Why is wave-function collapse still being taught in quantum mechanics? [on hold]
$begingroup$
I don't really understand why wave-function collapse is still being taught while we seem to have better interpretations of QM available nowadays.
During the early development of quantum mechanics the measurement problem was a heavily debated topic, resulting in a general acceptance of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. The two main problems with it are
- It is not clear what physically defines an observation.
- There is a certain faster than light interaction, thought this does not include faster than light travel of information.
Furthermore, the idea that the universe is nondeterministic was not appealing to some, for example to Einstein.
Since 1957 we have the "Many-worlds" interpretation of QM which resolves both these problems, makes QM deterministic again and gives a (IMO) much more physical interpretation. The original name Hugh Everett gave to his theory is "Correlation Interpretation" which I find actually more clear. Perhaps "Observer Entanglement" would be even more natural in the current idiom.
This theory was first mostly ignored, and even now seems to still not get the attention it deserves. Why are teachers often still teaching wave-function collapse, with all its shortcomings, when they teach QM?
quantum-mechanics quantum-interpretations measurement-problem wavefunction-collapse
New contributor
$endgroup$
put on hold as primarily opinion-based by ZeroTheHero, Gert, Cosmas Zachos, Ján Lalinský, rob♦ 1 hour ago
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't really understand why wave-function collapse is still being taught while we seem to have better interpretations of QM available nowadays.
During the early development of quantum mechanics the measurement problem was a heavily debated topic, resulting in a general acceptance of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. The two main problems with it are
- It is not clear what physically defines an observation.
- There is a certain faster than light interaction, thought this does not include faster than light travel of information.
Furthermore, the idea that the universe is nondeterministic was not appealing to some, for example to Einstein.
Since 1957 we have the "Many-worlds" interpretation of QM which resolves both these problems, makes QM deterministic again and gives a (IMO) much more physical interpretation. The original name Hugh Everett gave to his theory is "Correlation Interpretation" which I find actually more clear. Perhaps "Observer Entanglement" would be even more natural in the current idiom.
This theory was first mostly ignored, and even now seems to still not get the attention it deserves. Why are teachers often still teaching wave-function collapse, with all its shortcomings, when they teach QM?
quantum-mechanics quantum-interpretations measurement-problem wavefunction-collapse
New contributor
$endgroup$
put on hold as primarily opinion-based by ZeroTheHero, Gert, Cosmas Zachos, Ján Lalinský, rob♦ 1 hour ago
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
5
$begingroup$
This question should be closed because it seeks a debate rather than an answer.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question on the current status of teaching and provides a controversial opinion that may induce debate.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've deleted some comments that were answering the question, and responses to them.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't really understand why wave-function collapse is still being taught while we seem to have better interpretations of QM available nowadays.
During the early development of quantum mechanics the measurement problem was a heavily debated topic, resulting in a general acceptance of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. The two main problems with it are
- It is not clear what physically defines an observation.
- There is a certain faster than light interaction, thought this does not include faster than light travel of information.
Furthermore, the idea that the universe is nondeterministic was not appealing to some, for example to Einstein.
Since 1957 we have the "Many-worlds" interpretation of QM which resolves both these problems, makes QM deterministic again and gives a (IMO) much more physical interpretation. The original name Hugh Everett gave to his theory is "Correlation Interpretation" which I find actually more clear. Perhaps "Observer Entanglement" would be even more natural in the current idiom.
This theory was first mostly ignored, and even now seems to still not get the attention it deserves. Why are teachers often still teaching wave-function collapse, with all its shortcomings, when they teach QM?
quantum-mechanics quantum-interpretations measurement-problem wavefunction-collapse
New contributor
$endgroup$
I don't really understand why wave-function collapse is still being taught while we seem to have better interpretations of QM available nowadays.
During the early development of quantum mechanics the measurement problem was a heavily debated topic, resulting in a general acceptance of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. The two main problems with it are
- It is not clear what physically defines an observation.
- There is a certain faster than light interaction, thought this does not include faster than light travel of information.
Furthermore, the idea that the universe is nondeterministic was not appealing to some, for example to Einstein.
Since 1957 we have the "Many-worlds" interpretation of QM which resolves both these problems, makes QM deterministic again and gives a (IMO) much more physical interpretation. The original name Hugh Everett gave to his theory is "Correlation Interpretation" which I find actually more clear. Perhaps "Observer Entanglement" would be even more natural in the current idiom.
