Shut Up and Calculate, Is This One of the Scientific Noble Values We Should Apply?

[Nicholas Kang]

We used to say shut up and calculate as it is one of the famous quotes in Quantum Mechanics. My question is should we say so? Why shut up? Science shouldn't stop our inquisitive mind from solving science problems, should it?

[ajb]

I take the quote to be a warning about interpretations and falling into a philosophical trap. We know how to use quantum mechanics at a operational level, we also know that applies to nature very well and so one does not have to worry about the interpretations too much. The same applies I think to all physics. At some level it is a mathematical pursuit and one should not get too philosophical about all the details of the calculations.

[swansont]

I agree with ajb - the "shut up" part is about untestable philosophy.

[Rilx]

 

"Shut up and calculate" refers to interpretations of quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman has used it but as far as I know he is not the first user of the phrase.

 

The idea is that it's not useful to develop phenomenal interpretations (i.e. things or events which happen in human phenomenal spacetime - 3D space+1D time) about phenomena which exceed these dimensions. They won't explain anything, on the contrary, they can destroy the whole explanation. Mathematics has no limits of dimensions. If you can build a mathematical model about some excessively multidimensional phenomenon, it can predict outcomes even though you can never imagine what really happens. So, be happy and calculate.

 

Show me a person who has understood the meaning of Schrödinger's cat! Don't mind misunderstandings, I know a plethora of them. The Magnificent Observer who collapses the wave function ...

[Hendrick Laursen]

Perhaps, it's because the issue is that complicated that it's mathematical side is easier to understand than the conceptual thinking way.

[Dekan]

Perhaps, it's because the issue is that complicated that it's mathematical side is easier to understand than the conceptual thinking way.

I think that's profoundly true. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can learn how to manipulate mathematical equations. Conceptual thinking is harder.

[Nicholas Kang]

I agree with maths. But, to do maths, you need to think. Philosophy leads this field. Mind leads maths not maths lead mind. You do maths after deciding to work out the results. But thinking is the very first action. Shut up and calculate, the way I see it, are 2 different entities. The former deals with scientific noble values, which state the values that ought to be practised by a scientist-keep asking question(s), thus violating "shut up". The later deals with logistics and algorithm, stating laws and rules to be applied when doing calculation(s).

 

Thus, why compare them? There are different matters to cope with. To apply scientific noble values, one just has to have an open heart and open mind to accept altitudes when doing science experiments. To calculate values and products for maths, one has to train himself/ herself to solve equations.

 

Obviously, the problem is the phrase "shut up" and nothing to do with "calculate". Nothing wrong with "calculate". Mr. Andrew, Dr. Swansont, if the problem has to do with maths, why I don't want to start this topic in either mathematics or physics section? Because it is neither the philosophy of "calculate" nor the relationship between calculate and shut up that matters, but the real meaning of the "shut up" that counts.

[swansont]

I agree with maths. But, to do maths, you need to think. Philosophy leads this field. Mind leads maths not maths lead mind. You do maths after deciding to work out the results. But thinking is the very first action. Shut up and calculate, the way I see it, are 2 different entities. The former deals with scientific noble values, which state the values that ought to be practised by a scientist-keep asking question(s), thus violating "shut up". The later deals with logistics and algorithm, stating laws and rules to be applied when doing calculation(s).

 

Thus, why compare them? There are different matters to cope with. To apply scientific noble values, one just has to have an open heart and open mind to accept altitudes when doing science experiments. To calculate values and products for maths, one has to train himself/ herself to solve equations.

 

Obviously, the problem is the phrase "shut up" and nothing to do with "calculate". Nothing wrong with "calculate". Mr. Andrew, Dr. Swansont, if the problem has to do with maths, why I don't want to start this topic in either mathematics or physics section? Because it is neither the philosophy of "calculate" nor the relationship between calculate and shut up that matters, but the real meaning of the "shut up" that counts.

 

The context of the phrase matters very much. It was/is not used in the manner you imply, it is used only in the context of interpretations of QM. "Shut up" has nothing to do with asking questions. It has everything to do with people assigning hidden meaning and mechanisms to QM.

[ajb]

Obviously, the problem is the phrase "shut up" and nothing to do with "calculate". Nothing wrong with "calculate". Mr. Andrew, Dr. Swansont, if the problem has to do with maths, why I don't want to start this topic in either mathematics or physics section? Because it is neither the philosophy of "calculate" nor the relationship between calculate and shut up that matters, but the real meaning of the "shut up" that counts.

As swansont says, the quote is to do with taking care with interpretations and nothing to do with asking physics questions.

[Nicholas Kang]

The context of the phrase matters very much. It was/is not used in the manner you imply, it is used only in the context of interpretations of QM. "Shut up" has nothing to do with asking questions. It has everything to do with people assigning hidden meaning and mechanisms to QM.

 

Agree and sorry. How is shut up used in regimes of QM? I mean shut up for what? Not asking probabilities of particles?

nothing to do with asking physics questions.

assigning hidden meaning and mechanisms to QM.

