Poll: Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesOrland
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interpretation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around various interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). Participants share their preferences, insights, and challenges regarding these interpretations, exploring their implications and potential distinctions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express a preference for Many-Worlds due to its elegance, while noting that all interpretations yield the same predictions and are thus equivalent.
  • Others argue that there may be ways to distinguish between interpretations, citing suggestions from figures like Hawking and Tegmark.
  • A participant emphasizes that interpretations are part of the same theory, suggesting that any experimental distinction would imply a violation of quantum mechanics' axioms.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of the Quantum Eraser experiment and its relevance to the collapse postulates of CI.
  • Some participants discuss the role of decoherence and the observer's influence on measurement outcomes, highlighting the complexities involved in interpreting results under different frameworks.
  • A participant mentions that while CI can be useful for mathematical techniques, they believe MWI may ultimately be equivalent to other interpretations like deBB.
  • There is a suggestion that even if interpretations are indistinguishable, the pursuit of a correct interpretation remains valuable for aligning one's understanding of reality.
  • Critiques are made regarding the FAQ's proposed method for distinguishing between MWI and CI, with claims that it fails to provide conclusive evidence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the equivalence of interpretations or the possibility of distinguishing between them. Multiple competing views remain, particularly regarding the implications of experimental results and the validity of different interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the discussion involves complex theoretical concepts and that assumptions about the nature of interpretations and their implications may vary. The potential for experimental tests to distinguish interpretations remains a point of contention.

To which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics do you subscribe?

  • Total voters
    43
JamesOrland
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
I was wondering who/how many people in the forum subscribe to which interpretation, so I decided to make a poll :)

Also anyone is welcome to post content about each interpretation to illuminate people who may not know the difference and/or definition of an interpretation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By the way, to anyone who might not know or might have misconceptions about Many-Worlds, I recommend Max Tegmark's paper and this FAQ.
 
I like Many-Worlds due to its elegance, but it is important to note that all interpretations are equivalent. Id est, actual predictions are exactly the same, and by definition, no experiment can be devised to distinguish between them. So if one interpretation is more convenient than another for a particular problem, there is no reason not to use it. A lot of basic measurement experiments are a lot easier to picture in Copenhagen, while anything to do with entanglement is usually much easier in Many-Worlds.
 
K^2 said:
I like Many-Worlds due to its elegance, but it is important to note that all interpretations are equivalent. Id est, actual predictions are exactly the same, and by definition, no experiment can be devised to distinguish between them. So if one interpretation is more convenient than another for a particular problem, there is no reason not to use it. A lot of basic measurement experiments are a lot easier to picture in Copenhagen, while anything to do with entanglement is usually much easier in Many-Worlds.

No, not by definition. I do believe both Hawking and Tegmark have suggested ways to distinguish between the different interpretations, and the fact that no tests have been made is no evidence that they never will (as I mentioned in another thread, one is reminded of Lord Kelvin's statement that the movement of muscles was infinitely beyond science).

That being said, the objective of the poll is to measure who agrees with what inside their heads, regardless of their calculations :)

--EDIT:

Actually, the FAQ that I posted above does mention a possible way to distinguish between Many-Worlds and Copenhagen, in Q37. It is a very interesting theory, I see promise in it.
 
Last edited:
By definition, interpretations are part of the same theory. If there is distinction, they are distinct theories.

Under axioms of Quantum Mechanics, Copenhagen and Many-Worlds are interpretations. Id est, indistinguishable. While experiment could exist that would point towards one or another, it would simultaneously disprove Quantum Mechanics, as violation of one of the axioms is prerequisite for a distinction.
 
K^2 said:
By definition, interpretations are part of the same theory. If there is distinction, they are distinct theories.

Under axioms of Quantum Mechanics, Copenhagen and Many-Worlds are interpretations. Id est, indistinguishable. While experiment could exist that would point towards one or another, it would simultaneously disprove Quantum Mechanics, as violation of one of the axioms is prerequisite for a distinction.

Do elaborate on that. Let's take, for instance, the example discussed in Q37 of the FAQ I mentioned, the one about AI. How would it disprove Q.M. at the same time it disproved the Copenhagen interpretation?
 
JamesOrland said:
By the way, to anyone who might not know or might have misconceptions about Many-Worlds, I recommend Max Tegmark's paper and this FAQ.

I thought I'd also add Hugh Everett's dissertation that introduced MWI:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf

It's funny that Quantum Mechanics is taught in terms of CI, but when it comes down to picking a side, you don't see too many people standing by it.

BTW, I went MWI. Also, great poll, thanks for posting this.
 