This theory was first mostly ignored, and even now seems to still not get the attention it deserves. Why are teachers often still teaching wave-function collapse, with all its shortcomings, when they teach QM?
quantum-mechanics quantum-interpretations measurement-problem wavefunction-collapse
quantum-mechanics quantum-interpretations measurement-problem wavefunction-collapse
New contributor
New contributor
edited 13 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
104k121881195
104k121881195
New contributor
asked 14 hours ago
MathijsMathijs
323
323
New contributor
New contributor
put on hold as primarily opinion-based by ZeroTheHero, Gert, Cosmas Zachos, Ján Lalinský, rob♦ 1 hour ago
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as primarily opinion-based by ZeroTheHero, Gert, Cosmas Zachos, Ján Lalinský, rob♦ 1 hour ago
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
5
$begingroup$
This question should be closed because it seeks a debate rather than an answer.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question on the current status of teaching and provides a controversial opinion that may induce debate.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've deleted some comments that were answering the question, and responses to them.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
5 hours ago
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
This question should be closed because it seeks a debate rather than an answer.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question on the current status of teaching and provides a controversial opinion that may induce debate.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've deleted some comments that were answering the question, and responses to them.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
5 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
This question should be closed because it seeks a debate rather than an answer.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
This question should be closed because it seeks a debate rather than an answer.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question on the current status of teaching and provides a controversial opinion that may induce debate.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question on the current status of teaching and provides a controversial opinion that may induce debate.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've deleted some comments that were answering the question, and responses to them.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've deleted some comments that were answering the question, and responses to them.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
5 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are many interpretations, and while there are good arguments in favor of one or another, they are currently not distinguished experimentally. Therefore it is often considered prudent to leave the question of which interpretation is best to the field of philosophy, and focus in a physics course on the falsifiable aspects of the theory. The field of quantum interpretations is too deep to do the subject justice in an ordinary quantum mechanics course.
The "Copenhagen Interpretation" is not very well-defined, but given point #1, it has several advantages over the others. One is historical inertia, but more importantly is its minimalism and instrumentalism. In its "textbook version," it avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation. It is often associated with the "Shut up and calculate!" mantra. "Collapse" of the wavefunction is not taken too literally as a dynamical process, but merely as a calculational tool. Quantum textbooks/courses tend not to dwell on the philosophy of Bohr or Heisenberg, and rather leave interpretation open to student preference should they pursue it through other resources.
The philosophical problems with the interpretation, such as describing the experimental apparatus or observer quantum mechanically, are currently not an issue for any practicing physicist.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The claim "avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation" seems counterfactual. The Copenhagen interpretation is heavy on (misleading) ontological content, namely that some sort of "collapse" takes place and that "observers" are magically special.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@R.. To some extent, there's two CIs. There's a philosophical one, which gets into deep epistemological questions like "what is an observer?" Then there's the practical "it's quantum/[black box]/now it's classical -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". It's mostly this latter "shut up an calculate" one which is being taught. And it's used precisely because it avoids philosophy. Other interpretations like the MWI take a philosophical stand, without strong experimental backing. But when you ignore the transition, "QM [black box] classical" is experimentally validated.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So we are taught collapse at school, although there is no experimental evidence of collapse. You don't think this is good.
You suggest that we are taught many-worlds instead, although there is no experimental evidence of many worlds. Why is it better?
I would say there is no generally accepted interpretation of quantum theory (the mere existence of numerous interpretations seems to be an evidence of that). So which interpretation should be taught at school? I don't know. But do we need to change an unsatisfactory interpretation by another unsatisfactory interpretation?
You may believe that many-worlds is a satisfactory interpretation. According to some surveys, the majority of physicists do not favor many-worlds. So it is not obvious that students should be taught many-worlds. Should they be taught collapse? I don't think so, not without caveats.
A short answer to your question would be "because education has a lot of inertia", and it is not obvious that this is a bad thing.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
There is no evidence for the truth or falsity of any interpretation of QM. That's why they are called "interpretations". If there was any evidence that one was true and the others were false, it would cease to be an "interpretation".
