Wonderful points as far as they go -- which unfortunately end at beginning to consider 'real' empirical experiences. Unfortunately, the discussion reflects no sense of experience beyond the ordinary waking consciousness within which modern physics has been conducted -- no sense of deeper ontological levels and higher states not limited by subject/object independence that is the basis of the 'objective' scientific method). I sincerely wish all three of you quite brilliant scientists would be open to a careful (non-technical) analysis of QT interpretations including Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Objective Reduction/Decoherence/ Consistent Histories, QBism, Quantum Information Field, Transactional, Bohm/Hiley Ontological QT Ch. 3) and the Holistic QT Interpretation (Ch. 8) in 'Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory' (Routledge, 2021). Please consider.
If Barandes’s stochastic interpretation is effectively identical to standard quantum theory in the regime we can probe (likely tens of qubits, partial error mitigation, up to 10^6 to 10^8 shots Then the “maverick branch” experiment would not confirm or refute it, because it would predict exactly the same outcomes as standard QM.
If his model implies a non-zero modification to Born-rule statistics or a slight drift in probabilities at extremely small amplitudes:
Only then might the proposed experiment detect a discrepancy. However, in practice, many such modifications either happen at far larger scales (macroscopic systems) or at energy/time scales far beyond current reach. To date, most “stochastic” or hidden-variable–type models that remain viable have no easily testable difference in the near term.
Hence, the short answer is that such an experiment is unlikely to specifically validate (or refute) Barandes’s interpretation. Like many non-collapse “no new-physics” interpretations, it is set up to be empirically indistinguishable from standard quantum mechanics over the parameter ranges we can currently test.
While collapse models and MWI are empirically identical for typical outcomes, amplitude interference patterns in rare regimes could distinguish them. Current experiments are theoretically feasible but require error rates below 10^-9 to resolve ϵ^2 ~ 10^-18. A null result would tighten constraints on MWI’s maverick branches, while observed anomalies would challenge collapse models’ strict zero probabilities.
Verdict on Protocol Rigor: Both proposals align on the main structure (biased superposition → entangle → partial decoherence → measurement → statistical analysis). Claude’s includes an extra layer of rigor on advanced error mitigation and specialized chaotic evolutions. Mine places heavier emphasis on the interpretational paradoxes and how each mainstream interpretation would respond to anomalies.
Verdict on Platform Coverage: Claude’s write-up devotes an entire “Implementation Details” section to code examples and gate-level decompositions, which is excellent if one’s goal is to run it today on a real quantum processor. My approach is strong on conceptual design and “why” each step matters but is less code-centric.
An engaging episode. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Scott and Jacob discuss this topic of great interest to me. Thank you for sharing it.
I never learned so much about used cars.
Great episode
Why are you pushing this insane Jew bullshit in the first place?
Wonderful points as far as they go -- which unfortunately end at beginning to consider 'real' empirical experiences. Unfortunately, the discussion reflects no sense of experience beyond the ordinary waking consciousness within which modern physics has been conducted -- no sense of deeper ontological levels and higher states not limited by subject/object independence that is the basis of the 'objective' scientific method). I sincerely wish all three of you quite brilliant scientists would be open to a careful (non-technical) analysis of QT interpretations including Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Objective Reduction/Decoherence/ Consistent Histories, QBism, Quantum Information Field, Transactional, Bohm/Hiley Ontological QT Ch. 3) and the Holistic QT Interpretation (Ch. 8) in 'Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory' (Routledge, 2021). Please consider.
RW Boyer (Bob)
UNIFIED EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR TESTING SUPERDETERMINISM AND MAVERICK BRANCHES
https://chatgpt.com/share/67c27c29-7068-800d-86d2-bb7cb9d970ee
Quantum Maverick Branch Detector: A Comprehensive Experimental Protocol
ChatGPT takes a shot
https://chatgpt.com/share/67c26d7a-20c4-800d-82c3-4c0707758d82
Gemini Quantum Maverick Branch Detector:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yOZhSUZ2aSQ5cG_4w7w4t7X03KPEvqO_4rOX6uuIYHM/edit?usp=sharing
Claude tries!
https://claude.ai/share/58452a39-4940-4bcd-acb1-f618e81e629b
If Barandes’s stochastic interpretation is effectively identical to standard quantum theory in the regime we can probe (likely tens of qubits, partial error mitigation, up to 10^6 to 10^8 shots Then the “maverick branch” experiment would not confirm or refute it, because it would predict exactly the same outcomes as standard QM.
If his model implies a non-zero modification to Born-rule statistics or a slight drift in probabilities at extremely small amplitudes:
Only then might the proposed experiment detect a discrepancy. However, in practice, many such modifications either happen at far larger scales (macroscopic systems) or at energy/time scales far beyond current reach. To date, most “stochastic” or hidden-variable–type models that remain viable have no easily testable difference in the near term.
Hence, the short answer is that such an experiment is unlikely to specifically validate (or refute) Barandes’s interpretation. Like many non-collapse “no new-physics” interpretations, it is set up to be empirically indistinguishable from standard quantum mechanics over the parameter ranges we can currently test.
While collapse models and MWI are empirically identical for typical outcomes, amplitude interference patterns in rare regimes could distinguish them. Current experiments are theoretically feasible but require error rates below 10^-9 to resolve ϵ^2 ~ 10^-18. A null result would tighten constraints on MWI’s maverick branches, while observed anomalies would challenge collapse models’ strict zero probabilities.
ChatGPT like's Claude's approach better:
Verdict on Protocol Rigor: Both proposals align on the main structure (biased superposition → entangle → partial decoherence → measurement → statistical analysis). Claude’s includes an extra layer of rigor on advanced error mitigation and specialized chaotic evolutions. Mine places heavier emphasis on the interpretational paradoxes and how each mainstream interpretation would respond to anomalies.
Verdict on Platform Coverage: Claude’s write-up devotes an entire “Implementation Details” section to code examples and gate-level decompositions, which is excellent if one’s goal is to run it today on a real quantum processor. My approach is strong on conceptual design and “why” each step matters but is less code-centric.
where is the link to the Wigner's friend thought experiment?