Interpretations, urban legends, and Hawking

MacRudi
Messages
98
Reaction score
12
[Mentor's note: Moved out from another thread where it was a bit of a digression]

"Yeah, well, there are some people who spend an awful lot of time talking about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. My attitude -- I would paraphrase Goering -- is that when I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun."

-- Hawking in the book "The Whole Shebang"

looool
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Except that Goering never said that. The phrase comes from a German play of the early 1930s, not from Goering.
 
andrewkirk said:
Except that Goering never said that. The phrase comes from a German play of the early 1930s, not from Goering.

but it is a quote of Hawking :-)
 
MacRudi said:
"Yeah, well, there are some people who spend an awful lot of time talking about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. My attitude -- I would paraphrase Goering -- is that when I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun."

-- Hawking in the book "The Whole Shebang"

looool
andrewkirk said:
Except that Goering never said that. The phrase comes from a German play of the early 1930s, not from Goering.
MacRudi said:
but it is a quote of Hawking :-)

A question about the history here... Did Hawking know Goering didn't really say that? Or was he suckered by an urban legend?

The line in Schlageter's play was actually "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning!" "Whenever I hear of culture... I ready my Browning [pistol]", and it has been spawning imaginative memes for the best part of a century now.
 
Last edited:
I just read a description of the experiment reported several months ago at the Australian national University where they isolated a SINGLE helium atom (really? I am a simple chemical engineer not a physicist) and performed two measurements on it - is it a wave or particle? All as Niels told us. Plus the result was affected retrospectively - delayed choice. So I agree with "when I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun" except I read something else or change the TV channel.
Except I am pretty sure that
(1) a cricket (baseball) does not behave like a helium atom (*)
(2) the far side of the moon exists right now and did not come into existence during the Apollo 8 mission and then disappear again
(3) The Newtonian-based laws that I used for fluid flow, heat transfer etc. etc. seemed to work OK during my career
(4) Chemical reactions carried out in bulk can be safely carried out using deterministic "laws". A certain concentration of reactants given a temperature-time profile with a certain catalyst will produce ammonia (for example) at a known rate and concentration.
I could go on
(*) or could it explain the woeful performances of the England football(soccer), cricket and rugby teams.

Should we all just Shut Up and Calculate or in my case, let someone do that while I use my computer?
 
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