$endgroup$
– alephzero
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero : I am not sure this is relevant to my answer. I criticized Copenhagen and many-worlds for some deadwood that has no experimental evidence. If you don't agree that such deadwood makes an interpretation less attractive/plausible, I have no problems with that.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not "lack of evidence", which implies falsifiability. It's non-falsifiability. And non-falsifiable content has no place in science.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@R..: I am afraid I don't understand what you want to say and I don't want to guess (actually, I don't even know if your comment is intended for me or for alephzero). If you criticize my answer or my comment, I have no problem with that, but in that case I would appreciate some clarification.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are other worlds in which the Everett interpretation is the orthodox one that gets taught... We just happen to be in another one.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
And it is possible that in some of those other worlds it might not even be an 'interpretation' but instead believed to be true with supporting experimental evidence ...
$endgroup$
– davidbak
7 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
I fail to see how this qualifies to be an answer instead of a comment.
$endgroup$
– Jazzmaniac
6 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That is a fair point and perhaps I was being flippant. But it does technically qualify as an answer... If you buy the many-worlds interpretation then all outcomes are possible, and 'it just happens to be like that in this world' is a valid explanation.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow It's unclear to me how this qualifies as an answer to what was being asked. The question was asking why it was not taught, it theoretically being taught in some other world is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When something is taught a certain way in textbooks, then two things need to happen for that to change:
Leading professionals in the field have to agree that the new approach is better, and start using it nearly universally in their research papers.
The new approach gradually filters down into graduate textbooks, then upper-division undergrad textbooks, freshman texts, and popular writing.
An example of this process is the replacement of relativistic mass with invariant mass, which is still ongoing after several decades.
In the case of MWI versus Copenhagen, step #1 hasn't happened yet and probably never will. In nearly all applications, the choice of one or the other makes zero difference, even aesthetically. MWI also comes in a variety of flavors; some people do talk about measurements and splitting of worlds, while others find those concepts wrong or unhelpful. My own view (which has evolved as I've learned more about the subject) is that MWI is aesthetically preferable, but that if we want to explain why measurement seems to work in the way it does, ultimately we should probably talk about things like decoherence, and then the way measurements seem to work emerges as an approximation. (And the approximation can be bad if the measuring device is mesoscopic.) Personally, I use the language of MWI in talking to my students about QM, but I don't think it's wrong to use Copenhagen. Most freshman texts don't even talk about these issues, e.g., collapse is never even mentioned.
I do find it objectionable when upper-division texts introduce Copenhagen as if it were the only way to look at things, and without explicitly naming it as the Copenhagen interpretation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are many interpretations, and while there are good arguments in favor of one or another, they are currently not distinguished experimentally. Therefore it is often considered prudent to leave the question of which interpretation is best to the field of philosophy, and focus in a physics course on the falsifiable aspects of the theory. The field of quantum interpretations is too deep to do the subject justice in an ordinary quantum mechanics course.
The "Copenhagen Interpretation" is not very well-defined, but given point #1, it has several advantages over the others. One is historical inertia, but more importantly is its minimalism and instrumentalism. In its "textbook version," it avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation. It is often associated with the "Shut up and calculate!" mantra. "Collapse" of the wavefunction is not taken too literally as a dynamical process, but merely as a calculational tool. Quantum textbooks/courses tend not to dwell on the philosophy of Bohr or Heisenberg, and rather leave interpretation open to student preference should they pursue it through other resources.
The philosophical problems with the interpretation, such as describing the experimental apparatus or observer quantum mechanically, are currently not an issue for any practicing physicist.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The claim "avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation" seems counterfactual. The Copenhagen interpretation is heavy on (misleading) ontological content, namely that some sort of "collapse" takes place and that "observers" are magically special.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@R.. To some extent, there's two CIs. There's a philosophical one, which gets into deep epistemological questions like "what is an observer?" Then there's the practical "it's quantum/[black box]/now it's classical -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". It's mostly this latter "shut up an calculate" one which is being taught. And it's used precisely because it avoids philosophy. Other interpretations like the MWI take a philosophical stand, without strong experimental backing. But when you ignore the transition, "QM [black box] classical" is experimentally validated.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are many interpretations, and while there are good arguments in favor of one or another, they are currently not distinguished experimentally. Therefore it is often considered prudent to leave the question of which interpretation is best to the field of philosophy, and focus in a physics course on the falsifiable aspects of the theory. The field of quantum interpretations is too deep to do the subject justice in an ordinary quantum mechanics course.
The "Copenhagen Interpretation" is not very well-defined, but given point #1, it has several advantages over the others. One is historical inertia, but more importantly is its minimalism and instrumentalism. In its "textbook version," it avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation. It is often associated with the "Shut up and calculate!" mantra. "Collapse" of the wavefunction is not taken too literally as a dynamical process, but merely as a calculational tool. Quantum textbooks/courses tend not to dwell on the philosophy of Bohr or Heisenberg, and rather leave interpretation open to student preference should they pursue it through other resources.
