• 0 Posts
  • 3 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2025

help-circle

  • gbzm@piefed.socialtoScience Memes@mander.xyzI'm good, thanks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ah so I think I sort of conflated RQM and MWI because I thought it was all about Everett’s other paper “relative state formulation of qm”.

    I thought on top of an ad hoc rehabilitation of physical realism, the universal state also did something for the consistency. Something like all the density operators may be expressed as partial traces of the operator describing the their systems’ union, in order for everything to be consistent, and the ‘largest’ operator describes the state of the universe or something.

    I’ll check out your sources next insomnia, thanks


  • gbzm@piefed.socialtoScience Memes@mander.xyzI'm good, thanks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    My understanding might be a bit superficial, but I thought the whole point of the MWI was to make explicit the fact that states are relative? To me the rationale was that states are relative and if we simultaneously describe relative states and their observers we can translate the shrödinger+born-rule in a density-operator+partial-trace-rule and make the wave function collapse physical (aka unitary) through branching and decoherence, even though that’s mathematically tedious and in practice people will keep using projectors (1). States being relative means their physical reality is somewhat broken but locality is mostly saved (2), so then we postulate that they derive from a universal wave function to rehabilitate some form of physical realism (3). As to (4), isn’t it solved if you assume that Schrödinger’s equation is actually the less fundamental formalism since it’s only valid for systems that are unrealistically isolated?