Is superposition widely accepted?

[DennisN]

[...] but exploring how to complete the theory not only has value in itself, it tells us where to look for new phenomena that aren't yet well explained by the model.

Sounds ok to me. Particularly if it's made in combination with suggestions on how to test for new phenomena (experiments).

All these models were born out of a dissatisfaction with our current understanding of reality. To wish that away when we get to quantum physics is defeatist, particularly when it's the most unsatisfactory, yet successful theory ever produced by physics.

Dissatisfaction? Hmm, well, quantum mechanics was born out of experiment observations that did not fit the models at that time (e.g. blackbody radiation (the "ultraviolet catastrophe") and the photoelectric effect). So it wasn't a case of any philosophical dissatisfaction - it was scientific dissatisfaction; the observations did not fit the models.

Defeatist?

I do not wish anything away, I am far from a defeatist, haha, I believe in the progress of science; there are many things to explore and solve - not only in quantum mechanics. What I tried to explain was that this "problem" you mentioned is not unique to quantum mechanics. And please note: there is currently NO theory of everything. This automatically means that there are "problems" in all branches of physics (they have domains of applicability). And I think it is quite likely - considering the history of science - that if/when, let's say, quantum mechanics or general relativity get replaced by some new theory - guess what - there will be "problems" and issues with this new theory as well (but I can't be certain of this, of course), that's my 2 cents.

And, once again, I think it would be interesting to hear Richard Feynmans words (in the clip I mean specifically 0:00-1:30 and 3:20-4:10 concerning his views on science and nature in general, and doubt and uncertainty):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zi699WzAL0

 

[craigi]

Sounds ok to me. Particularly if it's made in combination with suggestions on how to test for new phenomena (experiments).



Dissatisfaction? Hmm, well, quantum mechanics was born out of experiment observations that did not fit the models at that time (e.g. blackbody radiation (the "ultraviolet catastrophe") and the photoelectric effect). So it wasn't a case of any philosophical dissatisfaction - it was scientific dissatisfaction; the observations did not fit the models.

Defeatist?

I do not wish anything away, I am far from a defeatist, haha, I believe in the progress of science; there are many things to explore and solve - not only in quantum mechanics. What I tried to explain was that this "problem" you mentioned is not unique to quantum mechanics. And please note: there is currently NO theory of everything. This automatically means that there are "problems" in all branches of physics (they have domains of applicability). And I think it is quite likely - considering the history of science - that if/when, let's say, quantum mechanics or general relativity get replaced by some new theory - guess what - there will be "problems" and issues with this new theory as well (but I can't be certain of this, of course), that's my 2 cents.

And, once again, I think it would be interesting to hear Richard Feynmans words (in the clip I mean specifically 0:00-1:30 and 3:20-4:10 concerning his views on science and nature in general, and doubt and uncertainty):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zi699WzAL0

Yet it was Feynman himself who described the measurement problem as the central mystery of quantum physics.

 

[DennisN]

Yet it was Feynman himself who described the measurement problem as the central mystery of quantum physics.

And your point is...?

 

[bhobba]

And your point is...?

Same here.

But even aside from that I am not so sure that was Feynman's view - it most certainly was that the double slit experiment contained the central mystery - but that it was the so called measurement problem can't recall him ever saying. IMHO that isn't the central mystery because every interpretation has a different take on it - the central mystery is we have so many interpretations, each suck in their own unique and different way, and we have no way to decide experimentally between them.

I do know later on in life Feynman was very attracted to Decoherent Histories as championed by the guy in the office next door - Murray Gell-Mann. Feynman evidently would sit in the back of lectures on it and ask some very illuminating and penetrating questions about it that showed he understood it only too well.

Thanks
Bill

 

[DennisN]

- the central mystery is we have so many interpretations, each suck in their own unique and different way, and we have no way to decide experimentally between them.

Yes, this is one of the main points which makes it interesting to me too . By the way, I really don't know very much about Feynman in detail, but I've noticed I very much agree with his general approach to science.

 

[Maui]

There are so many interpretations because of the measurement problem and how to go about it, so...

 

[craigi]

Same here.

But even aside from that I am not so sure that was Feynman's view - it most certainly was that the double slit experiment contained the central mystery - but that it was the so called measurement problem can't recall him ever saying. IMHO that isn't the central mystery because every interpretation has a different take on it - the central mystery is we have so many interpretations, each suck in their own unique and different way, and we have no way to decide experimentally between them.

I do know later on in life Feynman was very attracted to Decoherent Histories as championed by the guy in the office next door - Murray Gell-Mann. Feynman evidently would sit in the back of lectures on it and ask some very illuminating and penetrating questions about it that showed he understood it only too well.

Thanks
Bill

I'm not convinced that the Consistent Histories [Griffiths] (ie. Decohorent Histories) interpretation does have any such problems. The only criticism that I've seen of it, is that it makes no testable predictions beyond the Copenhagen interpretation, but it's not intended to be a new theory, just an interpretation without the problems of the Copenhagen version.

 

[bhobba]

I'm not convinced that the Consistent Histories [Griffiths] (ie. Decohorent Histories) interpretation does have any such problems. The only criticism that I've seen of it, is that it makes no testable predictions beyond the Copenhagen interpretation, but it's not intended to be a new theory, just an interpretation without the problems of the Copenhagen version.

I like it as well.

Its issue however is its a lot like defining your way out of problems which is the idea of its frameworks. You run into issues - no problem - its not a legitimate framework. The interesting thing is decoherence automatically enforces those frameworks.

I personally don't hold to it because while it started out as a minimalist interpretation its latest incarnations are far from that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Yes, this is one of the main points which makes it interesting to me too . By the way, I really don't know very much about Feynman in detail, but I've noticed I very much agree with his general approach to science.

Yea - he is the patron saint of no BS science - he cuts to the chase.

Along with Landau he is one of my heroes.

Not perfect of course - evidently he used to sit in seminars and scare the living bejesus out of the person giving it by constantly tearing what they say apart - everyone hated it leaving a total nervous wreck. But what goes around comes around - one guy was so totally humiliated next time he was prepared, and it was Feynman that left a humiliated, stunned, nervous wreck.

Thanks
Bill