Because quantum mechanics “lacks a physical description of the measurement process. The open-access paper seems easy to read.
Wouldn’t making free, legal pot available accomplish the same intellectual goal?
Sheldon: “By measuring a hot stream of molecules with billions of states, this experiment may rule out CSL [Continuous Spontaneous Localization]. If so, it would be the first time an interpretation of QM was actually invalidated, suggesting we have entered a new era of testing theories of the foundations of QM.”
Demonstrated with a molecule of 2000 atoms.
Researcher: The electron not only receives the expected momentum, but additionally one third of the photon momentum that actually should have gone to the atom nucleus. The sail, (electron), of the boat, (nucleus), therefore “knows” of the impending accident, (collision from the photon), before the cords tear and steals a bit of the boat’s (nucleus’s) momentum.
Carroll wants a multiverse out of any new findings, one suspects. One question many might have is, apart from the lack of a multiverse, how bad is the current situation in physics? What, besides that, is going wrong?
Hossenfelder: “Now, a lot of people discard superdeterminism simply because they prefer to believe in free will, which is where I think the biggest resistance to superdeterminism comes from.”
Wait a minute! Wasn’t there cosmic Darwinism a decade ago? Yes, here. And quantum Darwinism whistled through in 2016 too.
His view: What this recent paper with a qutrit experiment shows, is that it is possible to do QM communication or QM computing at high volume and high speed. No need to wear headphones. Our view of the universe has not changed.
Maybe the main thing to see here is that lots of people would love to falsify or tame quantum mechanics, the way they would like to falsify the Big Bang or fine-tuning and it won’t be their fault for lack of trying.
Her view: Most physicists believe that the solution is that the Hawking radiation somehow must contain information after all.
Do we know that quantum mechanics is wrong and, if so, how can it be useful?
Possibly, but maybe it’s inherently fuzzy. Meanwhile, an update on Adam Becker’s attack on Inference Review as an ID-friendly rag; Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder weigh in.
From Philip Cunningham: Notes: In this present video I would like to further refine and expand on the argument that I made in the “Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind” video with more recent experimental evidence from quantum mechanics. and to thus further strengthen the case that the present experimental evidence that Read More…
Question emerges: ““There is some beautiful structure that somehow coexists with a totally random environment,” Papić said. “What kind of physics allows this to happen?”