And thus the pain persists! Quantum theory is a very successful theory, if nor the most successful theory of all time… But we struggle to bring together a unified theory, and we also struggle with our interpretations. Some scientists don’t worry about the interpretation of physics… Other’s find the interpretation pivotal to our understanding of Quantum Physics.
The problem with quantum theory isn't just that it is incomplete, but that there are also countless problems - and here we shall quickly summarize a few of them through their vague interpretations...

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.

So, which do you like, or do you think a better interpretation is round the corner?

Or you could just ignore all this nonsense and do the math.

I prefer my method

The math??? That would take me months!!!

Yeah, let the philosophers do it

Indeed, the "do the math" approach is an interpretation itself-- that is the so-called "ensemble interpretation", which holds that the purpose of quantum mechanics is not to describe reality in detail but rather to predict the outcome of a repeated experiment on an ensemble of quantum systems. In short, this approach says that quantum mechanics is inherently a theory aimed at a statistical outcome, so we do not have a "problem to solve" when all we get from it is statistical expectations. As this is actually the way quantum mechanics is really used in all examples of scientific experiments, this interpretation represents science with the minimum of added bells and whistles-- "just the facts ma'am".

As many of you know by now, I see all other interpretations of quantum mechanics as taking the science of QM and attaching a scientifically useless component of magical and untestable thinking. To underscore this, I would point out that to my knowledge, there is not one single experiment that can actually be carried out scientifically that distinguishes any of these "interpretations" one iota. So why would anyone trained to think like a scientist believe that adding arbitrary flagellum to one will make it "more right" than it was without? It really speaks to what we're about here-- do we want to support predictions and guide new experiments to do the hard work of gaining more mastery over mystery, or are we just shooting for a "magic bullet" sensation of feeling that mastery without any actual evidence we really have it?

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and pick one. But don't pretend it's real. Same as my attitude towards religion really.

Exactly-- if we agree to apply scientific standards to the meaning of "real".

Are you asking whether or not we can use the interpretations to do that (guide experiments), or are you saying that they can't?

Errmmmmm..... Not true.
It wasn't something he solely/explicitly developed, and he didn't give it the name.

Others, especially Heisenberg, made their contributions. There is no evidence Bohr or Heisenberg ever used the term. Others gave it that name.

Information readily available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

I'm an agnostic with regards to interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Any other point of view seems unscientific at this point in history.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Ivan

Thank you for your excerpt.

I have no idea if we "can", I ask for evidence that we can. Can you provide any? What does science say in that situation when it is being true to itself? These are not rhetorical questions, I expect answers.

I agree -- and I would add that the two different disciplines have two different ways of arriving at the "truth" and they don't mix well. Another example is religion and science. What operates as a "truth" for religion is something "untestable" for science (we can't run an experiment to have a specific deity show up, announce his/her/its name, and perform a miracle on command while we measure its/her/his strength, height, and specific powers.) While some fields do mix in a very broad sense (philosophy and religion), others are a poor match.

One of the subdisciplines I study (Behavior Analysis) uses a sort of "moving average" to determine how effective a treatment is. You couldn't use those methods on a photon to predict anything (because different people react to the same treatment very differently) -- and because you're dealing with individuals and behavior. BehAnal and physics is a pretty poor mix.

BehAnal and psych or anth is a pretty decent mix, though.

I'm with you on the "let's not mix incompatible ways of arriving at truths" as a means of dealing with a discipline. Philosophy would fare very poorly if we made it stand up to the average standards used by biologists... and vice-versa. And physics and philosophy are an even poorer mix.

I think the biggest problem with all things quantum is that it is still in its infancy. I suppose one could imagine it like the beginning of the computer age when massive machine filled with valves did simple instructions - or perhaps even in the tyranny of wires era.
If somebody said then that computers would revolutionise the world and be fitted in (almost) everything, there would be a lot of skeptism at that point. Remember IBM who said they wouldn't sell fifty home PCs and gave Bill Gates his opening.
I feel that at some point there will (probably) be revolutionary new thinking in the quantum field. An Einstein or Hawkings of quantum mechanics will turn up - with all things probable! I would say it is just a matter of time.

__________________
I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein

Biologically speaking, if something bites you it's more likely to be female. Desmond Morris.

Quantum analysis is scientific dithering

Professor Frink: My observations n'hey, n'hey, show the universe could be a torus Weh, uh, or toriod it may like the typewriters and bananas and the monkeys with big teeth the biting the screaming Mm-hai!

Homer: mmmmm... doughnuts!

And probably will be for a long time, maybe even forever. Perhaps there are some areas of useful overlap, like brain function during certain types of environmental stimulus, but the questions you are apparently interested in might never be usefully addressed that way. There's nothing that needs "fixing" in that situation.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, thank you for putting it that way.Which is quite ironic, for they both started out in the same bed. I'd say the falling out came about the time of Galileo, and it's been "irreconcilable differences" ever since. Some today seem to have a goal of reuniting them, but I see them as like kids who can't bear to recognize their parents have "grown apart". Not that they can't still be friends-- some of Einstein's inspirations came from philosophy. But the science he actually did was pure quantifiable verifiable science, and Michelson-Morely had more to say than Mach.

Favorite interpretation? See my sig.

__________________
"Shut up and calculate" R. Feynman

It seems you're a QM "agnostic" like me, Argos. And, judging from his posts in this and other threads, Ken G is a QM "atheist".

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Yes, I suppose you hit it there...

Good one, DA. That pretty sums it up.

__________________
"Shut up and calculate" R. Feynman

I hate them all. And doing the math does not satisfy me. So I decided to ignore QM

Nevertheless in June I will use the opportunity to listen to Dr. Anton Zeilinger from the University of Vienna at the University of Kaiserslautern. Will be interesting to see if he can revive my interest in modern theoretical physics.

__________________
Andre

"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!"
Mark Twain