I have elaborated a comprehensive analysis of Russell's derivation of quantum mechanics; the article can be found online on my homepage:
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~yayaita/Russell_Derivation_QM.pdf An extract: 1. Point of Departure In his article "Why Occam's Razor" and in appendix D of his book "Theory of Nothing", Russell presents a derivation of the postulates that underly quantum mechanics based on the theory of the Everything ensemble. In usual treatments of quantum mechanics that can be found in various textbooks, these postulates aren't justified on any deeper level. Though, there have been considerable efforts (mostly linked to the "Everett interpretation", also called "many-worlds" or "relative state interpretation") to explain the apparent validity of the postulates describing the collapse of the wavefunction starting from the no-collapse postulates. Recent contributions have been published by Wallace and Zurek. But Russell goes even much further: He also derives the core of quantum mechanics, its no-collapse postulates, using the theory of the Everything ensemble and a few assumptions. If Russell is right, then his derivation is a great and to date unrivalled highlight of our efforts for justifying the theory of the Everything ensemble. Aspects of the structure of our world are explained by reason alone without referring to experiments---this could be the first great achievement of what I call "rationalist physics". His work induces Russell to be enthusiastic: referring to Feynman's famous statement that "nobody understands quantum mechanics'', Russell writes in chapter 7 of his book: "I can now say that I understand quantum mechanics.'' and he summarizes "Quantum mechanics is simply a theory of observation!'' The significance of Russell's claim cannot be overrated. And I do hope that he is right. Nonetheless, I elaborate a thorough criticism of his derivation. If Russell can disprove my objections (and I hope he will), my criticism will contribute to a clarification of several issues. If my criticism holds, then it is up to all of us to improve Russell's approach or to suggest completely new ideas. So, I invite all of you to participate actively in the discussion that will follow. I will outline Russell's derivation step by step. My presentation sticks closely to appendix D of Russell's book. I slightly changed notations in order to avoid confusions. ---- Regards, Youness Ayaita --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---