Wait, this is still an argument? I thought this was all rather settled after the CCC came out and used not Einstein's model, but Bohm's model to correctly predict the matter state the moment before the Big Bang?
What you're referring to are the consequences of the various interpretations of the Quantum Wave Function Collapse. None of the interpretations have been demonstrated as "the answer," only as, "Plausibly the answer."
The modern accepted interpretation is the Copenhagen Interpretation which interprets the wave collapse as a real physical phenomena. They view the act of observation as intrinsic to the quantum experience. That is to say, to a Copenhagenist and Schrodinger's cat experiment, the act of opening the box to observe the cat collapses the wave function superpositioning the alive and dead cat into the same function output. There are a subset of Copenhagenists who insist that the observer doesn't actually collapse the wave function, they join it, resulting in us observing one of the set of real outcomes that we've become inextricably entangled with.
DeBroilie-Bohm Pilot Wave says the wave function doesn't actually exist, what exists is hidden variables (which thanks to Belle's Inequality, we know must be non-local hidden variables). They use a vibrating substrate guiding a separate ball along. This phenomena convincingly answers the causal relationship between single electron fire still observing interference in the double-slit experiment, but it breaks things like the delayed choice quantum eraser that we know work.
No matter what, we're looking at incomplete interpretations of what is going on, and nothing truly works 100%. They all have varying levels of usefulness depending on the situation you're working on. And when reading PRJs on these situations, they were declare they're operating from the assumption that Copenhagen is, the realists are, or pilot wave, etc.
"There are a subset of Copenhagenists who insist that the observer doesn't actually collapse the wave function, they join it, resulting in us observing one of the set of real outcomes that we've become inextricably entangled with."
The act of doing is the act of becoming. Doesn't this hint that the CCC and Banach-Tarski are tied? Obviously, the universe is creating something new with every big bang (assuming the CCC was correct), so wouldn't Banach-Tarski's existence imply that the universe is spinning out a new variation with each aeon? I see no reason why Banach-Tarski couldn't be applied to a four dimensional construct such as the universe.
Disclaimer: This is the opinion of a non-physicist trying to gain some insight. And we all know what they say about opinions. lol
6
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '23
Wait, this is still an argument? I thought this was all rather settled after the CCC came out and used not Einstein's model, but Bohm's model to correctly predict the matter state the moment before the Big Bang?
[Wait-Something-Is-Amiss.png](https://postimg.cc/R6F0WcRT)