Shut-up-and-calculate is even simpler.1. It is minimalistic interpretation, it does not require additional assumptions (except may be a weak form of born rule)
2. It is deterministic
3. It is realistic
4. It allows our Universe to start from very simple or null initial conditions at t=0
5. It is compatible with Max Tegmarks MUH
6. It's weirdness is beautiful
Would you argue with Dirac or Feynman?Yes, but it is not an interpretation. Those who claim that they use only 'Shut up and calculate' are not fair enough - they are using the interpretational things (Born rule for example) to map the number they get into what they observe. When they get 0.5498585 as a result they can say only 'I get 0.549885 after my calculations'. When they say 'I get 0.549885 and hence I expect blah blah blah they DO use interpretation, they just dont admit it.
I tend to agree.I usually do not use the word "stupid" on this forum, but this time I cannot resist. What other word to use for a poll in which string theory, M-theory and LQG are proclaimed - interpretations of QM?
What are emitters and absorbers? Does this interpretation say that there are objects not defined by wave functions? Is Schrodinger equation violated at the places where emitters and absorbers are present?I Like Transactional Interpretation.
- It explains the whole process of "wave function collapse". Wave function does not magically disappeared after it is collapsed. It canceled out as the transaction is completed.
- Wave function is physically "real" wave.
- It's time symmetric.
- Observer has no special role in collapse of wavefunction. Emitter and Absorber(Observer) of wave function are the same
Emitter and Absober are exactly the charged particle that radiate the wave. E.g., electron emits/absorbs a photon during transition to another energy state.What are emitters and absorbers? Does this interpretation say that there are objects not defined by wave functions? Is Schrodinger equation violated at the places where emitters and absorbers are present?
Can you write down equations that govern the behavior of this particle? Is it the classical equation of motion? Also the question that I have already asked but you didn't answer: Is Schrodinger equation violated at the positions of charged particles? Finally, what about particles without charge?Emitter and Absober are exactly the charged particle that radiate the wave. E.g., electron emits/absorbs a photon during transition to another energy state.
Good point, but I'm afraid that the problem with the transactional interpretation could be even much worse than the problem with CI.That theory has the same problem as CI.
Observer, or emitter, or absorber are not well defined and magic
1 No, it is minimalistic. It had been discussed many times. MWI does not introduce additional postulated hence it is minimalistic1
MWI on the other hand is an abomination - the most extreme violation of Ockham's Razor one can imagine and
I can't see how it solves anything as there still has to be some kind of a "collapse."
Something has to determine which possibility happens to each observer since there is at least one special observer - the one in which my conscious resides - and this special observer is only experiencing one possibility and not the other so there has to be a "collapse" to determine which one it is.
1. It postulates existence of immense/infinite number of additional unobservable universes whose number is constantly growing and which are being created out of nothing.1 No, it is minimalistic. It had been discussed many times. MWI does not introduce additional postulated hence it is minimalistic
2 Quantum Decoherence
3 How do you know that your consiousness resides in only one branch?
There are many interpretations on the market. They all are interesting and have their own good features. The reason I chose "shut up and calculate" is not that I do not care about interpretations. It is because I consider most important first to be able to calculate on its own, 6 and a half days a week, while not closing one's eye on alternative interpretations on the basis of philosophical prejudice, but only do it on spare time. The vast majority of working physicists is not working on foundations, and they mostly "shut up and calculate". As far as I can tell, I have seen too often, on this very forum, people arguing about such interpretation while not being able to calculate, and I think it is vain.