Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Possibility that all current interpretations of QM are wrong

  1. Mar 20, 2017 #1
    Is there a possibility that none of the current interpretations of QM are right?
    Or is the current interpretations all that there will be on the table?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 20, 2017 #2

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Of course.
     
  4. Mar 20, 2017 #3

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    It is not even clear if "right" is a meaningful classification.

    It is possible that new interpretations will be developed in the future.
     
  5. Mar 20, 2017 #4
    Do you think that an interpretation as follows could be possible in the future?
    The wave function is objectively real (no hidden variables). There is wave function collapse but it doesn't happen instantaneously, it's a physical process that occurs at sublight speed. And it is a local theory. Is this a possible future interpretation?
     
  6. Mar 20, 2017 #5

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Quite sure that is ruled out by Bell tests.
     
  7. Mar 20, 2017 #6
    Which part?
     
  8. Mar 20, 2017 #7

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    We have https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614 which shows that if collapse of a Bell state is a physical process, it's not one that propagates at sublight speeds. And of course the (too many to list here) observed violations of Bell's inequality show that no theory in which the wave function is objectively real can be local.
     
  9. Mar 20, 2017 #8
    Is it possible that it really does propagate faster than light? Is it possible that relativity is incomplete?
     
  10. Mar 20, 2017 #9

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Would be surprising. Everything faster than light in one reference frame is backwards in time in other reference frames. There is no indication that any reference frame would be special, and violating causality unnecessary would be odd as well.
     
  11. Mar 20, 2017 #10
    Retrocausal interpretations would meet these criteria. Such models are consistent with Special Relativity and restore locality to nonrelativisitc quantum mechanics. They also restore time-symmetry to microphysics. See:

    A live alternative to quantum spooks
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.06712.pdf
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  12. Mar 20, 2017 #11
    MWI suffers from similar flaws when combined with SR

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mwi-and-special-relativity.412608/
     
  13. Mar 20, 2017 #12

    Zafa Pi

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The type of FTL phenomena that accounts for the correlations in distant measurements (no matter/energy or information transfer) doesn't appear to be in conflict with relativity.
     
  14. Mar 21, 2017 #13
    Certain minimalistic interpretations (Ballentine's ensemble interpretation, Original Copenhagen etc) don't claim anything more than the axioms of quantum mechanics themselves do, so they'll never be "wrong" unless quantum mechanics itself is wrong.
     
  15. Mar 21, 2017 #14

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    First, by definition all interpretations make the same predictions. If they make different predictions, they are different theories.

    A consequence of that is that there is no scientific way to say which is right and which is wrong. To take an example from E&M, is the method of images a right or wrong interpretation?

    Next, it looks a lot like the OP is proposing personal theories. We don't discuss them on PF.
     
  16. Mar 21, 2017 #15

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

  17. Mar 21, 2017 #16
    But if you assume some type of cloning of worlds while branching, it still sounds confusing. So you would say that there are absolutely no issues when combining MWI and SR?
     
  18. Mar 21, 2017 #17

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't see where. MWI is local, all the experiments don't depend on what is happening at spacelike separation. If you look at coincidence counts later it does matter, but comparing those results happens at lightlike or timelike distances. Every observer can assume that branching happens according to their reference frame, because there is no need to agree on a time-ordering of the processes.

    If wave function collapse is an actual and observer-independent process, then it has to have some time-ordering.
     
  19. Mar 21, 2017 #18
    Established that in my opinion, to quote Feynman, no one understands quantum mechanics, I believe that among the "different interpretations", the Copenhagen interpretation "Orthodox" is the most consistent. Although it has elements of ambiguity, the Copenhagen interpretation seems to me the most coherent and more representative of the experimental data. Furthermore it is the most "practical", in order use of the calculations. For example, in the interpretation MW, where are the "other worlds"? There are experimental evidence for the existence of them? It is more simple, in terms of the calculations, thinking that the function of wave collapses, rather, that continue in another space, or the world or universe that is. I'm not saying that the MWI is "wrong." But a quantum physicist, has some practical benefit to use for practical purposes (ie calculation) this interpretation?
     
  20. Mar 21, 2017 #19

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    One has to specify what's meant by "Copenhagen interpretation". There are plenty of flavors. I can only accept Copenhagen flavors which do not assume an instantaneous collapse. The only interpretation that's consistent for me is the minimal statistical interpretation (also known as "ensemble interpretation"). It just takes the formalism, including the Born rule, i.e., it gives the usual probabilistic meaning to the quantum state, and that's how experiments are indeed done, i.e., one prepares a lot of equally prepared quantum systems (ensembles) and analyses the outcome of measurements statistically.
     
  21. Mar 21, 2017 #20
    All scientific theories have a possibility of being wrong.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Possibility that all current interpretations of QM are wrong
  1. QM Interpretations (Replies: 17)

  2. QM Interpretations (Replies: 101)

  3. Interpretations of QM (Replies: 7)

  4. QM Interpretations (Replies: 27)

Loading...