3 ms·

> suppressed "unconventional" interpretations of quantum mechanics (like the many worlds interpretation) in favor of the obviously-wrong Copenhagen interpretati

> suppressed "unconventional" interpretations of quantum mechanics (like the many worlds interpretation) in favor of the obviously-wrong Copenhagen interpretation. They’re just interpretations and they all work equally well and produce the same predictions. It makes no sense to call any of them obviously wrong. It’s personal preference.

tbabb 8y ago
Copenhagen is wrong to the degree that any theory can be called wrong. It posits specific physical events (collapse) which are not only unsupported by evidence, and not only contradicted by evidence (delayed choice quantum eraser experiments), and not only logically self contradictory (when it is not too vague to make concrete statements about the phenomena it is explaining, it is circular-- our theory of electrons cannot include scientists (or the macroscopic world in general) as a fundamental element, when scientists themselves are explained in terms of electrons), but ontologically inferior to many worlds, which explains all the same phenomena without adding any new suppositions (and no, the extra worlds are not extra suppositions, they are natural predictions that arise by simply following well verified quantum laws to their natural conclusion, by treating the environment as a quantum mechanical system of particles).
- ymolodtsov 8y ago
  MW might be simpler in the way it arises but while it produces the same results it doesn’t really matter. And it definitely has enough supporters to ruin the “stubborn physicists” hypothesis.
perl4ever 8y ago
Is it possible though, that Copenhagen is wrong in a similar manner to epicycles that give the correct numerical answer? That's the impression I get as a non-physicist, that yes it's kind of an aesthetic preference, but on the other hand aesthetics are important and sometimes are pivotal in finding new insights. Ugly may not be completely objective, but it isn't completely arbitrary either.
- sanxiyn 8y ago
  I should correct an important misconception. Epicycles do not produce correct predictions. Epicycles can produce correct point location of planets, but do not produce correct phase. Galileo observed heliocentrism-compatible phase of Venus with his telescope. That was the crucial experiment, not the simplicity.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    I don't think it's important to my point. The point remains that multiple theories can be equivalent in some restricted sense, yet the more aesthetic one might have greater potential.
    - ymolodtsov 8y ago
      But it matters. All the major interpretations give you the same results (otherwise we’d just test it and rule out the wrong ones).

tbabb 8y ago

Copenhagen is wrong to the degree that any theory can be called wrong. It posits specific physical events (collapse) which are not only unsupported by evidence, and not only contradicted by evidence (delayed choice quantum eraser experiments), and not only logically self contradictory (when it is not too vague to make concrete statements about the phenomena it is explaining, it is circular-- our theory of electrons cannot include scientists (or the macroscopic world in general) as a fundamental element, when scientists themselves are explained in terms of electrons), but ontologically inferior to many worlds, which explains all the same phenomena without adding any new suppositions (and no, the extra worlds are not extra suppositions, they are natural predictions that arise by simply following well verified quantum laws to their natural conclusion, by treating the environment as a quantum mechanical system of particles).

ymolodtsov 8y ago
MW might be simpler in the way it arises but while it produces the same results it doesn’t really matter. And it definitely has enough supporters to ruin the “stubborn physicists” hypothesis.

perl4ever 8y ago

Is it possible though, that Copenhagen is wrong in a similar manner to epicycles that give the correct numerical answer? That's the impression I get as a non-physicist, that yes it's kind of an aesthetic preference, but on the other hand aesthetics are important and sometimes are pivotal in finding new insights. Ugly may not be completely objective, but it isn't completely arbitrary either.

sanxiyn 8y ago
I should correct an important misconception. Epicycles do not produce correct predictions. Epicycles can produce correct point location of planets, but do not produce correct phase. Galileo observed heliocentrism-compatible phase of Venus with his telescope. That was the crucial experiment, not the simplicity.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  I don't think it's important to my point. The point remains that multiple theories can be equivalent in some restricted sense, yet the more aesthetic one might have greater potential.
  - ymolodtsov 8y ago
    But it matters. All the major interpretations give you the same results (otherwise we’d just test it and rule out the wrong ones).