What was Feynman's stance on interpretation of quantum mechanics?

[efaizi]

Hi
please answer my question. quantum mechanic in Sakurayi , Gaziorovich books belong to which of interpretations(many worlds, copenhagen, ...)? thanks.

 

[Fredrik]

It's been a while since I read those books. Did they even mention interpretations? I think they're both in the shut-up-and-calculate camp. (By the way, most of us here think Ballentine is a better advanced book than Sakurai, and I think there are lots of introductory books that are much better than Gasiorowicz. I also think that no matter what books you study for your classes, it would be a good idea to read Isham book on the side).

 

[efaizi]

I mean that, can we study the quantum books, without knowing of interpretations. Do the postulates of quantum mechanics rely on interpretations?

 

[ZapperZ]

I mean that, can we study the quantum books, without knowing of interpretations. Do the postulates of quantum mechanics rely on interpretations?

They are following Feynman's "Shut Up And Calculate" interpretation.

Zz.

 

[Fredrik]

I mean that, can we study the quantum books, without knowing of interpretations. Do the postulates of quantum mechanics rely on interpretations?

We certainly can. At least if we can resist the temptation to attribute any more meaning to the mathematical quantities than we have reason to. Just think of state vectors as nothing more than mathematical objects that we associate with equivalence classes of state preparation procedures, and you'll do fine.

There are at least two different types of interpretations in physics.

1. To turn a piece of mathematics into a theory of physics, you need to write down a set of axioms that tells us how to interpret the mathematics as predictions about results of experiments.

2. To turn a theory of physics into a description of what actually happens between state preparation and measurement, you may or may not need an additional set of axioms that tells you how to interpret the statements that the theory makes about other things than measurements.

Interpretations of the second kind are absolutely trivial when we're dealing with classical theories. There's always an obvious interpretation. Not so in QM. An "interpretation of quantum mechanics" can be a set of statements that belongs to the second category, but they sometimes change the definition of the theory as well, which means that they're have a foot in each category.

They are following [strike]Feynman's[/strike] Mermin's "Shut Up And Calculate" interpretation.

You might be interested in http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_57/iss_5/10_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1 .

 

[dx]

They are following Feynman's "Shut Up And Calculate" interpretation.

Zz.

It makes me a little angry when such a stupid and mindless statement is attributed to one of the great geniuses of the 20th century. First of all, the 'shut up and calculate' 'interpretation' is due to David Mermin. Secondly, on the matter of Feynman's position on interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is clear that his views were in line with Bohr and Heinsenberg, as the following quote shows:

"It is very interesting that in the quantum mechanics the amplitudes φ are solutions of a completely deterministic equation. The interpretation of |φ|² as the probability of an event is an indeterministic interpretation. It is very remarkable that this interpretation does not lead to any inconsistencies. That it is true has been amply demostrated by analysis of many particular situations Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, von Neumann and many other physicists. We know we have a consistent interpretation of φ, and almost without doubt, the only consistent one."