Last edited:
JamesOrland said:
Do elaborate on that. Let's take, for instance, the example discussed in Q37 of the FAQ I mentioned, the one about AI. How would it disprove Q.M. at the same time it disproved the Copenhagen interpretation?
Look up Quantum Eraser which performs an experiment similar to the one described.
 
K^2 said:
Look up Quantum Eraser which performs an experiment similar to the one described.

That's beautiful. And... it does look to me like evidence against collapse postulates, in one way or another.
 
  • #10
Not exactly. It basically just says that collapse is relevant with respect to some "external observer". Same thing happens in Schrödinger's Cat experiment, after all. Cat's observations are considered irrelevant. This is still self-consistent so long as you consider only one observer. And there are actually some advantages of doing it this way. Decoherence, for example, can play a major role, and then it's actually convenient to distinguish between "true" observer, who read the measurements once decoherence took place, and intermediate observer, such as a measurement device that remained entangled to the measured state.

Point is, yes, it does get messy, and it is a big part of why I prefer MWI, but there is no actual contradiction that breaks Copenhagen. Just a lot of ugliness, which means that any time you rely on Copenhagen, you have to be extra careful with interpretation of results.
 
  • #11
I did vote for MWI, but I wanted to add two significant caveats:
  • The ideas of CI are still useful, but as inspiration for mathematical techniques. Interpreting CI within MWI (rather than as referring to reality directly) does a good job of patching up CI's flaws.
  • I expect deBB to turn out to be roughly equivalent to MWI, in a sense similar to how Lorentz Ether Theory is equivalent to Special Relativity.
 
  • #12
K^2 said:
Not exactly. It basically just says that collapse is relevant with respect to some "external observer". Same thing happens in Schrödinger's Cat experiment, after all. Cat's observations are considered irrelevant. This is still self-consistent so long as you consider only one observer. And there are actually some advantages of doing it this way. Decoherence, for example, can play a major role, and then it's actually convenient to distinguish between "true" observer, who read the measurements once decoherence took place, and intermediate observer, such as a measurement device that remained entangled to the measured state.

Point is, yes, it does get messy, and it is a big part of why I prefer MWI, but there is no actual contradiction that breaks Copenhagen. Just a lot of ugliness, which means that any time you rely on Copenhagen, you have to be extra careful with interpretation of results.

I see. But this isn't exactly like the example I mentioned, because in the example I mentioned there is actual reversibility and not just the same irreversible process (release of pairs of entangled photons) repeated under different but related conditions. I am not sure that would make any difference, but intuitively to me it seems it might. Of course, as I myself mention a bit, human intuition isn't a reliable thing, so I talk to people who know more about the subject than I do and who can explain about it.

Whichever use we make, it is my belief that even if all interpretations are truly unprovable and/or indistinguishable, we should try to find the correct one, because matching my inner map with the territory is a terminal value to me (i.e. something I find to be desirable regardless of its practical utility). So even if there are no practical utilities, I strive to make my models of the world as accurate as possible within my limited framework and incomplete knowledge.
 
  • #13
JamesOrland said:
Actually, the FAQ that I posted above does mention a possible way to distinguish between Many-Worlds and Copenhagen, in Q37. It is a very interesting theory, I see promise in it.
With all due respect, the answer to Q37 is a collection of epic fails. It will prove nothing.
* Consciousness is not required for collapse in orthodox CI, only the act of measurement.
* Critics will just say AI is not a 'true consciousness' anyway.
* Reducing heat dissipation by itself will not make computations reversible.
* 'Reversible measurement' is oxymoron by definition.
* If the system is in contact with environment, it will not be able to reverse the measurement,
* if the system is isolated, it will not cause world split, just a local entanglement.
etc. etc.

A much better way to go would be to have a good comprehensive model of measurement process that would render collapse postulate totally superfluous. Decoherence certainly goes some way towards this goal.
 
  • #14
Delta Kilo said:
With all due respect, the answer to Q37 is a collection of epic fails. It will prove nothing.
* Consciousness is not required for collapse in orthodox CI, only the act of measurement.
* Critics will just say AI is not a 'true consciousness' anyway.
* Reducing heat dissipation by itself will not make computations reversible.
* 'Reversible measurement' is oxymoron by definition.
* If the system is in contact with environment, it will not be able to reverse the measurement,
* if the system is isolated, it will not cause world split, just a local entanglement.
etc. etc.

A much better way to go would be to have a good comprehensive model of measurement process that would render collapse postulate totally superfluous. Decoherence certainly goes some way towards this goal.

Oh, I don't think the argument was based on the consciousness fact per se, just a reversible machine.

