What interpretation of QM do you support and why?

who cares, QM is wrong since it doesn't include gravitation

the "it just werks" -interpretation

>>7998800
Bohmian mechanics

>>7998800
I couldn't care less, they all reproduce the same results, so until someone comes up with a way of choosing between them it's just tedious circle jerk.

>>7998800
why do we need an interpretation?

>>7998914
Not even Bohm believed Bohmian mechanics. It was just an exercise in 'what do I have to give up in order to get determinism back?' It turns out you have to give up quite a lot. Not worth it at all.

>>7998967
>It turns out you have to give up quite a lot.
Do you? Many worlds is deterministic and doesn't give up any of the things that Bohmian mechanics does, does it?

>>7998809
What a profoundly stupid thing to say. 'This theory has not yet been reconciled with phenomena happening at energy scales 10^16 times higher than anything we've ever probed so the theory isn't even worth thinking about'

File: 1428771663165.jpg (18KB, 364x365px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 364x365px

>>7998809

>>7998800
LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY FOR LIFE.

>>7998896
This. The way I learned it was so handwave-y that I kind of hate physics now.

>>7998972
Many worlds is a different kind of deterministic, certainly not the kind of classical determinism that people were wanting out of QM back in the day. Most people just assumed that the theory was deterministic in the classical sense but it appeared random because there was something very complicated happening a la statistical mechanics. When Bell's theorem came out they realized that they needed non-local hidden variables to make it classically deterministic. At that point everyone realized that maybe random quantum fluctuations aren't that bad.

>>7999000
>When Bell's theorem came out they realized that they needed non-local hidden variables to make it classically deterministic.
Only if the experimenter has free will*
Bell himself admits that his theorem doesn't hold if the experimenter doesn't have free will.

>>7999000
I'm not sure what you mean by classical determinism. Many-worlds is deterministic yet fundamentally unpredictable ("appears random"); is that the distinction you're talking about?

>>7998967
>It turns out you have to give up quite a lot

Locality is overrated and absurd if you think about it

>>7999012
Yes, nonlocality isn't a huge deal anymore, but doesn't it seem kinda stupid that if one should go to hidden variables just so they don't lose determinism that they then give up locality?

>>7999017
Plus, you need sperluminal nonlocality, which is an absurdity.

>>7999005
By then there can be no theory that can predict the outcome, even in principal so what's the point? It still strikes me as just trying to rebel against standard interpretations just for the sake of being different.

>>7999020
QM is a NON-RELATIVISTIC theory. Keep QFT out of this

>>7999025
I admit that it's not a good way to go about resolving the conundrum but it's seldom mentioned, generally by staunch defenders of the status quo. I just don't want us to emulate the Chinese thinking the Earth was flat for 2,000 years because nobody thought to challenge the accepted norm.

>>7999026
You only say that because it's a sore spot for Bohmian interpretations.

We know it needs to be the limit of a properly relativistic theory. Bohm can't do that.

>>7999032
Diversity in thought is good and healthy. I just take issue with people who think that the Bohmian interpretation is better since it really at the end of the day boils down to the same shit as Copenhagen.