Which Interpretation Do You Set Camp With?

The Copenhagen Interpretation:
Developed in 1920's by the 'father and mother' of physics called Niels Bohr. He named his work after his own town, in Denmark. This interpretation on fundamental behaviour became 'textbook' knowledge, and became the most accepted quantum interpretation ever devised. Though, despite this fact, as you may know, many have long abandoned this interpretation. With all of reality due to a collapse postulate, the observer and the observed play intrinsic roles. However, this world is shadowed by ignorism, and that the interpretation states that not everything can ever be known... that is, if it something isn't measurable or experimental, why bother contemplating such a fact?

Another problem was the infinitesimal world of fundamental coherency. Somehow - just somehow... particles merge together and create entire systems, despite being made up of quantum wave functions. The question is, without any particular collapse on the fundamental level, how do these statistics create whole entire systems? How does reality make sense, of what should be totally senseless? This paradox is most associated with the Schrödinger cat experiment. The Copenhagen interpretation is [vague] about this ''leap'' from the fundamental to the everyday objects we envision and perceive. For instance, it states that ''everyday objects are far too big to show any weird behaviour.''

Howsoever, this isn't enough for certain scientists, and it isn't really difficult to understand why. More was needed in physics... new science was just around the quantum corner...

The De Broglie-Bohm Interpretation:
First proposed by the 'quantum pioneer', Louis de Broglie, who believed that all quantum interaction and weirdness was all put down to ''pilot waves''. His idea was put down into theoretical development by the American physicist, David Bohm, who inexorably seeked for the clarity in the obvious vagueness of the standard interpretation by using 'hard law physics'. A quantum system is run by definite properties, even when not being observed, by virtue of a 'pilot wave' accompanying every particle.

However, all of this comes with the so-called, ''quantum potential;'' this is an all-spacetime filling field that is supposed to inform particles about their environment. It is this supposed field that ''tells'' particles how to behave when a certain apparatus is used to observe them... More importantly, the quantum potential is able to do all this at superluminal speeds. It was this that really brought the theory to a halt in the 1950's... however, it became revived in the 80's when the ''Aspect Experiment,'' which proved entanglement, had shown such instantaneous effects to be intrinsic within any good quantum theory.

The Existential Interpretation:
In the 1980's, a growing number of smartly-minded scientists and theoretical astrophysicists began to study the interactional coherency between quantum systems and their surrounding in a more investigated research.

The Existential Interpretation worked with, what is called, 'quantum decoherence,' which showed that fundamental laws are inconsistent when compared with everyday macroscopic quantum systems. In the 1990's, Wojciech Zurek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, believes wholeheartedly that quantum decoherence does not cause the ''collapse'' of all but one of the possible conditions of a quantum system, but just affects some quantum states more than others. It is inexorably the value of things we observe everyday.

Dr. Zureks interpretation involves the Copenhagen interpretation - but eradicates the theory of the so-called 'collapse', and instead opts for the multiverse interpretation. However, as you might know, the Existential Model states the existence of 'decoherence,' which is a bona-fide fact of physics, as it is known to exist. So far, this interpretation cannot be disproved.

The Alternate Universe Interpretation
Also known as 'Multiverse Theory,' 'Many worlds Theory,' or 'Parallel Universe Theory'. Created by Hugh Everett the III, it was a way of explaining the estranged wavelike and particlelike properties by a constant merging and splitting off of universes. These universes come into existence due to the wave function, and no collapse occurs in this interpretation. Instead, the wave function represents our universe, splitting off into as many possibilities the wave function ascribes. The problem with this theory is that we have never observed another universe. Also, the theory itself is problematic, as it has a high improbability as being the correct interpretation that fits nature. This is because the idea of the constant splitting and merging brings out that little voice in the back of your head saying, 'something just isn't right.'

The idea of the universe, 'playing it safe,' like this, could explain why uncertainty appears in our reality - because every possible outcome is shared among every universe, paradoxically sharing the same space. However, in the writing of this book, i read a recent survey saying that Multiple Universe theory was a theory being increasingly considered by more and more scientists - but this is not going to deter me. If I’m wrong fine - we learn through our mistakes - but i am in opposition to the interpretation, though 'Ekpyrotic Cosmological Theory' amuses me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hate to admit it, but I guess I'm another one of those irresponsible types who is content to merely use quantum reality without knowing how it works.

I'm an ignorist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not even physicists know what quantum theory is about - so don't sweat it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does it matter? If you can get numbers out of it that don't contradict experiment, why do you care?

 

Well, normally I don't give a hoot either, but pondering the underlying why's and wherefor's can lead to insights that might lead to new umm... stuff?

Just IMO.

 

The numbers aren't reality though, and interpreting the theory correctly may affect the way the numbers are used when compared to experimental data.

 

F03, we may not have agreed in the past...but i wholeheartedly agree with your last postulation.

 

Yeah I guess. It is interesting to think about. But I'd rather be doing physics than philosophy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Leave that for people with tenure.

 

Yep.

 

I don't "set camp" with any interpretation because, uh, I'm not a physicist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You don't need to be...why is there such dogmatism with asking which set you go for? It's a valid question,for both scientist and layman.

 

It is not really a question for laymen, because "setting camp" with any of these interpretations without sufficient information would be just as good as firing a gun blindfolded. An intelligent guess requires a basis on which to rely.

 

Reiku---this isn't a science questions. ``Interpretations'' can not be tested.

I have invented my own interpretation. It's called the magic pixie interpretation of quantum mechanics. Magic Pixies, which cannot be observed (by definition), determine the outcome of experiments.

 

Interesting Ben... Please, do continue.

 

Yes they can. Certain interpretations can change the way the mathematical calculations are applied in comparing the theory to reality. I would say that an interpretation is a prediction of future theories on the subject - until further information is available, all interpretations may be equal, but when further information is made available, some interpretations will be ruled out, and one or several of the contenting interpretations will be qualified as credible.

On the other hand, your interpretation that cannot be tested by definition is not a true scientific standpoint.

 

Mmmm... I have to admit... the whole goal of having an interpretation,is that it fits reality and mathematics accordingly.

 

Well, one could imagine a theory that would be straightforward enough, that it wouldn't require an interpretation. More deeper physical theories tend not to be that simplistic though, although they may be originally intended to be.

 

Agreed.

 

No consistent interpretation can be tested, a priori. The interpretations we have are all consistent, they all lead to the same consequences, as does my magic pixie interpretation (by construction). Choosing an interpretation is reduced to a matter of taste.

 

An interpretation can only be consistent in the set of information available at the time of making the interpretation. Any further bit of information may act as reality pointing out an inconsistency in the interpretation.
You are assuming that the information we have available at the moment is all of the information that can possibly be obtained, which is obviously wrong. Also, if an interpretation is by definition unverifiable, no matter what extra information may be obtained, it is of no practical value.