QM Interpretations: Most Popular & Why?

In summary: The more you will work with your...the more you will realize that there is no single "right" answer, and that the answer may change depending on the experimental setup you are using.
  • #1
curiousphoton
117
2
The following are the interpretations of QM:

Bohmian · CCC · Consistent histories · Copenhagen · Ensemble · Hidden variable theory · Many-worlds · Pondicherry · Quantum logic · Relational · Transactional

Which is the most accepted by the theoretical physics community? Obviously all have some supporters but I'm interested in finding out which is the most popular and why?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There have actually been surveys done on this here. And I have seen some informal surverys as well. In many ways the most popular answer may be "Don't know, not sure if I should care". Not saying that is my opinion or that most specialists hold that view, but I would say it reflects the viewpoint of a lot of working physicists.
 
  • #3
Ensemble, of course. It is not so opposite to the others though.

Why ensemble? Because one point does not give you all information about the quantum state. One point is a too poor experiment. You cannot even tell/prove where it comes from.

As in the macroscopic case, in the microscopic case you also deal with compound systems. And any compound system needs many exchanges to reveal its true face. More pixels, better image.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I find the majority of physicists don't care about interpretations, subscribing to Mermin's "shut up and calculate." Physics Today 57, #5, 10-11 (2004).
 
  • #5
RUTA said:
I find the majority of physicists don't care about interpretations, subscribing to Mermin's "shut up and calculate." Physics Today 57, #5, 10-11 (2004).

They keep exactly to the ensemble interpretation: everybody calculates probabilities in our, single Universe according to the wave (quantum) mechanics.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Bob_for_short said:
They keep exactly to the ensemble interpretation: everybody calculates probabilities in our, single Universe according to the wave (quantum mechanics).

That's like saying that all agnostics are Buddhists, because Buddhism allows the possibility of all other gods.

Among physicists who do express preference for an interpretation, many-worlds interpretation is very popular.
 
  • #7
curiousphoton said:
The following are the interpretations of QM:

Bohmian · CCC · Consistent histories · Copenhagen · Ensemble · Hidden variable theory · Many-worlds · Pondicherry · Quantum logic · Relational · Transactional
I never heard about CCC and Pondicherry. What are those? Some links?
 
  • #8
hamster143 said:
Among physicists who do express preference for an interpretation, many-worlds interpretation is very popular.
How about the experimentalists? Are they content with one-point data in a double-slit experiment or do they care about measurement statistics in this world?
 
  • #9
Bob_for_short said:
How about the experimentalists?

I also prefer Many Worlds - and I am (or used to be) an instrumentalist/experimentalist. But I don't consider MW necessarily as "true", I only consider it as a very helpful mental picture to get some intuition for quantum-mechanical experiments. It avoids the difficult question of "what is a measurement" and "when does the wave function collapse" - and when you do so, all apparent paradoxes of EPR experiments and of retarded quantum erasers and so on disappear.
 
  • #10
vanesch said:
I also prefer Many Worlds - and I am (or used to be) an instrumentalist/experimentalist. But I don't consider MW necessarily as "true", I only consider it as a very helpful mental picture to get some intuition for quantum-mechanical experiments. It avoids the difficult question of "what is a measurement" and "when does the wave function collapse" - and when you do so, all apparent paradoxes of EPR experiments and of retarded quantum erasers and so on disappear.

Sorry to hear that.
 
  • #11
Bob_for_short said:
Sorry to hear that.

:biggrin:
 
  • #12
hamster143 said:
Among physicists who do express preference for an interpretation, many-worlds interpretation is very popular.

So far many-worlds is my favorite. Is the fact that you have 12 interpretations of QM (and you may basically choose a favorite because one is not technically more correct than another) a major downfall to the theory?

Demystifier said:
I never heard about CCC and Pondicherry. What are those? Some links?

Wikipedia
 
  • #13
My opinion is that either MWI is true or QM itself is not exactly valid.
 
