3 ms·

The confusion with the Copenhagen interpretation comes from two main sources in my opinion: 1. What can count as a measurement? 2. Quantum ‘thing’ interacting

The confusion with the Copenhagen interpretation comes from two main sources in my opinion: 1. What can count as a measurement? 2. Quantum ‘thing’ interacting with a classical world One of my favorite talks on this subject is by Sean Carroll and offers the ‘many worlds ‘ interpretation as an alternative, mainly for its simplicity. Recommend watching the whole thing but if you want just the “debunking”: 25:11 https://youtu.be/5hVmeOCJjOU https://youtu.be/5hVmeOCJjOU

pishpash 5y ago
Interpretation is a crutch, gives nothing extra, and only obfuscates things; it should be discarded. Let's just accept that (1) we don't know the objective reality, and (2) there is something that ensures consistency of information across fairly large distances -- entanglement experiments have been done up to 1000+ km's -- maybe even across the entire universe, though the latter has never been tested.
- tome 5y ago
  > entanglement experiments have been done up to 1000+ km's Do you have a link to more info on that? I've never heard of such an experiment and I'd be interested how you send entangled particles 1000+ kms without disturbing them in a way that invalidates the experiment.
  - sampo 5y ago
    References 104 and 105 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Testing_a_system_for_entanglement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Testing_a...
    - tome 5y ago
      Ah, it's done between satellites! Interesting, thanks.
- Dudeman112 5y ago
  >Interpretation is a crutch, gives nothing extra, and only obfuscates things; it should be discarded. It assists people in considering where the models might go and make them think of experiments to invalidate/validate the interpretation. They are as good as any hypothesis and there is a point when you have to guess what things might be, even if you are not sure yet. You can't move forward without conjecture at some point.

pishpash 5y ago

Interpretation is a crutch, gives nothing extra, and only obfuscates things; it should be discarded. Let's just accept that (1) we don't know the objective reality, and (2) there is something that ensures consistency of information across fairly large distances -- entanglement experiments have been done up to 1000+ km's -- maybe even across the entire universe, though the latter has never been tested.

tome 5y ago
> entanglement experiments have been done up to 1000+ km's Do you have a link to more info on that? I've never heard of such an experiment and I'd be interested how you send entangled particles 1000+ kms without disturbing them in a way that invalidates the experiment.
- sampo 5y ago
  References 104 and 105 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Testing_a_system_for_entanglement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Testing_a...
  - tome 5y ago
    Ah, it's done between satellites! Interesting, thanks.
Dudeman112 5y ago
>Interpretation is a crutch, gives nothing extra, and only obfuscates things; it should be discarded. It assists people in considering where the models might go and make them think of experiments to invalidate/validate the interpretation. They are as good as any hypothesis and there is a point when you have to guess what things might be, even if you are not sure yet. You can't move forward without conjecture at some point.