4 ms·
I'm very sure that as soon as you make any useful prediction from your favorite interpretation you'll get a Nobel prize (and then it would be a real discovery i
by acqq 10y ago
I'm very sure that as soon as you make any useful prediction from your favorite interpretation you'll get a Nobel prize (and then it would be a real discovery in physics and not a philosophic talk) but nobody produced anything from these interpretations up to now, except maybe getting paid for doing a non-physics work. To me it sounds only like a philosophy question when you write "what does quantum collapse really mean in physical terms" and that "really" exposes it. To compare, there's no "real meaning" in the existence of atoms, electrons and them making molecules, but we still know it makes calculations of chemical reactions obvious. What does it "really" mean? It doesn't matter, they exist, and behave as they behave. What does it "really mean" that the electrons exist can be pushed through the conductors? It doesn't matter if you formulate the question like that, but without them existing, I wouldn't be typing this on the computer, I wouldn't even be sitting on my chair etc. Even more profound, without the electromagnetic force existing there would be no stars and no galaxies. We know that because physics. You can talk about the "meaning of it" but you won't make any discovery unless you actually do some physics.
- lisivka 10y agoIt's looks like we are talking about differences of use of physics in practice versus advancing of physics as science. No doubt, if I will need to calculate something, being paid for that, I will use proven formulas. Totally agree with you at that point. However, current major theories are in stuck, they cannot explain what we see, because now we have more data. So it is better to look for something else, which will explain everything we know already and more.
- acqq 10y agoThe theories aren't stuck, the existing ones cover everything we can measure, and that is amazing. Once the experiments make any new discovery which wouldn't match with the current theories the changes will be needed. So if you want the faster progress, support the experimental physics and the advancement in astronomy, don't repeat the talk of philosophers who do the equivalent to "how fairies really dance on the pin." But don't forget: Einstein didn't disprove Newton, Newton's formulas are just a good approximation under the circumstances that were easier for us to observe. So most of what we now know will also remain as a "set of simpler models", as it is based on the valid experiments.
- lisivka 10y agoYep, field is covered by formulas with pretty high accuracy. AFAIK, the only practical field when correction is needed is GPS satellites, but correction is extremely low. However, our vision is moot. Video above just opened my eyes.