  • #14
Bob_for_short said:
How about the experimentalists? Are they content with one-point data in a double-slit experiment or do they care about measurement statistics in this world?

Remember that not everyone who is doing "QM experiments" are working in optics. The double slit is a nice "toy" but it is far from the only system where you can see "weird" quantum effects.
There are plenty of people (me included) who work on system where there is only a single "quantum object" and not an ensemble, this includes just about everyone working with single qubits (solid state systems, ion traps etc).

Personally I am in the "shut up and calculate" camp, and so is just about everyone else I work with.
 
  • #15
f95toli said:
...There are plenty of people (me included) who work on system where there is only a single "quantum object" and not an ensemble, this includes just about everyone working with single qubits (solid state systems, ion traps etc).
Personally I am in the "shut up and calculate" camp, and so is just about everyone else I work with.
The more you will work with your "single quantum object", the more data you will analyse, the better you will understand what an "ensemble" means. It is an ensemble of data about your single system, it goes without saying, and that's why it is sufficient to shut up and calculate.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Count Iblis said:
My opinion is that either MWI is true or QM itself is not exactly valid.
My opinion is that MWI is correct but not complete.
(MWI by itself in its minimal form cannot explain the origin of the Born rule.)
 
  • #17
Bob_for_short said:
The more you will work with your "single quantum object", the more data you will analyse, the better you will understand what an "ensemble" means. It is an ensemble of data about your single system, it goes without saying, and that's why it is sufficient to shut up and calculate.

True, but that is hardly a unique property of quantum systems. Most experiments involves taking averages of some sort at one point or another even if it just means increasing the integration time of your multimeter; but that has more to do with achieving a better signal-to-noise ratio than of any fundamental property of the system you are measuring.
There are certainly examples where one can -at least in principle- see the "quantumness" of a systems using a single shot readout. An obvious example being to first manipulate a single using MW pulses and then reading out its state using a measurement pulse. Now, the final result of such a procedure is obviously single-valued (since the qubit will end up in one of two states) but what comes before that (the manipulation) is very much a series of "quantum operations".
Any interpretation (or -in my case- lack of interpretation) should surely take into account not only what we see after the measurement pulse but also what is happening when we are manipulating the qubit; because even though we are not measuring we are certainly doing SOMETHING to the qubit with our pulses.
 
  • #18
curiousphoton said:
Wikipedia
CCC = consciosness causes collapse

Pondicherry interpretation: as I understand it, seems to be a variant of the instrumentalist interpretation - QM is nothing but a tool for calculating probabilities.

Am I correct?
 
  • #19
curiousphoton said:
So far many-worlds is my favorite. Is the fact that you have 12 interpretations of QM (and you may basically choose a favorite because one is not technically more correct than another) a major downfall to the theory?

There is a problem with Born rule. THere were claims that it hadbeen succesfully derived from 'pure' QM formalism, and another claims, that the derivation was circluar.

But MWI is deterministic, so it is not clear what the 'probability' means in that context. So yes, there is some mystery, but I don't see it as a weakness, instead, it is a hint that we are missing something interesting about the reality.

Then, the 'appearence' of the classical world is based on the Quantum Decoherence. QD has some difficulties:

The choice of basic of decoherence is arbitrary. So you should define the basic based on some definition of the 'macroscopic system'. When 'macroscopic system' and basis are defined, you can define the 'branch'. But systems have different states, and in some branches we even don't exist! So the choice of a basic is branch-dependent.

But these difficulties are rather technical: we don't know how the brain works, but it is not a fatal probalem for physics. So we can not correctly and completely define a 'state' and 'basis' or complicated system, but it is not fatal.

And it is much better that that 'collapse' nonsense from CI - CI is absurd, it just can't be true.
 
