BTW, just a caveat --- and I should've caveated the initial forward.
I'm not endorsing this or any interpretation of this experiment at all,
rather just offering it up to the list in case others had not seen it.
$0.02,
jb
On Apr 26, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Hal Finney wrote:
>
>> The MWI is just the quantum formalism minus
>> wave function collapse and is therefore perfectly compatible with this
>> experiment, since the experiment is itself compatible with the quantum
>> formalism.
>
> Would this experimental result actually be predicted by the quantum
> formalism, though? It sounds like they had a setup similar to the
> double-slit experiment and found a small amount of interference even
> when they measured which hole the particle traveled through, but I
> thought the quantum formalism predicts that interference would be
> completely destroyed by such a measurement.
>
> Either way, the claim that this supports the transactional
> interpretation but not the MWI interpretation can't be right, since
> both are supposed to be equally compatible with the quantum formalism.
>
> Jesse
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra
> Storage!
> http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/
> onm00200362ave/direct/01/
Received on Mon Apr 26 2004 - 16:10:42 PDT