The forum discussion centers on the distinction between the "standard" and "realist" views in quantum mechanics. The standard approach emphasizes writing equations and making measurable predictions, while the realist approach prioritizes defining the nature of the world before formulating equations. Participants debate the implications of these approaches, noting that many physicists blend elements of both, complicating the categorization of viewpoints. The conversation highlights the challenges in interpreting quantum mechanics, particularly regarding the nature of quantum objects and the role of measurement.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of scientific theories will benefit from this discussion.
Astronomers don't really talk about such unobserved things. Perhaps astrophysicists do, and when they do they do it with a grain of salt, but astronomers don't. One way to frame such questions is to ask what would another observer beyond the horizon observe, if she was there?Quantum Waver said:In a broader sense, what about when astronomers talk about the larger universe outside our light cone, or the physics inside a black hole?
One poster in another thread claimed that microphysical objects were non-mathematical (not describable by math, ie wavefunction isn't real). I think they were a QBist. I would put it differently. Quanta aren't particles (classically speaking), they're waves in fields, so their values are spread out until a measurement is made (observationally speaking at least). But whatever the case, something real on the fundamental level gives rise to devices, measurements, observers and makes the formalism work.physika said:Right.
just Counterfactual Definiteness, not to be real or not.
or there have to say; is unreal but exist...
Couldn't agree more!Quantum Waver said:Quanta aren't particles (classically speaking), they're waves in fields, so their values are spread out until a measurement is made