Do I have to agree with mainstream science?

[entropy1]

I am struggling with the fact that if I have questions about standard QM, I seem to have to agree with standard QM in its entirity, in which case I wouldn't have questions in the first place if you know what I mean. I don't entirely agree with some aspects of QM. So does that mean I cannot ask questions on this forum?

 

[pinball1970]

I am struggling with the fact that if I have questions about standard QM, I seem to have to agree with standard QM in its entirity, in which case I wouldn't have questions in the first place if you know what I mean. I don't entirely agree with some aspects of QM. So does that mean I cannot ask questions on this forum?

You know how this works. You can critique published papers.

 

[Frabjous]

If you want to get close to the acceptable border, don’t hand wave and write down the math.

 

[entropy1]

In this topic I discussed MWI, which is an interpretation of standard QM. So to be more precise, my issue is with interpretation of QM. I don't refute standard QM. The topic was closed. I still feel interpretations of standard QM should be more indulgently moderated, especially considering it is about interpreting QM, not refuting it. I look forward to your opinions.

 

[Frabjous]

Looking at the thread.
MWI does not have wave function collapse. Other interpretations do. You postulated a MWI with wave function collapse instead of looking at the other interpretations. You did not have a well-posed question, so I have no issues with the thread being closed.

You might enjoy this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

[Nugatory]

I am struggling with the fact that if I have questions about standard QM, I seem to have to agree with standard QM in its entirity, in which case I wouldn't have questions in the first place if you know what I mean. I don't entirely agree with some aspects of QM. So does that mean I cannot ask questions on this forum?

There is a difference between having questions ("I don't see how this works", "Is this really what the theory says, or am I misunderstanding something") and not agreeing ("This part is wrong", "I think it should be that way instead, what do you think of my alternative"). The former is fine, it's what we're here for; the latter is almost always based on a misunderstanding and a violation of the personal speculation rule.

I still feel interpretations of standard QM should be more indulgently moderated,

They already are, that's why they have their own subforum where we discuss and debate ideas that cannot even in principle be falsified. We would not grant a similar indulgence to any other branch of physics.

 

[pines-demon]

Should I discuss on basis of some scientific paper or may I just post the issue I have and ask a question about it?

My feeling is that in PF you need to ask an informed question, you do not have to understand everything, but you still have to show that you have made some effort in trying to understand it. You can cite papers that agree with you and papers that do not agree with you. You can show some mathematical argument. You can even cite previous discussions about it.

 

[entropy1]

Is Everett 1957 ""Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" the go-to paper about MWI? It is behind a paywall.

 

[pinball1970]

Is Everett 1957 ""Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" the go-to paper about MWI? It is behind a paywall.

Have a look at the overview. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Sean Carroll is a fan and his book (Hidden Realities ? I think) went into it in more detail.