That's what Science is about. Interpretations have flaws, but interpretations also have value. There is a good chance that the correct interpretation will help to drive Physics forward. A honest beauty contest is important and it is what Bohr and Einstein spent a lot of time on.
For example...
This is what I've picked up as a kart racer and on the web - and I believe it.
1) The size of the contact patch is irrelevant - the main factor in determining the grip is the tyre temperature. The colder the day - the higher the trye temp needs to be to get grip.
2) Tyres works best in a...
"bump on a wave" = wave packet. Obviously...
I happen to agree with Jim Baugh's description of state and sticking to a probabilistic view of the world. I happen to be of that generation of physicists who were taught Copenhagen as fact, and find it disturbing that the so many now have what I...
Just a small(ish) point - it might be OK to think about the electron "surfing" the waveform, but that's a little like the model of the atom that looks like planets revolving around the sun, but smaller. It might do for now - but "wave-particle" duality is much deeper than this. It involves all...
Nonsense - EPR and similar thought experiments cause serious problems with the idea that the world is described by "waves". Once a measurment is made, how fast does the "wave" collapse? Instantaneously? At the speed of light? Both possiblities have problems.
Even more elementary, the...
Wikipedia quite rightly stamps "All or part of this article may be confusing or unclear" on many of the QM pages. I would never quote any of them.
Decoherence as an independent interpretation is questionable. Splitting in MWI still has no proof. (Is that even possible?) I don't know what...
Dmitry67 - You are striding with supreme confidence and faith across an area which many great physicists have express anxiety and uncertainty. I suggest that you regard Max Tegmark's work as one possible approach. Max Tegmark is not a "Great" physicist (as far as I'm aware). Personally I think...
Since we are being a bit ?... there is no gaurantee mathematics is consistent. And what qualifies as a paradox depends on which interpretation you pick.
I wouldn't say the foundations of QM is pure mathematics - they were in another building if I remember correctly. The "great leaps forward"...
Decoherence is a somewhat ambiguous term - MWI talks about decoherence, but decoherence can exist on its own as a separate interpretation/hypothesis.
By the way, in which frame of reference does the waveform collapse instataneously? (This is a problem for all "real" waveform...
Sorry Dmityr67 - I think you cannot avoid philosophy in this case - the "waveform" is not directly observable - you need to pick an interpretation for an "explanation". I don't think you should use the word decoherence as this has a specific meaning and it is not clear that's what you mean.
Don't really agree with this. The interaction with the slit is a measurement - the slit puts constraints on the location of the photon. It's possible to view the interference pattern as the result of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - constraining the location of the particle as it goes...
Umm. IMHO there is no such thing as a direct measurement. Bohr used to say measuring device are essentially classical (no reference to prove that). It is our knowledge of classical mechanics that allows us to understand what is being measured. I guess there is some sort of unstated principle...
Copenhagen is definitely one of the more poorly understood interpretations. It is quite subtle.
The statements below are too simple.
1. there is no underlying reality.
2. observation creates reality.
The first statement begs the question "What is reality?"
The second statement is not...