Register to reply 
QM Interpretationsby curiousphoton
Tags: interpretations 
Share this thread: 
#1
Oct2909, 10:47 AM

P: 117

The following are the interpretations of QM:
Bohmian · CCC · Consistent histories · Copenhagen · Ensemble · Hidden variable theory · Manyworlds · Pondicherry · Quantum logic · Relational · Transactional Which is the most accepted by the theoretical physics community? Obviously all have some supporters but I'm interested in finding out which is the most popular and why? Thanks. 


#2
Oct2909, 11:25 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,299

There have actually been surveys done on this here. And I have seen some informal surverys as well. In many ways the most popular answer may be "Don't know, not sure if I should care". Not saying that is my opinion or that most specialists hold that view, but I would say it reflects the viewpoint of a lot of working physicists.



#3
Oct2909, 11:33 AM

P: 1,160

Ensemble, of course. It is not so opposite to the others though.
Why ensemble? Because one point does not give you all information about the quantum state. One point is a too poor experiment. You cannot even tell/prove where it comes from. As in the macroscopic case, in the microscopic case you also deal with compound systems. And any compound system needs many exchanges to reveal its true face. More pixels, better image. 


#4
Oct2909, 09:42 PM

P: 651

QM Interpretations
I find the majority of physicists don't care about interpretations, subscribing to Mermin's "shut up and calculate." Physics Today 57, #5, 1011 (2004).



#5
Oct3009, 03:34 AM

P: 1,160




#6
Oct3009, 03:50 AM

P: 986

Among physicists who do express preference for an interpretation, manyworlds interpretation is very popular. 


#7
Oct3009, 04:24 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,575




#8
Oct3009, 05:18 AM

P: 1,160




#9
Oct3009, 07:11 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,236




#10
Oct3009, 07:27 AM

P: 1,160




#11
Oct3009, 07:32 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,236




#12
Oct3009, 09:19 AM

P: 117




#13
Oct3009, 09:31 AM

P: 2,158

My opinion is that either MWI is true or QM itself is not exactly valid.



#14
Oct3009, 09:47 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,241

There are plenty of people (me included) who work on system where there is only a single "quantum object" and not an ensemble, this includes just about everyone working with single qubits (solid state systems, ion traps etc). Personally I am in the "shut up and calculate" camp, and so is just about everyone else I work with. 


#15
Oct3009, 09:54 AM

P: 1,160




#16
Oct3009, 10:44 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,575

(MWI by itself in its minimal form cannot explain the origin of the Born rule.) 


#17
Oct3009, 10:52 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,241

There are certainly examples where one can at least in principle see the "quantumness" of a systems using a single shot readout. An obvious example being to first manipulate a single using MW pulses and then reading out its state using a measurement pulse. Now, the final result of such a procedure is obviously singlevalued (since the qubit will end up in one of two states) but what comes before that (the manipulation) is very much a series of "quantum operations". Any interpretation (or in my case lack of interpretation) should surely take into account not only what we see after the measurement pulse but also what is happening when we are manipulating the qubit; because even though we are not measuring we are certainly doing SOMETHING to the qubit with our pulses. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Interpretations of QM? What is nature really like?  Quantum Physics  50  
QM Interpretations  Quantum Physics  17  
Many minds : interpretations of QM  Quantum Physics  2  
Interpretations of QM?  Quantum Physics  16 