But the question of the interpretation of QM as the meaning of solutions of Schrödinger's equation in physical terms, has remained without an answer, despite heroic efforts by the sharpest of minds.
The Reference Frame takes up the question in a recent post stimulated by the following summary of the situation by Scott Aronson:
- As for Copenhagen, I’ve described it as “shut-up and calculate except without ever shutting up about it”! I regard Bohr’s writings on the subject as barely comprehensible, and Copenhagen as less of an interpretation than a self-conscious anti-interpretation: a studied refusal to offer any account of the actual constituents of the world, and—most of all—an insistence that if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview, and haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution.
- But the basic split between Many-Worlds and Copenhagen (or better: between Many-Worlds and “shut-up-and-calculate” / “QM needs no interpretation” / etc.), I regard as coming from two fundamentally different conceptions of what a scientific theory is supposed to do for you. Is it supposed to posit an objective state for the universe, or be only a tool that you use to organize your experiences?
Aronson concludes:
- Indeed, about the only thing I can think of that might definitively settle the debate, would be the discovery of an even deeper level of description than QM—but such a discovery would “settle” the debate only by completely changing the terms of it.
See also this recent article in Scientific American: Thinking Outside the Quantum Box.

Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar