(a) QM is the complete truth about the physical world, at all levels, and describes an external reality.
(b) QM is the complete truth (in the sense that it will always give reliable predictions concerning the nature of experiments) but describes no external reality.
(c) QM is not the complete truth about the world; at some level between that of the atom and that of human consciousness, other non–quantum mechanical principles intervene.
...... Personally, if I could be sure that we will forever regard QM as the whole truth about the physical world, I think I should grit my teeth and plump for option (b).
Monday, February 22, 2010
Polite physicists do not discuss this at dinner parties
I had some interesting but brief discussions today with Andrew Briggs about Tony Leggett's perspective on the quantum measurement problem. (see his Viewpoint in Science in 2005). Personally, I find Leggett's perspective a little extreme. I just think we need to have a more nuanced view of what "reality" is.
He considers three different views on the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Emergence and protein folding
Proteins are a distinct state of matter. Globular proteins are tightly packed with a density comparable to a crystal but without the spatia...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro...
-
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
I don't like the view of decoherence given in the Leggett article. He seems to be implying that decoherence is separate to QM, or somehow an interpretation. He also seems to be giving a greater significance to observation by a 'human agent' than the generic observation as an interaction with a macroscopic state / state with many modes.
ReplyDeleteI also don't see any difference between (a) and (b). If no experiment can distinguish, what's the point? [Where as the difference between (b) and (c) implies some experimental difference.]
'I just think we need to have a more nuanced view of what "reality" is.'
ReplyDeleteWhat does that mean?
This question brings to mind the old adage 'The map in not the territory'.
ReplyDelete