Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Nature Physics on quantum foundations
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="bhobba, post: 6803085, member: 366323"] Quantum Foundations are essential if you think the purpose of science is understanding the world, but not getting right what the actual issues are or why they are even an issue is vital in discussions about it. We have physicists/philosophers like David Wallice that get the problems right in tomes like the Emergent Universe. I do not entirely agree with David, but it is an exciting book by someone who understands physics and philosophy (he has a PhD in physics and philosophy). It is also helpful in understanding other interpretations like Consistent Histories. I agree with Gell-Mann about what many-worlds mean: [MEDIA=youtube]bx2cUfPrbGU[/MEDIA] Gell-Mann's approach, now called Decoherent Histories, has produced some interesting insights into the emergence of a classical world: [URL]https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/gell-mann-hartle-spin-quantum-narrative-about-reality[/URL]. These are examples of important work in the area, along with things like Bell's Theorem, which many also get wrong. Again I side with Gell-Mann: [MEDIA=youtube]gNAw-xXCcM8[/MEDIA] It is just that the scholarship of some, IMHO, because it is pretty hard, is not what it should be. I have fallen for it myself in my musings about QM being understood as something where we interact with quantum systems to know about the quantum word. You were correct in pointing out that rapid progress is being made in applications where this may no longer be true, so it fundamentally can't be understood that way. It may be a helpful idea in motivating its formalism as a mathematical model, but as an explanation is flawed. Thanks Bill [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Nature Physics on quantum foundations
Back
Top