Panel - Can Quantum Theory Consistently Describe Itself?

Moderated by David Wallace; Scott Aaronson, Lidia del Rio, Raphael Bousso and Matt Leifer in the panel "Can Quantum Theory Consistently Describe Itself?" at the 6th International FQXi Conference, "Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World."
The Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) catalyzes, supports, and disseminates research on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology, particularly new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality but unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources.
Please join us at www.fqxi.org!

[@vjnt1star]

Some of it went over my head, you have to know the name of all the experiments to follow. Bottom line is "everything is always happening according to the schrodinger equation"

[@منوعاتيوتيوب-ك6ش]

I have three questions about how the cosmic expansion from the Big Bang
The first question is if the quarks produces gluons
Do gluons produce particles too?
The second question is the vibrations of quarks, electrons and gluons
Are these particles producing a new area of ​​the universe?
The third question is about cosmic expansion
Are these additional spaces caused by the formation of new molecules?
These were three questions about the theory of cosmic expansion (the Big Bang).
We hope you send these three questions to experimental physicists
We want answers that depend on physical experiments in laboratories

[@Scottie-gd7bo]

Great talk. I'm not sure how physicists who have thought long and hard about these thought experiments (i.e., Wigner's friend) continue to latch on to the classical Copenhagen interpretation without some serious "observer-dependent" revisions...which already begin to sound many-worldesque. Even Raphael Bousso takes a perspective that would be considered Everettian by other Everettians, even though he seems to shun the label himself. Overall, the whole field sounds like it's moving in the direction that Nima Arkani Hamed suggested: that (approximate) quantum mechanics comes out of different "system-observer" splits of a single mathematical object. Since you can slice up the object in different ways, you get different observer-dependent "perspectives"/"worlds"/"realities". Moreover, many of the conceptual issues tied to information loss (i.e, the black hole information paradox) etc are artifacts of the fact that this split is only approximate in some limit.

[@Scottie-gd7bo]

@MetraMan09 The point is there is no such thing as one unique/correct/global all-seeing observer. Instead, we are all observers with a unique quantum theory describing our experiences, which would mean that the "system" we can describe only extends to the end of our cosmological horizon/region. In other words, you have a quantum theory associated with all you can observe and I have a quantum theory associated with what I observe. Now these regions do overlap, which means you could in principle "stitch" them together and think of it as one big multiverse. But doing so in some sense would be overcounting. You're effectively "averaging over" what I see with what you see.

[@kadourimdou43]

If QM can't explain what happened at T=0 or resolve the Blackhole Firewall issue, how can it be thought of as being compete enough to have a correct interpretation?

[@antiprismatic]

It cant explain t=0 vecause there is no t to =0 however there is dielectricity and magnetism and when those thongs are brought to 0 in a large enough quantity, then you have something. Which is why quantum exists as a huge fucking red herring.

[@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386]

Big joke. These people can’t even agree on what time is.

[@scipioafricanus2]

guess they haven't heard of a little something called the measurement problem