5 ms·

> I don't believe any of the possible interpretations of QM have a clear path to being proven, so are they pseudoscience as well? The characterization is a lit

> I don't believe any of the possible interpretations of QM have a clear path to being proven, so are they pseudoscience as well? The characterization is a little bit harsh, but yes. The Copenhagen interpretation is non-falsifiable, (relative to MWI) so while I don't know what it is, I know it isn't science. There's a reason most reputable scientific journals don't accept papers dealing with interpretations of quantum mechanics. There's no "there" there. Hawking radiation is interesting because a proof of lack of Hawking radiation is a proof of the falsehood of quantum mechanics. Which is really interesting; any time you can falsify something like quantum mechanics every physicist should be paying attention. Also, if certain models of string theory are correct, particle accelerators like the LHC should be able to produce micro black holes, which will then evaporate in detectable ways. So Hawking radiation is of observational interest as of 2010 as a possible way to provide evidence to support string theory. (spoiler alert: we didn't find any)

NotSammyHagar 7y ago
It feels like you are way too quick to kick things out that aren't on a path to being proven. String theory forever has had the problem that it didn't make experimentally verifiable conclusions. A quick web search finds recent articles discussing apparently discussing this. Aren't people still working on string theory? Or why is mwi impossible to verify.
- mrpara 7y ago
  The difference is, string theorists are trying. Everyone knows that it is a major problem that we cannot currently design experiments to falsify ST or other quantum gravity theories, and everyone is working towards it in the hope that one day we may. When it comes to interpretations of QM, there is not only nothing on the horizon, people don't even speak in these terms. No one is insisting on falsifiablity, and indeed every new interpretation seems completely hell-bent on just providing a "story" around the equations in a way that does not - and fundamentally cannot - make any predictions that contradict basic QM. I can count on one hand the number of interpretations I can think of that make experimentally testable assertions, and for those I have plenty of respect[1]. But the majority of interpretations and their proponents seem to deliberately stay within the comfort zone of non-falsifiablity, writing paper after paper whose actual impact on either physics or philosophy can be summed up with "yeah well, that's just like, your opinion, man". I did my MSC in physics under a professor who is a well-known proponent of MWI (though my master's thesis was not directly related to the subject). Two years of working side by side with him proved to me that the detractors of work on interpretations are, by and large, correct in their assertions about the proponents of them. [1] There is this one theory whose name I cannot remember, where each particle in the universe gets their wavefunction multiplied by a delta function or very thin gaussian at random intervals, and whose sudden localization also causes a sort of chain reaction and localizes all particles it is entangled with. This theory is interesting because it helps set a (statistical) limit between microscopic and macroscopic interactions; basically, when you go past a certain number of entangled particles, everything will be well-localized virtually all of the time, but for small numbers of particles we'll see quantum phenomena. Unfortunately I recall this theory having too many holes, and perhaps it has already been falsified, but the point is that at least it made an effort to address inherent problems in QM (namely, wavefunction collapse) in a way that physicists actually should; by making testable claims.
  - MauranKilom 7y ago
    This was linked above and sound like the theory your footnote describes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%...
    - mrpara 7y ago
      That's the one! Thanks.
krzat 7y ago
Maybe particles and black holes are the same thing. They behave differently due to quantum gravity mechanics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

It feels like you are way too quick to kick things out that aren't on a path to being proven. String theory forever has had the problem that it didn't make experimentally verifiable conclusions. A quick web search finds recent articles discussing apparently discussing this. Aren't people still working on string theory? Or why is mwi impossible to verify.

mrpara 7y ago
The difference is, string theorists are trying. Everyone knows that it is a major problem that we cannot currently design experiments to falsify ST or other quantum gravity theories, and everyone is working towards it in the hope that one day we may. When it comes to interpretations of QM, there is not only nothing on the horizon, people don't even speak in these terms. No one is insisting on falsifiablity, and indeed every new interpretation seems completely hell-bent on just providing a "story" around the equations in a way that does not - and fundamentally cannot - make any predictions that contradict basic QM. I can count on one hand the number of interpretations I can think of that make experimentally testable assertions, and for those I have plenty of respect[1]. But the majority of interpretations and their proponents seem to deliberately stay within the comfort zone of non-falsifiablity, writing paper after paper whose actual impact on either physics or philosophy can be summed up with "yeah well, that's just like, your opinion, man". I did my MSC in physics under a professor who is a well-known proponent of MWI (though my master's thesis was not directly related to the subject). Two years of working side by side with him proved to me that the detractors of work on interpretations are, by and large, correct in their assertions about the proponents of them. [1] There is this one theory whose name I cannot remember, where each particle in the universe gets their wavefunction multiplied by a delta function or very thin gaussian at random intervals, and whose sudden localization also causes a sort of chain reaction and localizes all particles it is entangled with. This theory is interesting because it helps set a (statistical) limit between microscopic and macroscopic interactions; basically, when you go past a certain number of entangled particles, everything will be well-localized virtually all of the time, but for small numbers of particles we'll see quantum phenomena. Unfortunately I recall this theory having too many holes, and perhaps it has already been falsified, but the point is that at least it made an effort to address inherent problems in QM (namely, wavefunction collapse) in a way that physicists actually should; by making testable claims.
- MauranKilom 7y ago
  This was linked above and sound like the theory your footnote describes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%...
  - mrpara 7y ago
    That's the one! Thanks.

krzat 7y ago

Maybe particles and black holes are the same thing. They behave differently due to quantum gravity mechanics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron