Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - which one?

-DaWe
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Before I ask, I'd just to say that I know this has been heavily discussed before, but I am asking for peoples' insight directly as this is for a report I'm currently working on, hence why I'm not just looking through old posts using the search option. So I'm sorry if this may be of an annoyance to anybody.

So, the question I'd like to pose to the people here is; which interpretation of QM do you go by/believe is the 'correct' one and why? And why don't you go by any of the others instead?

Thank you everyone. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the whole concept of an interpretation is if not meaningless so at least not very interesting. This does not mean that I did not once wonder about these things, but I've found that the more I actually work with QM related phenomena, the less I care. QM can predict the outcome of experiments, and this is all that really matters.

So I guess I belong to either the "shut up and calculate" or "don't care" camp, depending on when you ask me :-p

Note that this is probably the majority view among working physicists, it is simply an issue that comes up so rarely that most people don't care (nor do they know much about different interpretations, it is not something that is usually covered in courses)
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top