Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around various interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM), exploring theoretical perspectives, implications, and the philosophical underpinnings of these interpretations. Participants express their preferences for different interpretations, critique existing models, and engage in debates about the nature of QM and its implications for understanding reality.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express a preference for non-local hidden variables, arguing against the assumptions made by Bohm and de Broglie regarding classical mechanics as foundational for QM.
  • Others advocate for the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), citing its minimalistic nature and discussing its implications for symmetry and unitary time evolution.
  • A participant mentions Rovelli's relational QM as a favored interpretation, while another critiques the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking in relation to physical laws.
  • Some participants propose a personal interpretation that combines elements of relational QM with additional undecidability and emergent symmetries.
  • There is a viewpoint that QM should be seen merely as an algorithm for computing probabilities, questioning the necessity of an interpretation and suggesting that current interpretations may be misguided.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of symmetry arguments in physics and the nature of probabilistic determinism, with a call for a deeper understanding of symmetry and its origins.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a preferred interpretation of QM, with multiple competing views and ongoing debates about the validity and implications of each interpretation. Disagreements persist regarding the philosophical implications of QM and the role of interpretations in understanding physical reality.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in current interpretations and the frameworks of QM, suggesting that existing models may not adequately address open questions in physics. There are also discussions about the nature of symmetry and its treatment within different interpretations, indicating a need for further exploration of these concepts.

  • #151
QMister said:
Would you care to elaborate a little further?
How does "partial decoherence" in ANYWAY give "proof" to MWI over any other interpretation such as Bohm?
Explain exactly what you mean by that if you don't mind...

I have seen - don't find right now - decription of studies of decoherence. Sorry, I can't find it right now - have to go to work soon. In brief, they studied the "shoedinger cats state". So, what happens when you open an ideal box and look inside? You start receiving photons. Is 1 photon enough to conclude that cat is dead or alive? no. 2? not enough. 100? yes.

So they studies a small system and measured how the absorption of these photons affected the system. As I remember, after receiveing 5 photons system is significantly decoherenced (but not to 100%).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Can we discuss how different interpretations can be falsified – not now, but in principle (say, after TOE is discovered). Note: I am talking about the possibility of falsification

What I know:
• TI – without BIG RIP there are no absorbers for many particles. So it has problems even now.
• MWI – has problems with Born rule, but not clear how it can be used for the subject. On the contrary, if there will be found a rigorous mathematical proof that we can derive what we see from QM formalism alone, if would be an very strong argument for MWI
• BM – Quantum Gravity can ruin it, if the very notion of particle is frame-dependent (different accelerated frames do not agree on the number of real particles constituting macroscopic events)
• Objective Collapse – not an interpretation, is directly testable
• CI?
• Others?
Any additions?
 
  • #153
Dmitry67 said:
I have seen - don't find right now - decription of studies of decoherence. Sorry, I can't find it right now - have to go to work soon. In brief, they studied the "shoedinger cats state". So, what happens when you open an ideal box and look inside? You start receiving photons. Is 1 photon enough to conclude that cat is dead or alive? no. 2? not enough. 100? yes.

So they studies a small system and measured how the absorption of these photons affected the system. As I remember, after receiveing 5 photons system is significantly decoherenced (but not to 100%).

Thanks,

Looking forward to more indepth explanation.

I'm a little confused, why can't this apply to say, dBB, or ANY other objective interpretation without collapse (yes people like Gerard 't Hooft etc. is working on something)?
Remember Bohm was on of the guys discovered decoherence, and the first EVER to apply it to a interpretation: dBB, so why wouldn't this support the existence of a pilot wave and be strong evidence for dBB?
 
  • #154
Dmitry67 said:
What I know:
• TI – without BIG RIP there are no absorbers for many particles. So it has problems even now.

But isn't it true that in a cosmological constant dominated universe that all photons are absorbed at the horizon?
 
  • #155
horizon itself does not absorb anything because it is always far from an object. However, horizon generates hawking-like radiation. So universe will still be filled with the very low energy photons. And there is a very low probability that 'our' photon hits the hawking photon, completing the transaction. no matter how low the probability is, there is an infinite time for it. So I think it is true even without big rip...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
5K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
2K
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
24K
  • · Replies 155 ·
6
Replies
155
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K