The philosophical problems with the interpretation, such as describing the experimental apparatus or observer quantum mechanically, are currently not an issue for any practicing physicist.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The claim "avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation" seems counterfactual. The Copenhagen interpretation is heavy on (misleading) ontological content, namely that some sort of "collapse" takes place and that "observers" are magically special.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@R.. To some extent, there's two CIs. There's a philosophical one, which gets into deep epistemological questions like "what is an observer?" Then there's the practical "it's quantum/[black box]/now it's classical -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". It's mostly this latter "shut up an calculate" one which is being taught. And it's used precisely because it avoids philosophy. Other interpretations like the MWI take a philosophical stand, without strong experimental backing. But when you ignore the transition, "QM [black box] classical" is experimentally validated.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are many interpretations, and while there are good arguments in favor of one or another, they are currently not distinguished experimentally. Therefore it is often considered prudent to leave the question of which interpretation is best to the field of philosophy, and focus in a physics course on the falsifiable aspects of the theory. The field of quantum interpretations is too deep to do the subject justice in an ordinary quantum mechanics course.
The "Copenhagen Interpretation" is not very well-defined, but given point #1, it has several advantages over the others. One is historical inertia, but more importantly is its minimalism and instrumentalism. In its "textbook version," it avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation. It is often associated with the "Shut up and calculate!" mantra. "Collapse" of the wavefunction is not taken too literally as a dynamical process, but merely as a calculational tool. Quantum textbooks/courses tend not to dwell on the philosophy of Bohr or Heisenberg, and rather leave interpretation open to student preference should they pursue it through other resources.
The philosophical problems with the interpretation, such as describing the experimental apparatus or observer quantum mechanically, are currently not an issue for any practicing physicist.
$endgroup$
There are many interpretations, and while there are good arguments in favor of one or another, they are currently not distinguished experimentally. Therefore it is often considered prudent to leave the question of which interpretation is best to the field of philosophy, and focus in a physics course on the falsifiable aspects of the theory. The field of quantum interpretations is too deep to do the subject justice in an ordinary quantum mechanics course.
The "Copenhagen Interpretation" is not very well-defined, but given point #1, it has several advantages over the others. One is historical inertia, but more importantly is its minimalism and instrumentalism. In its "textbook version," it avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation. It is often associated with the "Shut up and calculate!" mantra. "Collapse" of the wavefunction is not taken too literally as a dynamical process, but merely as a calculational tool. Quantum textbooks/courses tend not to dwell on the philosophy of Bohr or Heisenberg, and rather leave interpretation open to student preference should they pursue it through other resources.
The philosophical problems with the interpretation, such as describing the experimental apparatus or observer quantum mechanically, are currently not an issue for any practicing physicist.
edited 8 hours ago
Emilio Pisanty
83.1k22203417
83.1k22203417
answered 12 hours ago
user1247user1247
3,62522156
3,62522156
$begingroup$
The claim "avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation" seems counterfactual. The Copenhagen interpretation is heavy on (misleading) ontological content, namely that some sort of "collapse" takes place and that "observers" are magically special.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@R.. To some extent, there's two CIs. There's a philosophical one, which gets into deep epistemological questions like "what is an observer?" Then there's the practical "it's quantum/[black box]/now it's classical -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". It's mostly this latter "shut up an calculate" one which is being taught. And it's used precisely because it avoids philosophy. Other interpretations like the MWI take a philosophical stand, without strong experimental backing. But when you ignore the transition, "QM [black box] classical" is experimentally validated.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The claim "avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation" seems counterfactual. The Copenhagen interpretation is heavy on (misleading) ontological content, namely that some sort of "collapse" takes place and that "observers" are magically special.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@R.. To some extent, there's two CIs. There's a philosophical one, which gets into deep epistemological questions like "what is an observer?" Then there's the practical "it's quantum/[black box]/now it's classical -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". It's mostly this latter "shut up an calculate" one which is being taught. And it's used precisely because it avoids philosophy. Other interpretations like the MWI take a philosophical stand, without strong experimental backing. But when you ignore the transition, "QM [black box] classical" is experimentally validated.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The claim "avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation" seems counterfactual. The Copenhagen interpretation is heavy on (misleading) ontological content, namely that some sort of "collapse" takes place and that "observers" are magically special.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
The claim "avoids taking a position on the philosophical aspects of the theory, and focuses on calculation" seems counterfactual. The Copenhagen interpretation is heavy on (misleading) ontological content, namely that some sort of "collapse" takes place and that "observers" are magically special.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@R.. To some extent, there's two CIs. There's a philosophical one, which gets into deep epistemological questions like "what is an observer?" Then there's the practical "it's quantum/[black box]/now it's classical -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". It's mostly this latter "shut up an calculate" one which is being taught. And it's used precisely because it avoids philosophy. Other interpretations like the MWI take a philosophical stand, without strong experimental backing. But when you ignore the transition, "QM [black box] classical" is experimentally validated.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@R.. To some extent, there's two CIs. There's a philosophical one, which gets into deep epistemological questions like "what is an observer?" Then there's the practical "it's quantum/[black box]/now it's classical -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". It's mostly this latter "shut up an calculate" one which is being taught. And it's used precisely because it avoids philosophy. Other interpretations like the MWI take a philosophical stand, without strong experimental backing. But when you ignore the transition, "QM [black box] classical" is experimentally validated.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So we are taught collapse at school, although there is no experimental evidence of collapse. You don't think this is good.
