| > Shut and calculate is putting your head in the sand and avoiding that physics should be telling us what the world is. It's how physics is done. PhD students don't sit in physics departments getting ideas from their interpretation of QM. The interpretations people have are so meaningless and useless they never appear in physics publications. You don't like it, but it's what physics is. > You’re wrong about MWI in that it’s a more elegant interpretation because it adds nothing extra to the wave equation and treats the universe as fundamentally quantum with no arbitrary dividing lines for classically scaled objects. That's the thing about most QM interpretations, and in particular the many worlds interpretation, and why they aren't science just stories: you're right, they add nothing. So they are untestable! What does untestable mean? It means that they make no predictions about our world at all. They are stories. Their impact on physics or the universe we live in is the same as that of Winnie-the-Pooh. They're a waste of time. > avoiding that physics should be telling us what the world is. What can I say to "should"? I can only report what physics is in the real world. That's like saying, biologists "should" be working on building Jurassic Park because that's what you feel is the goal of the field. It's not. That's not what they do. |
They do if they're going into foundations of physics. There's a sociological problem where the Copenhagen interpretation won out in the past and resulted in the shut up and calculate orthodoxy in teaching physics. But there are physicists like Sean Carol who think that's a historical mistake and based on failing to think about QM correctly.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/06/26/241-...
> That's the thing about most QM interpretations, and in particular the many worlds interpretation, and why they aren't science just stories: you're right, they add nothing. So they are untestable!
Some make testable predictions like the collapse theories. For the others, it's more about the proper way to understanding what the mathematical formalism and experimental results are telling us about the world, and how we can use that to advance future physics.
> What can I say to "should"? I can only report what physics is in the real world.
And there have always been physicists like Einstein, Everett, Bohm and Bell who pushed back.