From what I understood, the experiment measures the data with a machine that simply holds it in a single bit, and then erases that bit regardless of what it was, effectively destroying any information of the measurement having been made, after it was made. According to a collapse postulate that doesn't need a conscious observer, once the measurement had been made the wavefunction should've been collapsed, regardless of anything else, just because there was a bit in a classical machine that changed from 0 to 1 because of the measurement.

Unless I misunderstood the experiment or the mathematics or I'm just being a victim of Confirmation Bias :P
 
  • #15
JamesOrland said:
Oh, I don't think the argument was based on the consciousness fact per se, just a reversible machine.
Well, why then do they talk about AI and a computer comparable in complexity to human brain? Ah, never mind.

JamesOrland said:
From what I understood, the experiment measures the data with a machine that simply holds it in a single bit, and then erases that bit regardless of what it was, effectively destroying any information of the measurement having been made, after it was made.
Well, they say:
The machine now reverses the entire x-axis measurement - which must be possible, since physics is effectively reversible, if we can describe the measuring process physically - including reversibly erasing its memory of the second measurement.
Well, that's just not going to work. In CI it is simply not possible period. In MWI it depends on how far the interactions are allowed to spread. If the interaction is confined to a small part of the system (eg. a single bit), it might be possible to reverse it but it wouldn't be a measurement, just an entanglement (the bit in memory will be in superposition). If the decoherence spreads to the whole system but not to its environment (system is isolated), then the system will not be able to undo the measurement and it might detect that the collapse has in fact happened. However, from the point of view of outside observer there will be two copies of the system in superposition. Now, depending on how this outside observer interacts with the system, with lots of of luck it might be able to detect this.
And finally, if the decoherence is allowed to escape into the environment, that's it, there will be two copies of the observer, each one seeing the apparent collapse happening.
 
  • #16
I like Many-Worlds, and this goes back to when I was in sixth grade I held this belief. After seeing the movie the Time Machine, I had a little theory that there were actually different realities all happening at the same time that we couldn't see, only our own. I also thought that these realities were not at the same time, which was different from Many-Worlds, but it allowed for time travel by jumping between these alternate realities at different times.
 
  • #17
Delta Kilo said:
Well, that's just not going to work. In CI it is simply not possible period. In MWI it depends on how far the interactions are allowed to spread. If the interaction is confined to a small part of the system (eg. a single bit), it might be possible to reverse it but it wouldn't be a measurement, just an entanglement (the bit in memory will be in superposition). If the decoherence spreads to the whole system but not to its environment (system is isolated), then the system will not be able to undo the measurement and it might detect that the collapse has in fact happened. However, from the point of view of outside observer there will be two copies of the system in superposition. Now, depending on how this outside observer interacts with the system, with lots of of luck it might be able to detect this.
And finally, if the decoherence is allowed to escape into the environment, that's it, there will be two copies of the observer, each one seeing the apparent collapse happening.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining it to me :)

moogull said:
I like Many-Worlds, and this goes back to when I was in sixth grade I held this belief. After seeing the movie the Time Machine, I had a little theory that there were actually different realities all happening at the same time that we couldn't see, only our own. I also thought that these realities were not at the same time, which was different from Many-Worlds, but it allowed for time travel by jumping between these alternate realities at different times.

I recommend you read this. Do it with a grain of salt, of course, as you should with everything you read (don't believe everything you're told, that is).

---

On another topic, I was wondering to which interpretation the people who voted for 'Other' subscribe :P
 
Last edited:
  • #18
I recommend you read this. Do it with a grain of salt, of course, as you should with everything you read (don't believe everything you're told, that is).

Thanks!
 
  • #20
Don't forget the time symmetric group of interpretations, which I think are very important:

New Insights on Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics
Yakir Aharonov, Jeff Tollaksen
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1232

Relational Blockworld: A Path Integral Based Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory
W.M. Stuckey, Michael Silberstein, Timothy McDevitt
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4348

Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox
John G. Cramer
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/gat_80/

Interestingly, these are all local; of course they are also contextual and do not claim realism in any meaningful sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
The Copenhagen Interpretation is in conflict with QM. Anyone who reads Ghirardi's thought experiment will realize this.
 
  • #22
StevieTNZ said:
The Copenhagen Interpretation is in conflict with QM. Anyone who reads Ghirardi's thought experiment will realize this.
The only reference I can find is your own thread on the topic, which isn't especially clear. Are you just talking about something like a delayed choice quantum eraser?
 
  • #23
Hurkyl said:
I expect deBB to turn out to be roughly equivalent to MWI, in a sense similar to how Lorentz Ether Theory is equivalent to Special Relativity.
Yes, I think Demystifier said that Bohmian mechanics is just MWI with an extra variables, describing which world is the "actual" world.
 
