What are the 'warts' of interpretations in QT?

[Feeble Wonk]

As I (attempt to) follow the discussions on various QT threads here on PF, many of the subjects being discussed are frequently categorized as being an "interpretational" matter. Typically, this assertion is then followed by some statement that the formalism of QM remains the same regardless of interpretation.

When I look into the various interpretations, they all have aspects that I find compelling, but I definitely feel like I'm missing important features of the concepts. I've heard it said that ALL interpretations of QT have their "warts". I thought it might be educational if the experts in the room explain what the warts of the typical interpretations are that prevent them from being more universally accepted by consensus opinion.

 

[DrChinese]

Pretty much every interpretation's main feature is a wart to some. But I hate saying anyone's "baby" has a wart.

Copenhagen (minimalist, "shut up and calculate") - doesn't explain anything occurring at a physical level.
Bohmian - explicitly nonlocal action cannot be detected and appears nowhere else, difficult to reconcile with relativity.
MWI - where are the many other worlds, and what causes a split?
Time symmetric - time only goes in one direction that we can see.

And variations on the above... so generally a matter of personal preference until a good experiment separate one or more from the pack.

 

[kith]

Demystifier made a related thread quite a while back:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...d-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics.146601/

 

[Feeble Wonk]

Demystifier made a related thread quite a while back:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...d-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics.146601/

Perfect Kith. Thank you.

 

[atyy]

As I (attempt to) follow the discussions on various QT threads here on PF, many of the subjects being discussed are frequently categorized as being an "interpretational" matter. Typically, this assertion is then followed by some statement that the formalism of QM remains the same regardless of interpretation.

When I look into the various interpretations, they all have aspects that I find compelling, but I definitely feel like I'm missing important features of the concepts. I've heard it said that ALL interpretations of QT have their "warts". I thought it might be educational if the experts in the room explain what the warts of the typical interpretations are that prevent them from being more universally accepted by consensus opinion.

I don't like the point of view that interpretation is "interpretational". Interpretation is technical. and ultimately there are consequences for experiments, in principle. So interpretation is as scientific as string theory.

I like Sean Carroll's point of view. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-many-worlds-formulation-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/.

About things like a preferred foliation in Bohmian Mechanics or the multiple outcomes in Many-Worlds - in the relativity forums, we always say: Nature does not care about what we like. So it should be with interpretation.

 

[Feeble Wonk]

Demystifier made a related thread quite a while back:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...d-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics.146601/

This post was included in the PF thread you referenced...

"Actually, I think it can be proven that quantum mechanics can be derived from logic itself. Starting from the premise that all possible states must be consistent with each other, the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics can be derived. It does not require any physical assumption or observations in the proof. Quantum mechanics is a simple consequence of consistency. Check it out:

http://www.sirus.com/users/mjake/Physlogic.htm "

...but the link gives me an error 404. Someone stole the web page! Any idea how I can access the referenced link? It looks interesting.

 

[Feeble Wonk]

But I really enjoy the entire thread.

Hey there Demystifier... It's almost been 10 years since you ran your last survey. I think it would be great if you would run another with exactly the same format. I'm really curious how opinions have changed in the interim.