You suggest that we are taught many-worlds instead, although there is no experimental evidence of many worlds. Why is it better?
I would say there is no generally accepted interpretation of quantum theory (the mere existence of numerous interpretations seems to be an evidence of that). So which interpretation should be taught at school? I don't know. But do we need to change an unsatisfactory interpretation by another unsatisfactory interpretation?
You may believe that many-worlds is a satisfactory interpretation. According to some surveys, the majority of physicists do not favor many-worlds. So it is not obvious that students should be taught many-worlds. Should they be taught collapse? I don't think so, not without caveats.
A short answer to your question would be "because education has a lot of inertia", and it is not obvious that this is a bad thing.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
There is no evidence for the truth or falsity of any interpretation of QM. That's why they are called "interpretations". If there was any evidence that one was true and the others were false, it would cease to be an "interpretation".
$endgroup$
– alephzero
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero : I am not sure this is relevant to my answer. I criticized Copenhagen and many-worlds for some deadwood that has no experimental evidence. If you don't agree that such deadwood makes an interpretation less attractive/plausible, I have no problems with that.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not "lack of evidence", which implies falsifiability. It's non-falsifiability. And non-falsifiable content has no place in science.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@R..: I am afraid I don't understand what you want to say and I don't want to guess (actually, I don't even know if your comment is intended for me or for alephzero). If you criticize my answer or my comment, I have no problem with that, but in that case I would appreciate some clarification.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So we are taught collapse at school, although there is no experimental evidence of collapse. You don't think this is good.
You suggest that we are taught many-worlds instead, although there is no experimental evidence of many worlds. Why is it better?
I would say there is no generally accepted interpretation of quantum theory (the mere existence of numerous interpretations seems to be an evidence of that). So which interpretation should be taught at school? I don't know. But do we need to change an unsatisfactory interpretation by another unsatisfactory interpretation?
You may believe that many-worlds is a satisfactory interpretation. According to some surveys, the majority of physicists do not favor many-worlds. So it is not obvious that students should be taught many-worlds. Should they be taught collapse? I don't think so, not without caveats.
A short answer to your question would be "because education has a lot of inertia", and it is not obvious that this is a bad thing.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
There is no evidence for the truth or falsity of any interpretation of QM. That's why they are called "interpretations". If there was any evidence that one was true and the others were false, it would cease to be an "interpretation".
$endgroup$
– alephzero
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero : I am not sure this is relevant to my answer. I criticized Copenhagen and many-worlds for some deadwood that has no experimental evidence. If you don't agree that such deadwood makes an interpretation less attractive/plausible, I have no problems with that.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not "lack of evidence", which implies falsifiability. It's non-falsifiability. And non-falsifiable content has no place in science.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@R..: I am afraid I don't understand what you want to say and I don't want to guess (actually, I don't even know if your comment is intended for me or for alephzero). If you criticize my answer or my comment, I have no problem with that, but in that case I would appreciate some clarification.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So we are taught collapse at school, although there is no experimental evidence of collapse. You don't think this is good.
You suggest that we are taught many-worlds instead, although there is no experimental evidence of many worlds. Why is it better?