  • #20
Dmitry67 said:
...But MWI is deterministic, so it is not clear what the 'probability' means in that context. So yes, there is some mystery, but I don't see it as a weakness, instead, it is a hint that we are missing something interesting about the reality.
The missing part is simple: we have to recognize that even in a microscopic world we need many points of measurement to get some information. Information is not reduced to one point. On the contrary, the more points, the more accurate information about a system. Just like a photograph. The trick is that we think of microscopic world as of elementary, reducable-to-one-point world. It is this idea that fails.

The classical world also "appears" as the inclusive picture (sum of many different QM events). Again, a photograph is a right example.
 
  • #21
It might make sense, but it not the MWI... on the other side, QD is not a part of MWI either... I mean, it is not absolutely required... so may be you're right...
But I've heard about the Informational Interpretation, looks like it is close to what you are explaining.
 
  • #22
curiousphoton said:
Is the fact that you have 12 interpretations of QM (and you may basically choose a favorite because one is not technically more correct than another) a major downfall to the theory?

Not at all. And that is why it is not such a big deal to many working in the field. To many, the subject of interpretations is more of a minor curiosity than anything else.

But it does mean that there is the "possibility" that additional refinements to theory may be possible. Since any refinement would almost certainly be an extension to current theory - which is now 80+ years old - it is exciting to consider. So there is a lot of research going into discovering theoretical differences between one interpretation or another. For example: Bohmian type interpretations require some assumptions which may make them explicitly testable. Just yesterday, I started a thread about a newly proposed test to distinguish their viability.

But even the discovery of one particular interpretation being correct would not invalidate existing physical theory.
 
  • #23
Dmitry67 said:
But MWI is deterministic, so it is not clear what the 'probability' means in that context. So yes, there is some mystery, but I don't see it as a weakness, instead, it is a hint that we are missing something interesting about the reality.
I agree. What I disagree with you, is what that reality might be.
 
  • #24
Bob_for_short said:
The missing part is simple: we have to recognize that even in a microscopic world we need many points of measurement to get some information. Information is not reduced to one point. On the contrary, the more points, the more accurate information about a system. Just like a photograph. The trick is that we think of microscopic world as of elementary, reducable-to-one-point world. It is this idea that fails.

The classical world also "appears" as the inclusive picture (sum of many different QM events). Again, a photograph is a right example.

The problem with the "ensemble" view of quantum mechanics is that there's nothing to understand, so you cannot devellop a "feeling" for what "goes on" (even if it doesn't go on that way, at least you can imagine it). Of course the ensemble view is a "correct" view of quantum theory: you scribble weird symbols on paper, apply formal calculation rules and in the end you crunch out probability distributions.

That's nice for the guy for whom one has made a measurement instrument, and one tells him that the instrument measures "this". But it is a pain for the one that makes an instrument: how are you supposed to make it ? If you set up an experiment, you need some kind of intuition of "what goes on", and so you need a kind of mental picture. Why do we say that a beam splitter splits a beam ? It is easier to picture it that your photon wave packet comes in, gets split into two packets by the beam splitter, that these two packets do this and do that, then recombine, and click here or there. But if you do that, you are actually thinking in MWI terms: you've considered that after the beam splitter, your photon is *simultaneously* in one branch and in another. For a single photon, this might still be feasible as a "classical light pulse", but if you apply the same reasoning to EPR pairs and so on, you can really make a parallel between "things happening in parallel" and the actual calculation. If you now make one extra step, and say that upon measurement, the measurement apparatus ALSO gets into two simultaneous states, then you are completely in MWI.

When do you apply the Born rule ? When it comes to you ! You tell yourself that you are also simultaneously observing different results, but "you" are one of those you's, and your "you" ensemble distribution is then given by the Born rule. It sounds crazy, it is maybe crazy, but it gives you quite some intuition on "how to picture things". I've never met any other interpretation that gives you such a close link between the formal calculation and the "lab situation".
 
