Quantum theorem shakes foundations

Limbo · 22nd November 2011, 02:24 PM

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-t...dations-1.9392

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

the PC apeman · 22nd November 2011, 02:43 PM

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.

ben m · 22nd November 2011, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-t...dations-1.9392

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

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.

MattusMaximus · 22nd November 2011, 09:55 PM

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.

22nd November 2011, 02:24 PM	#1
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	Quantum theorem shakes foundations http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-t...dations-1.9392 I would be interested in hearing JREF perspectives on this. Thanks in advance.
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

22nd November 2011, 02:43 PM	#2
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649	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.
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649

22nd November 2011, 02:54 PM	#3
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,650	Originally Posted by Limbo http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-t...dations-1.9392 I would be interested in hearing JREF perspectives on this. Thanks in advance. 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.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,650

22nd November 2011, 09:55 PM	#4
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	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.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'