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

[elfmotat]

And multiple location is testable, e.g. the electron actually going through both slits in the double slit experiment.

I'm not sure I understand. When we look to see which slit it goes through we find it only ever goes through one or the other. What it's doing before we measure it is untestable by definition.

[swansont]

I'm not sure I understand. When we look to see which slit it goes through we find it only ever goes through one or the other. What it's doing before we measure it is untestable by definition.

 

A single electron interferes with itself when both slits are open. It has to be present in both slits.

[elfmotat]

A single electron interferes with itself when both slits are open. It has to be present in both slits.

That's just your interpretation; you're making claims about what it's doing when nobody can see it, which is the definition of "untestable." There is absolutely no way to test whether or not it "really" does go through both, even in principle, without destroying the interference.

Edited October 28, 2014 by elfmotat

[swansont]

That's just your interpretation; you're making claims about what it's doing when nobody can see it, which is the definition of "untestable." There is absolutely no way to test whether or not it "really" does go through both, even in principle, without destroying the interference.

 

The QM, absent of any interpretation, says that the wave function must be nonzero in two places (i.e. there must be some kind of superposition) in order to have interference. What this may boil down to is how one defines being in two places (whether that means that the location is undefined), or what is really meant by the wave function, and yes, I see your point — that leads you into interpretations. The math lacks this ambiguity, which leads us back to shut up and calculate.

[elfmotat]

 

The QM, absent of any interpretation, says that the wave function must be nonzero in two places (i.e. there must be some kind of superposition) in order to have interference. What this may boil down to is how one defines being in two places (whether that means that the location is undefined), or what is really meant by the wave function, and yes, I see your point — that leads you into interpretations. The math lacks this ambiguity, which leads us back to shut up and calculate.

 

Agreed. The math itself is not ambiguous - everyone agrees that the particle's state is a superposition of eigenstates, but what that actually means is up for interpretation.

[Willie71]

I always understood this to be related to the limitations of language, which are based on "common sense" interpretations of the world, which in simple terms are a very crude, innacurate reflection of reality. Our senses cannot detect most of what the universe is doing or not doing, so using language that is incapable of describing the universe accurately is inappropriate. Visualizing (ie. thought experiments) and mathematics are how the universe can be "understood." Language is simply not capable of describing the universe.

[ZVBXRPL]

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?

If you observe the Quantum world and come to a conclusion "wow, that's crazy, doesn't make any sense" you can assume that the Universe is indeed crazy or you can assume that you yourself are crazy for thinking the Universe is crazy.

Whichever assumption you make, crazy is a constant.