  • #25
Demystifier said:
Pondicherry interpretation: as I understand it, seems to be a variant of the instrumentalist interpretation - QM is nothing but a tool for calculating probabilities.
Mohrhoff has certainly been pushing that view too (e.g. in an article called "Quantum theory needs no interpretation", if I remember the title correctly), but I think his "Pondicherry" interpretation is a lot more weird than that. I skimmed the Pondicherry article a few years ago and I don't remember much of it, but it contains some stuff about the nature of space and time. For example, he thinks that a photon that goes through a double slit doesn't consider the two slits as being at different locations in space.

If you search for Ulrich Mohrhoff at arxiv.org, you'll find a large number of articles that all seem to be saying roughly the same thing. I read some of the others too (a few years ago) and I thought they were interesting and inspirational, but not very useful.
 
  • #26
curiousphoton said:
The following are the interpretations of QM:

Bohmian · CCC · Consistent histories · Copenhagen · Ensemble · Hidden variable theory · Many-worlds · Pondicherry · Quantum logic · Relational · Transactional
An "interpretation of QM" is an attempt to interpret the mathematics of QM as statements about what's "actually happening" in physical processes that can't be described classically. Therefore, I don't consider the "ensemble interpretation" an interpretation. It's just the rejection of the idea that QM is telling us something about what's "actually happening".

I also don't consider "quantum logic" an interpretation. It's just an attempt to state the theory in a different way. Instead of having axioms that define a mathematical structure on the set of states of physical systems, we use axioms that define a mathematical structure on the set of experimentally verifiable statements.

I consider "consciousness causes collapse" complete crackpot nonsense.

A lot of people consider the Copenhagen interpretation to be the statement that measuring devices are classical and that wave function collapse is exact. I don't think anyone actually believes that. In particular I don't think Bohr and Heisenberg thought that. If we remove the craziness by instead saying that a measurement is a physical interaction that entangles the eigenstates of the system with macroscopically distinguishable states of a system (the measuring device) that's approximately classical, then the Copenhagen interpretation is indistinguishable from the ensemble interpretation, and also completely consistent with decoherence and quantum logic.

Decoherence is a phenomenon that can be studied in the framework of the ensemble interpretation, so I don't know why anyone would consider that an interpretation. The study of decoherence has improved our understanding of measurements. It has given us a definition of what a measurement is (see the preceding paragraph), but it doesn't tell us much about what's "actually happening".

I haven't had time to study Bohm yet, but I'm under the impression that it at least consists of a set of well-defined statements that can be used to predict the probabilities of possible results of experiments. That makes it a theory. Consistent histories might fall into that category too, but I don't fully understand it. All the others seem to be nothing more than loosely stated ideas about what sort of things are happening. None of them seems to be defined by a list of well-defined statements, or give us a consistent set of answers to the question "What's actually happening?" in every conceivable scenario. So I can't consider them to be anything more than failed attempts to interpret QM.
 
  • #27
BTW, the list in not complete: there is also "Objective Collapse" theory: it is not an interpretation (even Wiki puts it in a list of interpretations) because it is experimentally verifiable.

I remember Penrose liked the idea of "Gravitation caused collapse" but I think it is less and less popular.

Frederik, I hope MWI does not fall for you in the category of "nothing more than loosely stated ideas about what sort of things are happening"?
 
  • #28
It seems to me that ensemble is basically a lipstick-on-a-pig version of hidden variables, which were falsified more than 40 years ago. If there's only a single unique universe, and every system exists in no more than one state at a time, then our inability to see things as such (which gives rise to the appearance of wavefunction) is due to our ignorance of "hidden variables", describing the system on some deeper level. But local hidden variables were killed by Bell in 1964, and nonlocal hidden variables are too much of a stretch.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
hamster143 said:
It seems to me that ensemble is basically a lipstick-on-a-pig version of hidden variables, which were falsified more than 40 years ago. If there's only a single unique universe, and every system exists in no more than one state at a time, then our inability to see things as such (which gives rise to the appearance of wavefunction) is due to our ignorance of "hidden variables", describing the system on some deeper level. But local hidden variables were killed by Bell in 1964, and nonlocal hidden variables are too much of a stretch.


Not everyone agrees that local hidden variables are ruled out:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4568

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701097
 
  • #30
Dmitry67 said:
Frederik, I hope MWI does not fall for you in the category of "nothing more than loosely stated ideas about what sort of things are happening"?
It does, but I admit that it's possible that I have just failed to understand it.
 
  • #31
I'm fascinated by the sheer number of Many Worlds Interpretation supporters here. Do you know if this interpretation is gaining in popularity? Most of the "classic" textbooks on quantum mechanics tend toward the Copenhagen Interpretation. I was under the impression that was the default orthodox way of thinking about quantum phenomena. Although I guess most of the physicists I've known tend toward the "shut up and calculate" view when really pressed with quantum conceptual questions. Most quantum physicists seem to me to be modern day Pythagoreans...all that matters is mathematical consistency and mathematical "beauty"...conceptual beauty and simplicity seem to take a back seat. Perhaps that's the only viable option with so few physical concepts to latch on to. Without physical intuition to serve as a guide, it might be best to adhere to strict linguistic formalism. Still, better to know only a little bit and understand it, than to know a lot but understand little. When faced with many different interpretations that don't make any unique testable predictions, perhaps we should apply the philosophical criteria of Occam's Razor and ask, "Which is the simplest?" Which interpretation is most pleasing philosophically? If you had to start from scratch to understand quantum phenomena, what would you say are the most basic physical concepts? Personally I think the uncertainty principle would be a good starting point...even though its usually derived from what I consider to be more complicated postulates.
 
  • #32
Fredrik said:
It does, but I admit that it's possible that I have just failed to understand it.

Fredrik, you're right: usually when you start reading about MWI you hit the wordy stuff. I can explain why:

The axiomatic system of MWI is very simple: there is only unitary evolution of the waves and nothing else Period. In that sense it is NULL interpretation and very close to 'shut up and calculate'

But then you have to explain how we observe the classical world, and we start explaining the decoherence, branching etc. This is very useful to understand how it works, but many people get an impression that the wordy stuff about the branches is a part of axiomatics of MWI. it is not.

P.S.
I know Demistifier (?) distinguish 2 versions of MWI: "strong" and "weak"
 
Last edited:
  • #33
MaxwellsDemon said:
Which interpretation is most pleasing philosophically?

I can explain why I like MWI:

1. (the most important) MWI allows having very simple initial conditions at the Big Bang (God did not have a choice when created a Universe - or had a very little choice).
2. It is the only interpretation consistent with Mathematical Universe Hypotesis (Max Tegmark)
3. It is deterministic. God does not play dice
4. It is minimalistic - no new axioms
 
  • #34
I hope I understood the MWI correctly. Provided so:

Does it make sense to assume that there are many worlds, when we are not going to see them anyway? It reminds me of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
What do we gain from assuming things that cannot be detected anyway?

Maybe a more general question is:
What is the criterion for how good an interpretation is?
Is the interpretation maybe the key to find a better formulation of QM?

Btw, is quantum mechanics considered to be absolutely correct? There are calculations that show an amazing agreement with experiment. Is that a special case? Maybe many-particle effects and entanglement are actually exactly as predicted by QM?
 
  • #35
We don’t need to 'assume' that they exist: their existence is an unavoidable result of unitary evolution. On the contrary, to deny their existence you need to provide some mechanism. For example, in Copenhagen that elimination mechanism is called ‘collapse’. In Bohmian (please correct me if I am wrong) it is called 'empty waves' of something. So the burden of prrof is on those who claim that only one branch exists.
 

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
29
Views
962
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
109
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
5
Replies
147
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
76
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
9
Replies
309
Views
8K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
Back
Top