QM Misconceptions: Exploring Alternative Interpretations

[thenewmans]

Please tell me if these statements are correct.

There are several interpretations of the QM theory that do not violate QM. They each may use different formulas or methods but the results all match QM.

Although some interpretations include a wave collapse, this does not necessarily mean that something actually does happen instantaneously across a distance. There are other interpretations that do not include instantaneous action at a distance.

That goes for super position and observation causing collapse as well. There are some interpretations that do not include these things yet still agree with QM.

Entanglement was accurately predicted by QM. It is used today for encrypted communication. Yet it cannot be used for faster-than-light communication.

The EPR paradox paper has been successfully argued and the paradox has been resolved. This does not mean that there actually is instant action at a distance.

So far all alternatives to instant action at a distance also break some part of classical realism. Instant action at a distance breaks local realism. The most common alternative is for the effect to travel back in time, which breaks causality.

 

[newbee]

There are several interpretations of the QM theory that do not violate QM. They each may use different formulas or methods but the results all match QM.

There are several interpretations. If they violated QM then they would be nonstarters as an interpretation of QM. I don't think any of them necessarily use different formulas or methods.

Although some interpretations include a wave collapse, this does not necessarily mean that something actually does happen instantaneously across a distance. There are other interpretations that do not include instantaneous action at a distance.

I would agree with the first sentence.

That goes for super position and observation causing collapse as well. There are some interpretations that do not include these things yet still agree with QM.

I don't know of any interpretation which suggests that superposition is a cause of collapse. Observation yes. I think that
all interpretations require collapse or some equivalent.

Entanglement was accurately predicted by QM. It is used today for encrypted communication. Yet it cannot be used for faster-than-light communication.

Yes to all but the last sentence.

The EPR paradox paper has been successfully argued and the paradox has been resolved. This does not mean that there actually is instant action at a distance.

Agreed.

So far all alternatives to instant action at a distance also break some part of classical realism. Instant action at a distance breaks local realism. The most common alternative is for the effect to travel back in time, which breaks causality.

Don't know.

 

[Entropia]

I can confirm that these statements are generally correct. There are indeed various interpretations of quantum mechanics that do not violate its principles, and they may use different mathematical formulas and methods to explain the same results. The concept of wave collapse is one interpretation, but there are also others that do not involve instantaneous action at a distance or the role of observation in causing collapse.

Entanglement, which was predicted by quantum mechanics, has been successfully demonstrated and is currently used in encrypted communication. However, it cannot be used for faster-than-light communication, as this would violate the principles of causality.

The EPR paradox, which initially raised concerns about instantaneous action at a distance, has been resolved through further research and understanding of quantum mechanics. While there may be some interpretations that still involve this concept, it is important to note that it does not necessarily mean that there is actually instant action at a distance occurring.

It is also true that many alternative explanations to instant action at a distance involve breaking some aspect of classical realism, such as local realism or causality. This is an ongoing topic of research and debate in the scientific community, and there is still much to be understood about the nature of quantum mechanics and its various interpretations.