An Interesting view on the Interpretations of QM Split fm If I can ...

[kristalris]

I'm very busy at the moment but I came across this paper that goes a long way as I see it and also being thus current science on this topic

 

.http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/our-quantum-reality-problem/

[pantheory]

I'm very busy at the moment but I came across this paper that goes a long way as I see it and also being thus current science on this topic

 

.http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/our-quantum-reality-problem/

 

 

Yes, the article seems to properly state this well-known problem.

 

The general problems with Quantum Theory are well known to all that have studied it, As to what the problems actually are, however, is just a matter of opinion. This is why there are at least four major versions of the theory, many versions of which have little in common. The system of Quantum Mechanics was first based upon observation and then theory followed. One might expect any such theory primarily based upon the math alone, could conceivably have many versions of verbal explanation. For quantum theory to become a relatively simple theory I would expect new discoveries would need to be made. One such possibility discussed would be some kind of hidden variables in a background field. Such ideas today include dark matter, a Higgs field, gravitons, an aether of some kind, dark energy, actions of the Zero Point Field, etc.

 

From what I've read most practitioners of QM are not much concerned about changes of Quantum Theory since I think the prevailing thought would be that even radical changes in theory toward simplicity or greater complexity, would generally not alter the equations of QM since they are observation and probability equations, based upon a long history of observations in the quantum world. Theory is the basis/logic/justifications to explain the equations being used, as well as the interpretation of observations and related reasoning, or lack thereof.

[imatfaal]

Pan - I am not so sure I agree with your depiction of early quantum theory as observation-lead - the leaps of Max Planck in 1901 and Einstein a few later were vast theoretical jumps forward. They contradicted much of the observation that light and EMR in general was wave form, they went against Maxwell's equations giving a wave form (which IIRC Einstein always held as some of the greatest theoretical work ever), and I think on the whole they are best characterised as theory-lead and intuition-based rather than emprically-obvious. You can get both papers on line - and whilst the maths is pretty tame compared to some modern papers they include a fair amount of maths, far more than the SR paper which you can get through with school level maths. And later Quantum theory has been shown to be correct by subsequent experimentation rather than the other way around. Even the most famous bit - Heinsenburgs Uncertainty principle arises from the maths.

 

The reason quantum theorists can (and sometime are) be unconcerned about the issues raised in the article is not because the maths and equations take a back seat to the observations - in fact it is almost the opposite. The "interpretations" of the observations and of the maths - take a back seat to the maths and equations. It is a case of we don't know or care what the the underlying mechanism or "but why" of these equations is - but they work superbly and we haven't found anyway yet to distinguish the various ideas and interpretations so we will "shut up and calculate". And it is this strange split in knowledge that the article was addressing

[kristalris]

 

The reason quantum theorists can (and sometime are) be unconcerned about the issues raised in the article is not because the maths and equations take a back seat to the observations - in fact it is almost the opposite. The "interpretations" of the observations and of the maths - take a back seat to the maths and equations. It is a case of we don't know or care what the the underlying mechanism or "but why" of these equations is - but they work superbly and we haven't found anyway yet to distinguish the various ideas and interpretations so we will "shut up and calculate". And it is this strange split in knowledge that the article was addressing

And that is exactly where current quantum theorists go wrong "shut up and calculate". It should be: "don't shut up and calculate".

 

1. Get all the observations in their essence as a picture in the minds eye of the people with the most humour, and who can draw accurately 3D. Ergo the ones that can perform relative thought and who can thus prove to actually observe properly. The ones that can come up with adult guesses on issues like this. (Of the fastest thinkers (male/female) in an unsafe environment only (less than) 10% can do that, in a safe environment this on more difficult issues can't rise higher than 50% - of all fastest thinkers - as current psychology shows. They are always in the minority especially in an unsafe environment. ) That you can do the mathematics on relativity doesn't mean you know what you are doing. Extremely fast thinkers with all the knowledge in the world on relativity with no sense of humour nor accurate 3D drawing ability will at best only be able to provide a guess of an average creative six year old. That is what is left after cutting away all the overly complicated humbug they produce, and produce a lot of. The only trick they can perform is shut up and calculate, by extrapolating mathematics. Earning them an honourary doctorate at the famous Escher Institute on water streaming upwards and something from nothing. And indeed sometimes that will work, creating the illusion that they are on the right track, yet it will become less and less gain for effort if you aren't able to guess properly to not only speed things up but also to keep it going. Predictably as we observe and the article points out you run into trouble. The creative can't keep on bailing these authoritative mental six year olds out on part issues. They at a point will have to go integral. Thereby breaking the six year olds rules. Now try and explain this to a majority of mental six year olds on actual relativity who are the authoritative peers only because they know the book by heart. These six year olds can only perform mirroring i.e. see in the other what they them selves are. They always extrapolate their own norms on others, because they simply can't envisage that others could be different and are simply much better at certain (crucial) tasks. You can't blame them for it probably is the DNA and how that is distributed in the different ants of the ants-heap. (Be it nature or nurture because current psychology also dictates this.)

 

Mental six year olds hold on to their paradigm until it is to late even in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They go in a Bayesian inversion, just like the way how to catch a baboon. This 1 minute film shows how to do that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZRz1ETyfu4

The Baboon clings on to its "paradigm" banana knowing that it is going to get caught yet guessing it will still get away if it pulls hard enough. Only when it is actually caught does it let go when it is to late. The same in humans as history repeatedly shows and current psychology also shows. I guess that the baboon might learn from this and not repeat the mistake in exactly the same situation when using a banana. I guess it will make the same stupid mistake when it is not a banana. (Quite irrelevant what you put in the hole BTW.)

 

2. Try in a broad sense to rearrange all the pieces of the puzzle filling in the missing parts via guessing. = Inductive, integral, intuitive like Einstein did. Albeit that Einstein did it via thought experiments on part issues now yet to be married QM & GR.

 

3. Take that as a fact and figure out how to test that.

 

4. Test it on logic, being fully integral and see which subsequently are most probable and easiest to test. Norm: close is close enough for testing. Logic: when you know that you don't know how it works you are in science PROHIBITED to be to accurate (or inaccurate of course). "To" accurate = pseudo science. This is NOT democratic but a dictate of logic and thus a conditio sine qua non for science, => Bye bye mathematics in this faze as a required norm.

 

5. Test of mathematics and / or test of observation. This then finally is to be done in the most rigorous and accurate way. Here then our highly educated experienced extremely fast thinking otherwise mental six year old can do his or her stuff like a near yet then happy robot. In the correct scientific order.

Edited February 1, 2014 by kristalris