Physicists Can't Agree on What Quantum Mechanics Says about Reality(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
Physicists Can't Agree on What Quantum Mechanics Says about Reality
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-divided-on-what-quantum-mechanics-says-about-reality/
5 comments
https://archive.ph/S4fJm
So?
Disagreement about “what quantum mechanics means” is a philosophical problem, not a physics problem.
The job of physics is to build predictive models of natural phenomena, not to settle metaphysical debates about the “true nature of reality.”
And on that front, Quantum Field Theory - which superseded old‑school quantum mechanics decades ago - does its job extraordinarily well.
QFT predicts particle interactions with absurd precision, matches experiment to many decimal places, and underpins everything from semiconductors to MRI machines.
Whether philosophers (or physicists wearing philosopher hats) can agree on an “interpretation” doesn’t change the fact that the Standard Model works.
Disagreement about “what quantum mechanics means” is a philosophical problem, not a physics problem.
The job of physics is to build predictive models of natural phenomena, not to settle metaphysical debates about the “true nature of reality.”
And on that front, Quantum Field Theory - which superseded old‑school quantum mechanics decades ago - does its job extraordinarily well.
QFT predicts particle interactions with absurd precision, matches experiment to many decimal places, and underpins everything from semiconductors to MRI machines.
Whether philosophers (or physicists wearing philosopher hats) can agree on an “interpretation” doesn’t change the fact that the Standard Model works.
I think you are on a bit of a tangent here. I do not want folks to think this article is an "opinion piece" which it is not; after all it is Scientific American.
It is a pretty good article which points out that even though the mathematics of quantum mechanics is so successful in our modern world our attempts at understanding the physical reality that it maps to, remains up for debate. As the article itself states;
there is a significant divide between researchers who hold ‘realist’ views, which project equations onto the real world, and those with ‘epistemic’ ones, which say that quantum physics is concerned only with information.
...
The closest that respondents got to consensus was that attempts to interpret the mathematics of quantum mechanics in a physical or an intuitive way are valuable — 86% agreed.
Note that QFT itself is a mathematical theory/framework and hence still subject to interpretation if we want to understand its mapping to physical reality.
In other words, the dictum of "shut up and calculate" is not enough. The article actually summarizes the various extant interpretations quite simply and nicely and hence worth reading.
It is a pretty good article which points out that even though the mathematics of quantum mechanics is so successful in our modern world our attempts at understanding the physical reality that it maps to, remains up for debate. As the article itself states;
there is a significant divide between researchers who hold ‘realist’ views, which project equations onto the real world, and those with ‘epistemic’ ones, which say that quantum physics is concerned only with information.
...
The closest that respondents got to consensus was that attempts to interpret the mathematics of quantum mechanics in a physical or an intuitive way are valuable — 86% agreed.
Note that QFT itself is a mathematical theory/framework and hence still subject to interpretation if we want to understand its mapping to physical reality.
In other words, the dictum of "shut up and calculate" is not enough. The article actually summarizes the various extant interpretations quite simply and nicely and hence worth reading.
QFT models “reality” extremely well, when defining “reality” by what is measurable or observable. It’s the metaphysics people are uncomfortable with. It’s a theory that preserves causality but doesn’t always sit well with our intuitions about locality. That has led some people to believe spacetime itself may be emergent - but that’s a story for another time.
True; but it is normal for the common man to seek an intuitive understanding. I don't believe the science is impenetrable and exists only in mathematics, particularly when it explains the "observable and measurable reality" so well.
> some people to believe spacetime itself may be emergent - but that’s a story for another time.
Maybe time to start the storytelling now or in a separate thread ;-)
Btw - Assuming you are a Scientist/Researcher in this domain, what do you think about energy harvesting from Quantum Vacuum/Zero-Point energy? I posted this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48175153 but haven't had any knowledgeable person comment on it. Perhaps you can give your thoughts on it.
PS: Finally, what are some good book recommendations you would give the common man interested in studying QFT?
> some people to believe spacetime itself may be emergent - but that’s a story for another time.
Maybe time to start the storytelling now or in a separate thread ;-)
Btw - Assuming you are a Scientist/Researcher in this domain, what do you think about energy harvesting from Quantum Vacuum/Zero-Point energy? I posted this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48175153 but haven't had any knowledgeable person comment on it. Perhaps you can give your thoughts on it.
PS: Finally, what are some good book recommendations you would give the common man interested in studying QFT?