A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics · HackerPapers discussions

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by Fourier864

Mon, 13 May 2024 15:13:44 GMT

Conclusively was probably too strong of a word, as there are technically still two ways to get hidden variables to work: 1) If we allow information to be non-local, i.e. we allow information to travel instananeously. Allowing this would just be such a hit to the foundation of theories like relativity and quantum field theory that most physicists don't really believe this could be an explanation. These theories rely on nothing traveling faster than the speed of light. 2) We could allow for "superdeterminism". One of the assumptions of Bell's theorem is that a researcher is free to choose any…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by jiggawatts

Fri, 26 Jun 2020 00:17:47 GMT

Unfortunately, like all such descriptions, this one misses the mark also. I've never heard a good explanation for what a photon "is", or any particle for that matter. That's because physicists don't know either. No, seriously. Ask a randomly selected set of physicists about any core concept in Quantum Mechanics and you'll discover that their answers diverge wildly. Ref: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069 Basic things like: "Are the photons quantised or is it just the photon interaction with atomic orbitals that's quantised?" I've personally asked this question and had working physicists…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by abeppu

Wed, 19 Sep 2018 19:43:45 GMT

> Among the physicists who do care about the different QM interpretations, it is my understanding that most would go with the Everett (AKA "Many Worlds) Interpretation these days. In a small poll at a conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics in 2011, the Copenhagen interpretation was the most popular. This could differ from your definition of "these days" I suppose. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069.pdf Update: a 2016 survey by different authors found similar popularity for the Copenhagen interpretation.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by lisper

Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:59:59 GMT

Anyone who defends the Copenhagen interpretation. To be more precise, anyone who thinks that the "measurement problem" is still an unresolved problem, or anyone who defends the concept of "wave function collapse" as having any scientific or pedagogical merit whatsoever, except as a historical example of how science can go badly wrong. Richard Feynman would be the poster child for this point of view were he alive today. Freeman Dyson defended it to me the last time I spoke to him, but that was 20 years ago so maybe he's come around. According to a poll taken in 2013 [1] Copenhagen was the most…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics — HN submission

Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:55:08 GMT

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics (2013)

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by e2e8

Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:02:08 GMT

Here is a paper about a poll of physicists. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069 Question 12: What is your favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics? Top Three: Copenhagen: 42% Information-based/information-theoretical: 24% Everett (many worlds and/or many minds): 18%

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by mathgenius

Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:07:19 GMT

I think this is a well observed phenomenon [1],[2]. At least in the theoretical quantum group I am in: there is very little agreement about the interpretation of quantum theory. (Maybe the experimentalists don't care as much.) [1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most... [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by millstone

Tue, 04 Nov 2014 06:15:03 GMT

Many Worlds is a far, far more popular interpretation than Bohm[1]. The strong objection to Many Worlds is not that macroscopic objects cannot be in superposition. There are many objections [2], but the principal one is the difficulty of deriving the Born Rule. This is a deep objection. The Born rule predicts of the result of quantum measurements in QM, and it's not clear how to get those results out of MWI. The Born Rule in MWI is inserted ad-hoc afterwards, or arises via some weird "world-counting" formalism that doesn't naturally connect to probabilities. So MWI has more the flavor of a…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics — HN submission

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:15:01 GMT

Poll on nature of reality

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.