The Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-tester is a quantum mechanics thought experiment that uses interaction-free measurements to verify that a bomb is functional without having to detonate it. It was conceived in 1993 by Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Vaidman. Since their publication, real-world experiments have confirmed that their theoretical method works as predicted.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Here’s the paper that citation comes from. Note that the informal poll had only 33 respondents, eight of whom were philosophers or mathematicians rather than physicists. On the question of preferred interpretations, several options with significant known support (De Broglie-Bohm, consistent histories, ensemble, etc.) got 0%. The paper opens with the disclaimer: “Just as Tegmark’s poll, our poll cannot claim to be representative of the communities at large.” They also note with reference to Tegmark’s poll: “While the Copenhagen interpretation gathered the most votes, the many-worlds interpretation turned out to come in second, prompting Tegmark to declare a “rather striking shift in opinion compared to the old days when the Copenhagen interpretation reigned supreme.”

    So I don’t think you can cite that survey as some kind of canonical consensus, and certainly not as evidence that Everettian interpretations are generally dismissed.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Dude I just had my weird idea about us all living in a simulation and wanted to share it; I wasn’t expecting it to be scrutinized to this level of detail

      But sure.

      Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best “represents” reality.

      … seems like it summarizes it best. So GTFO out of here with trying to tell me that some particular interpretation is definitely right, and incompatible with what I said. Thanks.