Talk:Penrose interpretation

Mathematics on Penrose Interpretation are hard to find, if anybody knows the mathematics behind it, could you please add it to the article. D Hill 12:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the illustration sucks monkey chunks, you can't even read the writing. Pthag 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kevin aylward

Removed the “modern physics claims that the mirror will be in two places at once” phrase. The physically existence of two real states existing at once is speculation, and not a requirement of the mathematics of QM.

"Interpretation"?

This is an objective collapse theory, not merely a different interpretation of QM. Interpretations have the same math, but just differ on the mapping between the math and observations (or, more usually, they just differ on the words they use). But Penrose's prediction would definitely require new math to describe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.6 (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I edited the phrase

    "It is an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, which posits that superposition fails when an observation is made" 

to include the qualifier:

    "(but that it is non-objective in nature)".  

This is the more important part of their distinction. Regards, James Baugh (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the name "Interpretation" is misleading. I would rather suggest calling it "Penrose model of quantum state reduction" or "Penrose collapse model" instead. Xaggi (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The term of "interpretation" is fuzzily used in general. In its pure sense, Xaggi's suggestion makes perfect sense, but then the "Copenhagen interpretation" is also not an interpretation. It too is a collapse model, but with a poorly defined criterion of collapse. —Quondum 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Q in the Light of O'Connell Qubit Resonator"?

Does the so-called "Quantum Machine" or the coupling of a mechanical resonator, similar to a tiny springboard, and a qubit invalidates Penrose's Interpretation? Any follow-up would be welcome.

ref → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_D._O%27Connell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_machine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.230.247 (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it would, and this seems like an obvious line of investigation. However, to comment in WP would require a source that reports on such an investigation. I have not gone through the references and links of the wiki articles that you linked to to see whether any reference is made to the impact on the Penrose interpretation. —Quondum 19:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Reply to D Hill 12:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)"

For detailed but succinct background/ motivation, arguments (mathematical and physical), and experimental proposition of Penrose see Craig Callender, Nick Huggett -Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale -Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity -Cambridge University Press (2001); Chapters 13 and 14.

From Pg 290 onward - On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, by Sir Roger Penrose, and then in the following article, - Why the quantum must yield to gravity, a modification to his arguments and experimental scheme (FELIX modified in a Leggett-type SQUID or BEC) by Joy Christian.

The following maybe an interesting comment as noted by Joy Christian from the Lectures on Gravitation (Feynman 1995, pp. 12–13), where he devotes a whole section to the issue, entitled ‘On the philosophical problems in quantizing macroscopic objects’,-

...I would like to suggest that it is possible that quantum mechanics fails at large distances and for large objects. Now, mind you, I do not say that I think that quantum mechanics does fail at large distances; I only say that it is not inconsistent with what we do know. If this failure of quantum mechanics is connected with gravity, we might speculatively expect this to happen for masses such that GM^2/hc = 1, of M near 10^(−5) grams, which corresponds to some 10^18 particles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.235.124 (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

When?

The article gives no dates. 92.3.210.86 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)