- #1
- 14,265
- 6,743
Greg Bernhardt submitted a new blog post
Against "interpretation"
Continue reading the Original Blog Post.
Against "interpretation"
Continue reading the Original Blog Post.
atyy said:Should Wilson's interpretation of renormalization be considered theory or interpretation?
Then what about Bohmian mechanics? Is it a T3, or is it just a metaphor?fresh_42 said:So my understanding is, that T1 (Heisenberg) and T2 (Schrödinger) are two different models of the same physics, and as such equivalent theories or models, whereas Kopenhagen and MWI are actually interpretations, namely metaphors to visualize the equations.
There are many examples, but my favored one is this: T1 = standard textbook QM, T2 = Bohmian mechanics.martinbn said:What is an example of T1 and T2?
I thought that BM gives different predictions in some cases?Demystifier said:There are many examples, but my favored one is this: T1 = standard textbook QM, T2 = Bohmian mechanics.
Some versions of BM do, but the standard "minimal" version doesn't.martinbn said:I thought that BM gives different predictions in some cases?
If only more Bohmians understood the depth and importance of this question ...atyy said:Should Wilson's interpretation of renormalization be considered theory or interpretation?
PeterDonis said:And disagreements about such preferences can never be resolved (which is why PF threads on such topics tend to go on and on until one of the Mentors gets fed up enough to close the thread).
bhobba said:Personally I am with Dirac on this one. I do not think QM is complete - it will slowly and gradually be superseded and in that vein you can look on interpretations as attempts to understand what direction the next step may take us.
Can you give another example?Demystifier said:Some versions of BM do, but the standard "minimal" version doesn't.
T1 = "Copenhagen" with collapse induced by measurement, T2 = many worldsmartinbn said:Can you give another example?
I expected a non quantum example. So, you have in mind only QM interpretations, and you think they should be called theories. My opinion is that they are correctly called interpretations. The all start with QM or at least the core of QM, then add a bit more, yet don't get new predictions. To me that is not a different theory. To be a different theory it should build on something else, it should be possible to get to that theory even if you have never seen QM. And that is not the case of the interpretations.Demystifier said:T1 = "Copenhagen" with collapse induced by measurement, T2 = many worlds
Two (mostly equivalent)atyy said:How about
T1 Weierstrassian analysis
T2 Non-standard analysis
?
To be fair, mathematically there actually are several ways to derive BM without ever having seen or even taken QM (of course, it helps to be able to recognize the correct derivation if one has ever seen e.g. the SE).martinbn said:To be a different theory it should build on something else, it should be possible to get to that theory even if you have never seen QM. And that is not the case of the interpretations.
fresh_42 said:Two (mostly equivalent)theoriesmodels, no interpretation anywhere.
I use model as synonym for a mathematical calculus, in the sense of framework. I do not like theory, as it has far too many connotations and in the end it's only the calculations we're interested in, hence the term calculus. Standard and non standard are no mathematical categories, they already include an evaluation. Either a calculus is without contradictions, or at least those can be resolved as we are forced to do since we know that Hilbert's second is undecidable, or a calculus is none because it's useless.atyy said:Are you using "model" in the sense of "standard and non standard models of arithmetic"?
fresh_42 said:I use model as synonym for a mathematical calculus, in the sense of framework. I do not like theory, as it has far too many connotations and in the end it's only the calculations we're interested in, hence the term calculus. Standard and non standard are no mathematical categories, they already include an evaluation. Either a calculus is without contradictions, or at least those can be resolved as we are forced to do since we know that Hilbert's second is undecidable, or a calculus is none because it's useless.
They are not physical theories. They are mathematical tools that share some similarities but make fundamentally different statements.Auto-Didact said:How about
T1 Frequentist statistics
T2 Bayesian statistics
Yes, those could also be thought of as different theories with identical measurable predictions.PAllen said:@Demystifier , where do you see distinctions like Hamiltonian and variational methds, versus forces and Diff.. Eq. ?
For a non-quantum example see my post above. In your terminology, they would not be different theories too.martinbn said:I expected a non quantum example. So, you have in mind only QM interpretations, and you think they should be called theories. My opinion is that they are correctly called interpretations. The all start with QM or at least the core of QM, then add a bit more, yet don't get new predictions. To me that is not a different theory. To be a different theory it should build on something else, it should be possible to get to that theory even if you have never seen QM. And that is not the case of the interpretations.
fresh_42 said:a theory - or model - is a mathematical framework to describe the experimental results, including possible predictions. On the other hand, an interpretation is merely an informal description of named theory / model to describe the mathematical framework in common language and by the frequent use of aphorisms and metaphors.