I would say there is no generally accepted interpretation of quantum theory (the mere existence of numerous interpretations seems to be an evidence of that). So which interpretation should be taught at school? I don't know. But do we need to change an unsatisfactory interpretation by another unsatisfactory interpretation?
You may believe that many-worlds is a satisfactory interpretation. According to some surveys, the majority of physicists do not favor many-worlds. So it is not obvious that students should be taught many-worlds. Should they be taught collapse? I don't think so, not without caveats.
A short answer to your question would be "because education has a lot of inertia", and it is not obvious that this is a bad thing.
$endgroup$
So we are taught collapse at school, although there is no experimental evidence of collapse. You don't think this is good.
You suggest that we are taught many-worlds instead, although there is no experimental evidence of many worlds. Why is it better?
I would say there is no generally accepted interpretation of quantum theory (the mere existence of numerous interpretations seems to be an evidence of that). So which interpretation should be taught at school? I don't know. But do we need to change an unsatisfactory interpretation by another unsatisfactory interpretation?
You may believe that many-worlds is a satisfactory interpretation. According to some surveys, the majority of physicists do not favor many-worlds. So it is not obvious that students should be taught many-worlds. Should they be taught collapse? I don't think so, not without caveats.
A short answer to your question would be "because education has a lot of inertia", and it is not obvious that this is a bad thing.
answered 13 hours ago
akhmeteliakhmeteli
18k21841
18k21841
2
$begingroup$
There is no evidence for the truth or falsity of any interpretation of QM. That's why they are called "interpretations". If there was any evidence that one was true and the others were false, it would cease to be an "interpretation".
$endgroup$
– alephzero
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero : I am not sure this is relevant to my answer. I criticized Copenhagen and many-worlds for some deadwood that has no experimental evidence. If you don't agree that such deadwood makes an interpretation less attractive/plausible, I have no problems with that.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not "lack of evidence", which implies falsifiability. It's non-falsifiability. And non-falsifiable content has no place in science.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@R..: I am afraid I don't understand what you want to say and I don't want to guess (actually, I don't even know if your comment is intended for me or for alephzero). If you criticize my answer or my comment, I have no problem with that, but in that case I would appreciate some clarification.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
There is no evidence for the truth or falsity of any interpretation of QM. That's why they are called "interpretations". If there was any evidence that one was true and the others were false, it would cease to be an "interpretation".
$endgroup$
– alephzero
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero : I am not sure this is relevant to my answer. I criticized Copenhagen and many-worlds for some deadwood that has no experimental evidence. If you don't agree that such deadwood makes an interpretation less attractive/plausible, I have no problems with that.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not "lack of evidence", which implies falsifiability. It's non-falsifiability. And non-falsifiable content has no place in science.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@R..: I am afraid I don't understand what you want to say and I don't want to guess (actually, I don't even know if your comment is intended for me or for alephzero). If you criticize my answer or my comment, I have no problem with that, but in that case I would appreciate some clarification.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
3 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
There is no evidence for the truth or falsity of any interpretation of QM. That's why they are called "interpretations". If there was any evidence that one was true and the others were false, it would cease to be an "interpretation".
$endgroup$
– alephzero
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is no evidence for the truth or falsity of any interpretation of QM. That's why they are called "interpretations". If there was any evidence that one was true and the others were false, it would cease to be an "interpretation".
$endgroup$
– alephzero
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero : I am not sure this is relevant to my answer. I criticized Copenhagen and many-worlds for some deadwood that has no experimental evidence. If you don't agree that such deadwood makes an interpretation less attractive/plausible, I have no problems with that.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero : I am not sure this is relevant to my answer. I criticized Copenhagen and many-worlds for some deadwood that has no experimental evidence. If you don't agree that such deadwood makes an interpretation less attractive/plausible, I have no problems with that.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not "lack of evidence", which implies falsifiability. It's non-falsifiability. And non-falsifiable content has no place in science.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not "lack of evidence", which implies falsifiability. It's non-falsifiability. And non-falsifiable content has no place in science.
$endgroup$
– R..
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@R..: I am afraid I don't understand what you want to say and I don't want to guess (actually, I don't even know if your comment is intended for me or for alephzero). If you criticize my answer or my comment, I have no problem with that, but in that case I would appreciate some clarification.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@R..: I am afraid I don't understand what you want to say and I don't want to guess (actually, I don't even know if your comment is intended for me or for alephzero). If you criticize my answer or my comment, I have no problem with that, but in that case I would appreciate some clarification.
