Reply To: Quantum Oblivion and Hesitation

Mark Stuckey

I do recall reading Avshalom’s paper. I’ll respond to him about his view. I hadn’t seen Yakir’s paper, thanks for sharing it. Since that represents your view, let’s discuss it.

On pp 7-8, he writes:

The standard way however is non-covariant as far as the state description is concerned. Indeed, the collapse occurs both at Alice and at Bob at time T, i.e. simultaneously in the reference frame in which we chose to work. Had we chosen a different reference frame, the moment at which the collapse occurs for Bob’s particle could have been different. On the other hand, in our description, nothing happens to Bob’s particle when Alice performs a measurement, so no covariance problems arise.

When he says, “nothing happens to Bob’s particle when Alice performs a measurement” is he speaking subjectively from Alice’s perspective a la RQM? Or, is he thinking objectively as in the preferred frame of a single universe? I don’t see how the next paragraph answers this question:

We would like to emphasize however that the relativistic covariance at the level of wave-functions does not necessarily require to consider each moment of time a new universe; it is already present in a simpler version of time evolution, with a “single universe” but with two
wave-functions, one propagating forward and the other backward in time [4].

I’m missing something, hopefully in an exchange or two you can fix that 🙂


Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.