 

This sounds like contradicting Doctor Tom Swanson`s Statement, provided that QM is not physics.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[swansont]

 

Agree and sorry. How is shut up used in regimes of QM? I mean shut up for what? Not asking probabilities of particles?

 

This sounds like contradicting Doctor Tom Swanson`s Statement, provided that QM is not physics.

 

It means not making claims that can't be tested.

[Nicholas Kang]

 

It means not making claims that can't be tested.

Examples of untestable claims?

[swansont]

Examples of untestable claims?

 

The various QM interpretations that have already been mentioned in this discussion.

[Nicholas Kang]

In this topic? You mean Rix`s post? I just see Schrodinger`s Cat in Rix`s post. Is it untestable?

[swansont]

No, it refers to the Copenhagen interpretation, or the many-worlds interpretation, or one of many others.

[Nicholas Kang]

Sorry, doctor, I don`t really get what you mean. I read about Copenhagen Interpretation before. My mind relates it with Schrodinger`s Cat problem. They said there are 3 ways to solve this problem. One is to open the box and check whether the cat has dead or still alive, this action will make either one of the probability wave of the cat`s condition to be clear, but Einstein hate it-he asked would the moon disappear becuase a mouse eat it. This approach to the cat`s problem is made/came from the Copenhagen Interpretion.

 

The second approach is the many-worlds interpretation. A scientist(I am lazy flip my book to check his name) proposed that the cat may die in one world but still alive in another world. This means the second world requires a new set of physics laws.

 

The third approach is to believe in god. Since you need infinite observer to collapse the previous`s probability waves, there must be a universal cosmic consciousness, and that is god.

 

You say it has nothing to do with Schrodinger cat`s problem but your answer seems to indirectly link back to my question, in another words, answering my question.

[swansont]

It's not a reference specifically Schrödinger's cat, even though that can be used as an example. Lots of things could be used as examples.

[Nicholas Kang]

Well, doctor, I am checkmated. Please explain in detail in your post next time so that I don`t have to ask for further explanation many times in the future. Anyway, can you explain 'lots of things could be used as example'? And please relate your explanation with this topic- you are a moderator, so I suppose you know well.

 

Please, doctor, no one/two sentences reply, if possible. Maybe I am stupid, doctor, I supposed.

[ajb]

For example, 'is wave function collapse "real"?'

 

This is more a philosophical question to most, as the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics allows us to make very accurate predictions of the atomic world we don't really care or really know what "real" means in this context. One would need to have an experiment that at least in principal depends on the necessity of wave function collapse. There are formulations of quantum mechanics that don't require wave function collapse, but I am not sure if for all of these a test is even possible; often wave function collapse can be included in these formalisms or you get the identical result without it. I am not an expert in this and you may well find better information that what I have provided.

 

Another question could be 'what is an electron "doing" when it is not being observed?'. Loosely, quantum mechanics tells us something about a particle's properties when we observe it, and nothing about what is happening when we don't observe it. A general state is a linear combination of all possible states (this is the cat thing again), and so in essence a particle does 'everything' when not being watched.

[Strange]

"Shut up and calculate" refers to interpretations of quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman has used it but as far as I know he is not the first user of the phrase.

 

And it is important to note that Feynman did a lot of speculative (and highly creative) thinking about possible "meanings" of quantum theory. But unless those lead to some insight that allows a new theory to be developed they are essentially useless. You can still use quantum mechanics whether you subscribe to some particular interpretation or none.

[Nicholas Kang]

I think most of you are supporting positivism approach, as stated in Hawking`s The Universe In a Nutshell. I agree with all of you. Thanks, in particular to Dr. Andrew for answering my question in clear and comprehensive way and your examples are clear. I roughly know what 'shut up' means. it means don`t ask things that are untestable by QM, am I right?

 

I give everyone a +1 for appreciating their efforts to help me in understanding what 'shut up' really means. Thanks.

[elfmotat]

I roughly know what 'shut up' means. it means don`t ask things that are untestable by QM, am I right?

 

Exactly!

[swansont]

I roughly know what 'shut up' means. it means don`t ask things that are untestable by QM, am I right?

 

 

I would say "make pronouncements" rather than "ask questions". I don't think I ever took "shut up and calculate" to mean "don't ask questions"

[elfmotat]

I would say "make pronouncements" rather than "ask questions". I don't think I ever took "shut up and calculate" to mean "don't ask questions"

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "don't ask untestable questions." Questions like, "is the electron really in multiple locations at once before we measure it(?)" seem like exactly the sort of thing the 'shut up and calculate' philosophy advises against.

[swansont]

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "don't ask untestable questions." Questions like, "is the electron really in multiple locations at once before we measure it(?)" seem like exactly the sort of thing the 'shut up and calculate' philosophy advises against.

 

You can always answer a question with "that's untestable", but what if someone thinks of a way to test it? And multiple location is testable, e.g. the electron actually going through both slits in the double slit experiment.