Understanding the Fundamental Difference in Interpretations of QM

In summary, the conversation revolves around different interpretations of quantum mechanics. The first type, instrumentalist interpretations, view the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics as a tool for making probabilistic predictions about macroscopic events, rather than representing an underlying physical reality. This type is often criticized for being incomplete. The article also mentions the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the idea that there may be no complete theory that can fully explain quantum mechanics.The second type, deterministic interpretations, sees the quantum state as describing something physically real, and measurements as physically affecting it. However, these interpretations cannot offer deterministic predictions due to the existence of hidden variables. Like instrumentalist interpretations, there is a limit to what can be directly observed about the state of the system.Specific
  • #71
Lynch101 said:
Here, he is talking about a very specific property associated with particles and talks about the point I am trying to make, the idea that it is unclear how an observable, experimental outcome i.e. perceptible is possible if particles do not have specific properties, such as position.

The fundamental “stuff” underlying our world and which we seem to “perceive” (the experience of observation) cannot be characterized in terms of classical notions like “particles” or “waves”. And more important:

It is not true that the underlying stuff sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle. It always behaves like itself, but we sometimes choose to measure one property, sometimes another. When we choose to measure momentum, we find momentum clicks. When we choose to measure position, we find position clicks.” (John Marburger)
 
  • Like
Likes Lynch101
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
PeterDonis said:
My explanation was only of why the quantum potential in Bohmian mechanics is nonlocal. That in turn explains why, even though Bohmian mechanics is a hidden variable theory (the positions of the particles are hidden variables that determine the outcomes of experiments), it can still predict violations of the Bell inequalities: because it's a nonlocal hidden variable theory, and Bell's theorem only says that local hidden variable theories can't predict violations of the Bell inequalities.
Ah, I see. Thank you for that clarification.
 
  • #73
Lord Jestocost said:
The fundamental “stuff” underlying our world and which we seem to “perceive” (the experience of observation) cannot be characterized in terms of classical notions like “particles” or “waves”. And more important:

It is not true that the underlying stuff sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle. It always behaves like itself, but we sometimes choose to measure one property, sometimes another. When we choose to measure momentum, we find momentum clicks. When we choose to measure position, we find position clicks.” (John Marburger)
Thank you LJ. This seems to echo sentiments like, the map is not the territory and the Zen Buddhist saying that "the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon".
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost
  • #74
@Demystifier would you have any suggestions for resources (books/articles/papers/videos) that address the point you raise in your paper, namely (emphasis is mine obviously):
Bohmian Mechanics for Instrumentalists said:
Intuitively, it says that the precise particle positions are not very much important to make measurable predictions. It is important that particles have some positions (for otherwise it is not clear how can a perceptible exist) .
 
  • #77
Thread closed for moderation.

Edit: Thread will remain closed.
 
Last edited:
<h2>What is the fundamental difference in interpretations of QM?</h2><p>The fundamental difference in interpretations of QM refers to the various ways in which scientists and philosophers interpret the mathematical equations and principles of quantum mechanics. These interpretations attempt to explain the behavior of particles and the nature of reality at the quantum level.</p><h2>What are the different interpretations of QM?</h2><p>Some of the most commonly discussed interpretations of QM include the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many-Worlds interpretation, the Pilot-Wave interpretation, and the Transactional interpretation. Each of these interpretations offers a unique perspective on the nature of quantum mechanics and the role of observation in determining reality.</p><h2>How do these interpretations differ from each other?</h2><p>The main differences between these interpretations lie in their explanations of concepts such as superposition, wave-particle duality, and the collapse of the wave function. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation suggests that particles exist in multiple states until they are observed, while the Many-Worlds interpretation posits that every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs in a separate parallel universe.</p><h2>Which interpretation is the most widely accepted?</h2><p>There is no consensus among scientists on which interpretation of QM is the most accurate. Each interpretation has its own strengths and weaknesses, and some scientists may prefer one over the others based on their personal beliefs or research focus. However, the Copenhagen interpretation is often considered the most widely accepted and is the basis for many practical applications of quantum mechanics.</p><h2>Why is understanding the fundamental difference in interpretations of QM important?</h2><p>Understanding the different interpretations of QM is important because it allows scientists to critically evaluate the implications and limitations of quantum mechanics. It also helps to stimulate further research and discussion in this complex and fascinating field of study. Additionally, a deeper understanding of the fundamental differences can lead to new insights and potential breakthroughs in our understanding of the nature of reality and the universe.</p>

What is the fundamental difference in interpretations of QM?

The fundamental difference in interpretations of QM refers to the various ways in which scientists and philosophers interpret the mathematical equations and principles of quantum mechanics. These interpretations attempt to explain the behavior of particles and the nature of reality at the quantum level.

What are the different interpretations of QM?

Some of the most commonly discussed interpretations of QM include the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many-Worlds interpretation, the Pilot-Wave interpretation, and the Transactional interpretation. Each of these interpretations offers a unique perspective on the nature of quantum mechanics and the role of observation in determining reality.

How do these interpretations differ from each other?

The main differences between these interpretations lie in their explanations of concepts such as superposition, wave-particle duality, and the collapse of the wave function. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation suggests that particles exist in multiple states until they are observed, while the Many-Worlds interpretation posits that every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs in a separate parallel universe.

Which interpretation is the most widely accepted?

There is no consensus among scientists on which interpretation of QM is the most accurate. Each interpretation has its own strengths and weaknesses, and some scientists may prefer one over the others based on their personal beliefs or research focus. However, the Copenhagen interpretation is often considered the most widely accepted and is the basis for many practical applications of quantum mechanics.

Why is understanding the fundamental difference in interpretations of QM important?

Understanding the different interpretations of QM is important because it allows scientists to critically evaluate the implications and limitations of quantum mechanics. It also helps to stimulate further research and discussion in this complex and fascinating field of study. Additionally, a deeper understanding of the fundamental differences can lead to new insights and potential breakthroughs in our understanding of the nature of reality and the universe.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
84
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
109
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
9
Replies
309
Views
8K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
5
Replies
147
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
62
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
6
Views
909
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top