>>13793178>What was different between the times the light behaved like a wave with an interference pattern and the times it behaved like a particle?Exercise in applying the bra ket notation, do it yourself, anyway.
Turns out that the moment your particle started correlating with the detector in one of the slits, it also correlated with the screen and also you, your dog and all else. If you had nothing in the universe besides the wall with two slits and the detector in one and then the screen behind it and the detector was PERFECTLY isolated from the screen, the screen would still see an interference pattern, as if the detector wasn't there at all. For why an interference pattern does occur when there is no detector no explanation is needed.
General point is that QM consists of quantum states evolving in time via hamiltonians/lagrangians. That is all QM amounts to in the end and all you are allowed to do - your process of measurement necessarily having to be described in this form. When you do something not of that form - you are cheating somehow, no matter if you are Anon or John Von Neumann or Heisenberg. It just so happened that people needed to make calculations for probabilities immediately and had to cheat in such a way and otherwise not get any sensible results.
>>13793162Its just a linguistic way to say "decoherence" and not go into technicalities as is any other intepretation. Decoherence isnt an instantaneous process for instance, if you had a system with an astronomically long decoherence time, 5 seconds for example, at what point have the universes split and at what point they haven't? Note that also you can have situations, as I've noted above, where your state becomes correlated with large environment A, but not large environment B, both of which are not correlated with each other.
So basically it is just false in the same way all other intepretations are false.
