I have elaborated a comprehensive analysis of Russell's derivation of
quantum mechanics; the article can be found online on my homepage:
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~yayaita/Russell_Derivation_QM.pdf
An extract:
1. Point of Departure
In his article "Why Occam's Razor" and in appendix D of his book
"Theory of Nothing", Russell presents a derivation of the postulates
that underly quantum mechanics based on the theory of the Everything
ensemble. In usual treatments of quantum mechanics that can be found
in various textbooks, these postulates aren't justified on any deeper
level. Though, there have been considerable efforts (mostly linked to
the "Everett interpretation", also called "many-worlds" or "relative
state interpretation") to explain the apparent validity of the
postulates describing the collapse of the wavefunction starting from
the no-collapse postulates. Recent contributions have been published
by Wallace and Zurek. But Russell goes even much further: He also
derives the core of quantum mechanics, its no-collapse postulates,
using the theory of the Everything ensemble and a few assumptions.
If Russell is right, then his derivation is a great and to date
unrivalled highlight of our efforts for justifying the theory of the
Everything ensemble. Aspects of the structure of our world are
explained by reason alone without referring to experiments---this
could be the first great achievement of what I call "rationalist
physics". His work induces Russell to be enthusiastic: referring to
Feynman's famous statement that "nobody understands quantum
mechanics'', Russell writes in chapter 7 of his book: "I can now say
that I understand quantum mechanics.'' and he summarizes "Quantum
mechanics is simply a theory of observation!''
The significance of Russell's claim cannot be overrated. And I do hope
that he is right. Nonetheless, I elaborate a thorough criticism of his
derivation. If Russell can disprove my objections (and I hope he
will), my criticism will contribute to a clarification of several
issues. If my criticism holds, then it is up to all of us to improve
Russell's approach or to suggest completely new ideas. So, I invite
all of you to participate actively in the discussion that will follow.
I will outline Russell's derivation step by step. My presentation
sticks closely to appendix D of Russell's book. I slightly changed
notations in order to avoid confusions.
----
Regards, Youness Ayaita
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Apr 19 2008 - 11:13:11 PDT