$endgroup$
– akhmeteli
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are other worlds in which the Everett interpretation is the orthodox one that gets taught... We just happen to be in another one.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
And it is possible that in some of those other worlds it might not even be an 'interpretation' but instead believed to be true with supporting experimental evidence ...
$endgroup$
– davidbak
7 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
I fail to see how this qualifies to be an answer instead of a comment.
$endgroup$
– Jazzmaniac
6 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That is a fair point and perhaps I was being flippant. But it does technically qualify as an answer... If you buy the many-worlds interpretation then all outcomes are possible, and 'it just happens to be like that in this world' is a valid explanation.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow It's unclear to me how this qualifies as an answer to what was being asked. The question was asking why it was not taught, it theoretically being taught in some other world is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are other worlds in which the Everett interpretation is the orthodox one that gets taught... We just happen to be in another one.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
And it is possible that in some of those other worlds it might not even be an 'interpretation' but instead believed to be true with supporting experimental evidence ...
$endgroup$
– davidbak
7 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
I fail to see how this qualifies to be an answer instead of a comment.
$endgroup$
– Jazzmaniac
6 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That is a fair point and perhaps I was being flippant. But it does technically qualify as an answer... If you buy the many-worlds interpretation then all outcomes are possible, and 'it just happens to be like that in this world' is a valid explanation.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow It's unclear to me how this qualifies as an answer to what was being asked. The question was asking why it was not taught, it theoretically being taught in some other world is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are other worlds in which the Everett interpretation is the orthodox one that gets taught... We just happen to be in another one.
$endgroup$
There are other worlds in which the Everett interpretation is the orthodox one that gets taught... We just happen to be in another one.
answered 9 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
2,645416
2,645416
$begingroup$
And it is possible that in some of those other worlds it might not even be an 'interpretation' but instead believed to be true with supporting experimental evidence ...
$endgroup$
– davidbak
7 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
I fail to see how this qualifies to be an answer instead of a comment.
$endgroup$
– Jazzmaniac
6 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That is a fair point and perhaps I was being flippant. But it does technically qualify as an answer... If you buy the many-worlds interpretation then all outcomes are possible, and 'it just happens to be like that in this world' is a valid explanation.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow It's unclear to me how this qualifies as an answer to what was being asked. The question was asking why it was not taught, it theoretically being taught in some other world is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
And it is possible that in some of those other worlds it might not even be an 'interpretation' but instead believed to be true with supporting experimental evidence ...
$endgroup$
– davidbak
7 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
I fail to see how this qualifies to be an answer instead of a comment.
$endgroup$
– Jazzmaniac
6 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That is a fair point and perhaps I was being flippant. But it does technically qualify as an answer... If you buy the many-worlds interpretation then all outcomes are possible, and 'it just happens to be like that in this world' is a valid explanation.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow It's unclear to me how this qualifies as an answer to what was being asked. The question was asking why it was not taught, it theoretically being taught in some other world is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
And it is possible that in some of those other worlds it might not even be an 'interpretation' but instead believed to be true with supporting experimental evidence ...
$endgroup$
– davidbak
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
And it is possible that in some of those other worlds it might not even be an 'interpretation' but instead believed to be true with supporting experimental evidence ...
$endgroup$
– davidbak
7 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
I fail to see how this qualifies to be an answer instead of a comment.
$endgroup$
– Jazzmaniac
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I fail to see how this qualifies to be an answer instead of a comment.
$endgroup$
– Jazzmaniac
6 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
That is a fair point and perhaps I was being flippant. But it does technically qualify as an answer... If you buy the many-worlds interpretation then all outcomes are possible, and 'it just happens to be like that in this world' is a valid explanation.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
That is a fair point and perhaps I was being flippant. But it does technically qualify as an answer... If you buy the many-worlds interpretation then all outcomes are possible, and 'it just happens to be like that in this world' is a valid explanation.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow It's unclear to me how this qualifies as an answer to what was being asked. The question was asking why it was not taught, it theoretically being taught in some other world is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow It's unclear to me how this qualifies as an answer to what was being asked. The question was asking why it was not taught, it theoretically being taught in some other world is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When something is taught a certain way in textbooks, then two things need to happen for that to change:
Leading professionals in the field have to agree that the new approach is better, and start using it nearly universally in their research papers.
The new approach gradually filters down into graduate textbooks, then upper-division undergrad textbooks, freshman texts, and popular writing.
