Interpretations of the Wave Equation

>>7695721
I like the Micho Keku interpretation personally

who gives a heck?

>>7695721

I don't know anything about this chart, but the simple fact that I can't seem to draw a single straight line through it, in any direction, and have everything be the same color, suggests to me that God is fucking with me.

t. an atheist math major

>>7695747
Science?

No physicists around?

Or is everybody just part of the "Shut up and calculate" camp?

File: 20+11.png (146KB, 598x355px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 598x355px

Polled scientists' preferences.

>>7695798
Do most people really prefer the Copenhagen interpretation? Or do they just accept it because it's the most commonly taught?

Some of its ideas are kind of silly

>>7695816
What's the matter anon? Don't like le randumbness

>>7695825
Not randomness itself, but the fact that it transitions from random to deterministic at some arbitrary point.

Also its vague description of measurements, and how they're magic processes that turn non-deterministic systems into deterministic ones

I'm still an undergrad, so I don't really know that much about quantum physics yet. However, I would very strongly prefer it if the universe was deterministic. I realize that the evidence seems to point towards a probabilistic universe right now and I'll continue to believe it to be true until the evidence no longer supports it. I would definitely be going through it with a fine-tooth comb though, trying to find any shred of determinism in quantum physics.

>>7695798
Copenhagen and "Information-based" just don't really feel like full explanations of what's going on. Many-worlds is the best because it makes the fewest assumptions about the universe without having any holes in the theory

>>7695850
Physicists like Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen famously believed the universe to be deterministic (e.g. Einstein's quote "God doesn't throw dice"). They believed the uncertainty came from some hidden variables, and thus quantum mechanics as a theory was incomplete. Bell's inequality has

Most serious theories treat quantum physics as nondeterministic, though their reasons why vary ; from limitations in measurability to quantum interactions being inherently random. Bell's inequality has pretty much ruled out the hidden variable theory, but there are things like the many-worlds interpretation which more or less explain away non-determinism by purporting the observer gets entangled in the system.

It's probably bouncing of probably realities [or other fields/waves] and choosing the path of least resistance, filling in the gaps.
Quantum waves are a blind man tapping it's cane before it takes a step.

>>7695879
Yeah I thought I read about the hidden variable theory no longer being viable. So how many of these interpretations have actually been disproven by now?

>>7695753
Just because the yeses are green doesn't mean you want your theory to have them.

>>7695879
>Bell's inequality has pretty much ruled out the hidden variable theory
>>7695885
>the hidden variable theory no longer being viable
Not true. You just have to throw out locality if you want to have hidden variables. See: de Broglie-Bohm

>>7695850
>I realize that the evidence seems to point towards a probabilistic universe right now
It doesn't. The evidence is perfectly compatible with many-worlds, which is deterministic.

>>7695879
>but there are things like the many-worlds interpretation which more or less explain away non-determinism by purporting the observer gets entangled in the system.
"purporting"? The wave equation unambiguously says that observers *must* get entangled with the system they observe, that's what entanglement is. All that many worlds claims is that the thing that the wave equation says, is what actually happens.

>>7695747
Right now? Quantum television.

>>7695885
As the question is an open problem in physics, most of them aren't so much "disproven" as they are "overlooked." For example, certain theories like many-minds are discredited as violating principles like Occam's Razor.

>>7695879
I realize that it's not impossible for the universe to be deterministic, but I can't really put that much faith in the many worlds interpretation since, from what I know of it, it's pretty much impossible to test.

>>7695904
Is it?

Quantum mechanics as a theory predicts all kinds of things that we can easily test on small scales, and that has proven to be accurate on all situations we managed to test it on, including ever-larger systems. If you assume that this theory holds in general, you get many-worlds. All the other "interpretations" say that something *different* is happening in some unspecified cases, which has not been true for any case we managed to test.

It's not many worlds that's impossible to test. It's the *deviations* from many worlds that we have been unable to find evidence for. That is to say, what is hard/impossible to test is that the deviations from many worlds continue to not be there in the more complex situations.

>>7695863
Many-worlds has issues with relativity though.

Does world-splitting travel at the speed of light or happen instantaneously?

>>7695843
Yea it is pretty damn weird.

I've always felt this is the strangest notion in all of science, the orderly deterministic world we know is made up of tiny random chaotic bits.

If I make something out of Lego's no matter how I assemble them or how many I use they always behave like Lego's. The universe seems to be made from a magic Lego set that doesn't work like that.

>>7695893

>what is reading comprehension

My language didn't indicate that I wanted any particular color/yes/no/maybe. My language only indicated that I wanted some, any consistency, anywhere. A flat "no" across the board would do just as well as a flat "yes": either would tell me that there is agreement on a particular matter.