Source for "Shut up and calculate"

[rigetFrog]

I'm looking for the source for the QM interpretation of "shut up and calculate". I thought it was synonymous with the Bohm theory and that I had seen it in Shankar or Sakurai.

Yes, I Googled it and found David Mermin, and some other dude named Tegmark that I'm won't to bring up lest I incur the wrath of the Mentors. Point is, don't tell me "google it".

 

[Fredrik]

I'm pretty sure it's Mermin. It was a comment about what the Copenhagen interpretation is suggesting.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/57/5/10.1063/1.1768652

 

[TheAustrian]

I remember my QM lecturer has also used this famous quote himself, along with the statement that there is not much else to do in QM anyway.

 

[rigetFrog]

So what are the problems with "Shut up and calculate" (ShUAC)? Does it disagree with any experiments? (Other than EPR, of course.) Citations would be appreciated.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I've explicitly asked Mermin to incant the phrase to me on occasion; he's a cool guy :)

Anyways, it doesn't disagree with any experiment. Why would it? It simply remains quiet about the conceptual foundations of QM. The problem with this of course is if one wants to go beyond calculations and actually understand the theory at a deeper level then one must investigate the conceptual foundations and "shut up and calculate" isn't too great for that :)

 

[f95toli]

Of course it does not disagree with experiments; the quote essentially just refers to the fact that most scientist who use QM do not really care about interpretations of QM (or perhaps just don't see interpretations as being a scientific question).

It is an purely "technical" approach to science.

Edit: WannabeNewton was faster

 

[f95toli]

The problem with this of course is if one wants to go beyond calculations and actually understand the theory at a deeper level

Although this of course only works if there really IS such a thing as a deeper level...

 

[WannabeNewton]

Although this of course only works if there really IS such a things as a deeper level...

That's a fair point! QM is quite the enigma.

 

[rigetFrog]

Can you get Mermin to chant it Gregorian style and post in on youtube. Also, tell him to fix the factor 2 error in his solid state book's derivation of the Drude model.

I think does ShUAC does imply an interpretation/deeper understanding. I.e. any "measurement" has to be treated as a potential acting on psi. Which in turns implies deterministic evolution of psi which sound notoriously Bohmian.

 

[TheAustrian]

Of course it does not disagree with experiments; the quote essentially just refers to the fact that most scientist who use QM do not really care about interpretations of QM (or perhaps just don't see interpretations as being a scientific question).

It is an purely "technical" approach to science.

Edit: WannabeNewton was faster

I've found myself in a similar mentality. I've stopped bothering to think about what QM really means when I am presented with QMechanical Problems. Although I do like to ponder on the philosophical side of QM, but only in the quiet Sunday evenings.

 

[UltrafastPED]

I'm looking for the source for the QM interpretation of "shut up and calculate". I thought it was synonymous with the Bohm theory and that I had seen it in Shankar or Sakurai.

Yes, I Googled it and found David Mermin, and some other dude named Tegmark that I'm won't to bring up lest I incur the wrath of the Mentors. Point is, don't tell me "google it".

I found this via Google: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Disputed

With references!

 

[Demystifier]

RigetFrog, shut up and calculate is usually NOT associated with the Bohmian approach.

But perhaps it should be, because it seems to be the only interpretation which proposes a new quantity to be actually calculated.

 

[rigetFrog]

it seems to be the only interpretation which proposes a new quantity to be actually calculated.

I don't understand. You mean hidden variables? Please elaborate.

 

[Demystifier]

I mean particle trajectories, which of course are hidden variables.