Rod Sutherland

  • Hi Nathan,
    Thanks for your further comments. It’s now clearer to me what your concerns are. And yes, I think you’ve summarised the situation correctly. In particular, for an ensemble, the distribution of final states in my model is simply assumed to satisfy the Born rule. I see this as a separate issue to be solved for most, if not all models…[Read more]

  • Hi Aurelien,
    Please feel free to keep in touch after the workshop if you have further thoughts on these matters. My email address is: rod.sutherland@sydney.edu.au.
    By the way, I think on reflection that my comment labelled (ii) in my previous reply to you was inadequate, because it only covers the single-particle case. To establish the consistency…[Read more]

  • Hi Aurelien,
    (i) You seem to be saying that the final state in my model should simply be “the evolving state of psi in”. But this is not the case. Even in standard QM, the final state is the collapsed psi after measurement. In both standard Bohm theory and in my retrocausal version, the final state is that branch of the initial wavefunction that…[Read more]

  • Hi Dustin,
    As a preliminary step towards answering your mathematical questions, I’d like to focus on your query about my Eq. (1). In particular, I’d like to point out that this equation is meant to be part of standard quantum mechanics, not just of my model. In this context, hopefully we can agree on the following points:
    1. In the relativistic…[Read more]

  • Hi Dustin,
    Thanks for your feedback. First, I’m re-reading Durr, Goldstein and Zanghi’s paper to see if I should modify my previous opinion on the conclusiveness of their argument. This will take a little while since it’s a long paper (75 pages), so I’ll get back to you on this. Second, I’m going through the equations in my paper to see how the…[Read more]

  • Hi Nathan,
    I’ve had trouble submitting a reply to your question electronically, but I seem to be managing now.
    The short answer to your question is that my model is simply an “add-on” to quantum mechanics and so just assumes the Born rule for probabilities as part of the pre-existing formalism. Yes, I would certainly like to see a more fun…[Read more]

  • Hi Aurelien,
    Thanks for your question. For some reason I wasn’t able to submit a reply to your previous comment, but I’m in now.
    The general rule for understanding the behaviour and propagation of the final wavefunction in my theory is to think about what happens with the usual, initial wavefunction and then do the same thing but in the opposite…[Read more]

  • Rod Sutherland posted a new activity comment 5 years ago

    Hi Nathan,
    The short answer to your question is that my model is simply an “add-on” to quantum mechanics and so just assumes the Born rule for probabilities as part of the pre-existing formalism. Yes, I would certainly like to see a more fundamental derivation of this rule, but my personal opinion is that none of the interpretations of QM have…[Read more]

  • Hi Ruth,
    Thanks for your question. As a physicist rather than a philosopher, I feel somewhat less qualified than you to argue on the issue of the block universe versus time flowing. Superficially, though, I still lean towards the block universe picture simply because it’s hard to see how a future boundary condition could influence what exists in…[Read more]

  • Rod Sutherland changed their profile picture 5 years ago

  • Rod Sutherland‘s profile was updated 5 years ago

  • By adding retrocausality into the usual Bohm model, it is possible to “improve” on the model in a number of ways, these improvements being that:

    1. The model is easily set in Lorentz invariant form
    2. A general form of the model can be formulated which is applicable for any wave equation
    3. The model becomes local from a spacetime viewpoint
    4. A…[Read more]