What Defines the Standard and Realist Views in Quantum Mechanics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the distinction between the "standard" and "realist" views in quantum mechanics, exploring the philosophical and methodological implications of each approach. Participants examine how these views relate to theoretical physics and the interpretation of quantum mechanics, touching on the nature of equations, predictions, and the ontology of physical theories.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the standard approach focuses on writing equations and making measurable predictions, while the realist approach emphasizes stating what the world is made of before deriving equations.
  • Others argue that the origins of the equations in the standard approach are not clearly defined, raising questions about the foundational aspects of quantum mechanics.
  • A participant suggests that the distinction between realists and standard approaches may not be as clear-cut, noting that many physicists must claim their theories describe the real world, regardless of their approach.
  • There is a discussion about the historical context of theories, with references to Maxwell and the concept of "ether," highlighting how scientific understanding evolves over time.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the relevance of the proposed distinctions, questioning whether they accurately map onto majority and minority viewpoints in the field.
  • A later reply introduces the idea that realists may be dissatisfied with the standard approach and seek alternative viewpoints, rather than starting with a clear ontology.
  • One participant describes the standard approach as focusing on the behavior of systems without necessarily constructing an ontology, while the realist approach seeks to explain the underlying mechanisms of observed phenomena.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relevance or clarity of the distinctions between the standard and realist approaches. Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about the implications and interpretations of each perspective.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining the origins of equations and the implications of different interpretations of quantum mechanics. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions and uncertainties regarding the nature of physical theories and their ontological commitments.

  • #91
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?
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
You can ask, but never check the answer :-).
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Structure seeker
  • #93
Quantum Waver said:
Agreed, but someone might say that 'realism' is misleading and they just mean giving up on determinate values before a measurement is made.

Right.

just Counterfactual Definiteness, not to be real or not.
or there have to say; is unreal but exist...

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Quantum Waver
  • #94
physika said:
Right.

just Counterfactual Definiteness, not to be real or not.
or there have to say; is unreal but exist...
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: physika and Structure seeker
  • #95
(I think that:)
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
Couldn't agree more!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 204 ·
7
Replies
204
Views
12K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
8K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
15K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K