  • #24
On the topic about Many Worlds, Demystifier posted this, and I think it's a very interesting read indeed. It explains Many Worlds (or, at least, why collapse is unnecessary - and IMHO why Occam's Razor rules it out), and also points out its greatest flaw, which I personally think is a necessary sobering up point for us to avoid Confirmation Bias and to try to think a little bit about the subject without just buying into it.
 
  • #25
JamesOrland said:
points out its greatest flaw,
You mean the argument that starts with
(i.e., weighting each distinct observer equally)​
Honestly, I think that's a serious mistake of analysis, not a flaw of MWI.

But going along with it for the sake of argument... if that's the greatest flaw, then that already puts MWI on better footing in regards to probability than any other interpretation of any physical theory I'm aware of, so it's sort of misleading to call it a flaw of MWI.
 
  • #26
Hurkyl said:
You mean the argument that starts with
(i.e., weighting each distinct observer equally)​
Honestly, I think that's a serious mistake of analysis, not a flaw of MWI.

But going along with it for the sake of argument... if that's the greatest flaw, then that already puts MWI on better footing in regards to probability than any other interpretation of any physical theory I'm aware of, so it's sort of misleading to call it a flaw of MWI.

I am actually talking about the fact that the Born rule has to be derived from the formulae, since we decided to remove anything ad hoc from Q.M. in order to build that interpretation.

However, since most interpretations have to deal with the exact same problem (except for C.I. which seems to not care about using ad hoc tools), I guess it's not really exclusive to MWI.
 
  • #27
I really dislike the many worlds interpretation. Edit: but if I had to choose one it would say that the wavefunctions mathematically/"indirectly" represents something real, not deterministic, no observer role, non local.

Personally I think the most relevant philosophical question is whether or not nature is deterministic. My hunch is that it is fundamentally not as there is always an imbalance in symmetry breaking (ex: matter vs antimatter). However, why this would be so I cannot say and call it "God"/spirituality.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
This recently came up while I was lecturing in class.

A student began asking about the double slit experiment, and it didn't take long before all these interpretations came up. Within a few minutes the discussion started migrating to the many worlds interpretation, and this is when I started observing some students rolling their eyes.

Overall the class was enjoying the discussion but, of course, we needed to finish the lecture. I ended up telling the students that no one mentioned the "shut up and calculate" interpretation.
 
  • #29
K^2 said:
actual predictions are exactly the same, and by definition, no experiment can be devised to distinguish between them. So if one interpretation is more convenient than another for a particular problem, there is no reason not to use it.
Well said.
 
  • #30
euquila said:
I really dislike the many worlds interpretation.

Why?

but if I had to choose one it would say that the wavefunctions mathematically/"indirectly" represents something real, not deterministic, no observer role, non local.

That's not really possible, because the wavefunction is deterministic, everything about it is deterministic. And local. Trying to find an interpretation that mentions wavefunctions as not deterministic is like trying to find a set of laws of physics where gravity repels.

Personally I think the most relevant philosophical question is whether or not nature is deterministic. My hunch is that it is fundamentally not as there is always an imbalance in symmetry breaking (ex: matter vs antimatter).

What experiments have been telling us since the dawn of Science is that Nature is deterministic. The only exception to that ever observed was the wavefunction collapse, which more and more people agree is simply unphysical. Other than that, everything else ever observed was deterministic. That is tremendous evidence for the possibility that Nature is, in fact, deterministic, and most TOE-candidates do have that property. So you would need a lot of evidence to even start considering that possibility.

As for symmetry breaking, I cannot explain it to you, because physics cannot explain it yet, to the best of my knowledge. Maybe the quantum theory of gravity will magically explain that as well :P

However, why this would be so I cannot say and call it "God"/spirituality.
Yeah... let's not go there :P

--EDIT:

I wish all those people who voted for 'Other' explained which one it was :P
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What is the current perspective on quantum interpretation?
  • · Replies 314 ·
11
Replies
314
Views
21K
Undergrad Many-Worlds and Testable Claims
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Are there any accepted relativistic interpretations of quantum mechanics?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
Undergrad A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
  • · Replies 710 ·
24
Replies
710
Views
44K
Undergrad Can I take the transactional interpretation seriously?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad The TSVF interpretation of quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
Undergrad Is QM generally believed to be able to describe Newtonian mechanics?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Graduate Understanding Barandes' microscopic theory of causality
  • · Replies 338 ·
12
Replies
338
Views
18K
Undergrad Minimal vs Instrumental vs Ensemble
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
7K
Undergrad Nima Arkani-Hamed's opinion on Many Worlds?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K