imagine the observer to be a physicist, who tries to describe the universe mathematically, based on what he sees. But that is only a trick in order to have a mathematical formulati... (read more)
You really come up with tricky questions, good :-). I think there are several ways to understand your questions and I am not sure which one was intended, so I'll make a few assumptions about what you mean.
First, an event is a nonlinear jump in the time evolution of the subjectively perceived state. The objective global evolution is still unitary and linear however. In between the perceived nonlinear evolution events you have ordinary unitary evolution, even subjectively. So I assume you mean the subjective states psi1(t) and psi2(t). The answer is then t... (read more)
I see it exactly like you. I too see the overwhelming number of theories that usually make more or less well hidden mistakes. I too know the usual confusions regarding the meaning of density matrices, the fallacies of circular arguments and all the back doors for the Born rule. And it is exactly what drives me to deliver something that is better and does not have to rely on almost esoteric concepts to explain the results of quantum measurements.
So I guarantee you that this is very well thought out. I have worked on this very publication for 4 years. I flip... (read more)
I think it will be helpful if I briefly describe what my approach to understanding quantum theory is, so that you can put my statements in the correct context.
I assume a minimal set of postulates, namely that the universe has a quantum state and that this state evolves unitarity, generated by the strictly local interactions. The usual state space is assumed. Specifically, there is no measurement postulate or any other postulates about probability measures or anything like that.
Then I go on to define an observer as a mechanism within the quantum universe... (read more)
Thank you for your feedback Mitchell,
I'm afraid you have not understood the paper correctly. First, if a system is in a superposition depends on the basis you use to expand it, it's not a physical property but one of description. The mechanism of branching is actually derived, and it doesn't come from superpositions but from eigenstates of the tensor factor space description that an observer is unable to reconstruct. The branching is also perfectly deterministic.
I think your best option to understand how the dominance of one branch and the non-reality of... (read more)
Have you checked out the posts at my blog? I don't know about your background, but maybe you will find them helpful. If you would like to have a more accessible break down then I can write something here too. In any case, thank you for your interest, highly appreciated!
I'm a theoretical physicist from Germany. My work is mostly about the foundations of quantum theory, but also information theory and non-commutative geometry. Currently I'm working as head of research in a private company.
As a physicist I have been confronted with all sorts of (semi-) esoteric views about quantum theory and its interpretation, and my own lack of a better understanding got me started to explore the fundamental questions related to understanding quantum theory on a rational basis. I believe that all mainstream interpretations h... (read more)