- #106
zonde
Gold Member
- 2,961
- 224
Interpretations can use quite different math. They just have to demonstrate that it can be reduced to standard QM math. But it is conceivable that it reduces nicely to QM math in some cases, but in other cases it doesn't.PeterDonis said:This doesn't make sense. All interpretations use the same math. If something only uses the same math for some experiments, but different math (or no math at all, so it can't even make a prediction) for others, it isn't an interpretation of QM; it's a different theory.
This doesn't make sense either. The math of QM is consistent, so any interpretation based on it should also be consistent.
For example Bohmian Interpretation is claimed to be no collapse interpretation, but I can't wrap my head around how it then predicts BI violations. As I remember in one thread Demystifier tried to explain that but was not very successful at that. But of course it might be that he have found a way, however I will remain rather skeptical until I see such explanation.
Well, would you call Poppers falsifiability subjective too?PeterDonis said:This is a purely subjective criterion which comes down to personal opinion.
Sorry but why? You shared your opinion, I shared mine. How did you arrived at such farfetched suggestion?PeterDonis said:If you really believe this you should not be posting about it here. You should be publishing a new paper that "gets rid of all the trash" and shows how that points the way to a new theory.