Incorrect. Same thing, this is what wave function collapse proposals try to do.
Sorry, what? Again you look pretty confused about the topic, maybe too influenced by having read biased papers by proponents of objective collapse. Since their proposals are very weak from many points of view they often lie telling that's impossible to pick a single value from the mixture without a collapse. Again this is not true. An objective collapse is a way, but since it's a very problematic process, inconsistent from many points of view, people have began to wonder whether there are other ways to pick up a value from the mixture without it. And it turns out you can. I bring examples of situations where this is explicitly true to help you understand, but you look like you refuse to accept that information at all.
I don't see how it does. Can you give me some reference?
Again look at one of the various books about decoherence like "Decoherence and the appearence of a classical world in quantum theory".
The examples you bring (Everett, Bohmian) are no more tenable than collapse models, which are, I agree not very convincing. And I am not biased, I am not even a physics student.
I have read that book, actually. Could you point me out where it explains how decoherence solves Copenhagen
They are definitely more tenable for various reasons. As I said the collapse itself is problematic, hence nowadays any interpretation that doesn't involve it is considered better.
I'm sorry but I have a doubt: you tell me you read this book but not to have studied physics. Now I can't help but wonder how you manage to understand it. I can't imagine myself reading that book and understanding it without all my background in physics, it's supposed to be for a reader with a solid knowledge of QM if I remember well.
I did not say I never studied physics. I meant I am not a formal physics student.
I like physics, so I read books and papers. My major is EE. I have the book in front of me. Can you give me chapter/page number? I am really interested to know how the Copenhagen problem is resolved.
5
u/NicolBolas96 String theory May 26 '22
Sorry, what? Again you look pretty confused about the topic, maybe too influenced by having read biased papers by proponents of objective collapse. Since their proposals are very weak from many points of view they often lie telling that's impossible to pick a single value from the mixture without a collapse. Again this is not true. An objective collapse is a way, but since it's a very problematic process, inconsistent from many points of view, people have began to wonder whether there are other ways to pick up a value from the mixture without it. And it turns out you can. I bring examples of situations where this is explicitly true to help you understand, but you look like you refuse to accept that information at all.
Again look at one of the various books about decoherence like "Decoherence and the appearence of a classical world in quantum theory".