An example of this process is the replacement of relativistic mass with invariant mass, which is still ongoing after several decades.
In the case of MWI versus Copenhagen, step #1 hasn't happened yet and probably never will. In nearly all applications, the choice of one or the other makes zero difference, even aesthetically. MWI also comes in a variety of flavors; some people do talk about measurements and splitting of worlds, while others find those concepts wrong or unhelpful. My own view (which has evolved as I've learned more about the subject) is that MWI is aesthetically preferable, but that if we want to explain why measurement seems to work in the way it does, ultimately we should probably talk about things like decoherence, and then the way measurements seem to work emerges as an approximation. (And the approximation can be bad if the measuring device is mesoscopic.) Personally, I use the language of MWI in talking to my students about QM, but I don't think it's wrong to use Copenhagen. Most freshman texts don't even talk about these issues, e.g., collapse is never even mentioned.
I do find it objectionable when upper-division texts introduce Copenhagen as if it were the only way to look at things, and without explicitly naming it as the Copenhagen interpretation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When something is taught a certain way in textbooks, then two things need to happen for that to change:
Leading professionals in the field have to agree that the new approach is better, and start using it nearly universally in their research papers.
The new approach gradually filters down into graduate textbooks, then upper-division undergrad textbooks, freshman texts, and popular writing.
An example of this process is the replacement of relativistic mass with invariant mass, which is still ongoing after several decades.
In the case of MWI versus Copenhagen, step #1 hasn't happened yet and probably never will. In nearly all applications, the choice of one or the other makes zero difference, even aesthetically. MWI also comes in a variety of flavors; some people do talk about measurements and splitting of worlds, while others find those concepts wrong or unhelpful. My own view (which has evolved as I've learned more about the subject) is that MWI is aesthetically preferable, but that if we want to explain why measurement seems to work in the way it does, ultimately we should probably talk about things like decoherence, and then the way measurements seem to work emerges as an approximation. (And the approximation can be bad if the measuring device is mesoscopic.) Personally, I use the language of MWI in talking to my students about QM, but I don't think it's wrong to use Copenhagen. Most freshman texts don't even talk about these issues, e.g., collapse is never even mentioned.
I do find it objectionable when upper-division texts introduce Copenhagen as if it were the only way to look at things, and without explicitly naming it as the Copenhagen interpretation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When something is taught a certain way in textbooks, then two things need to happen for that to change:
Leading professionals in the field have to agree that the new approach is better, and start using it nearly universally in their research papers.
The new approach gradually filters down into graduate textbooks, then upper-division undergrad textbooks, freshman texts, and popular writing.
An example of this process is the replacement of relativistic mass with invariant mass, which is still ongoing after several decades.
In the case of MWI versus Copenhagen, step #1 hasn't happened yet and probably never will. In nearly all applications, the choice of one or the other makes zero difference, even aesthetically. MWI also comes in a variety of flavors; some people do talk about measurements and splitting of worlds, while others find those concepts wrong or unhelpful. My own view (which has evolved as I've learned more about the subject) is that MWI is aesthetically preferable, but that if we want to explain why measurement seems to work in the way it does, ultimately we should probably talk about things like decoherence, and then the way measurements seem to work emerges as an approximation. (And the approximation can be bad if the measuring device is mesoscopic.) Personally, I use the language of MWI in talking to my students about QM, but I don't think it's wrong to use Copenhagen. Most freshman texts don't even talk about these issues, e.g., collapse is never even mentioned.
I do find it objectionable when upper-division texts introduce Copenhagen as if it were the only way to look at things, and without explicitly naming it as the Copenhagen interpretation.
$endgroup$
When something is taught a certain way in textbooks, then two things need to happen for that to change:
Leading professionals in the field have to agree that the new approach is better, and start using it nearly universally in their research papers.
The new approach gradually filters down into graduate textbooks, then upper-division undergrad textbooks, freshman texts, and popular writing.
An example of this process is the replacement of relativistic mass with invariant mass, which is still ongoing after several decades.
In the case of MWI versus Copenhagen, step #1 hasn't happened yet and probably never will. In nearly all applications, the choice of one or the other makes zero difference, even aesthetically. MWI also comes in a variety of flavors; some people do talk about measurements and splitting of worlds, while others find those concepts wrong or unhelpful. My own view (which has evolved as I've learned more about the subject) is that MWI is aesthetically preferable, but that if we want to explain why measurement seems to work in the way it does, ultimately we should probably talk about things like decoherence, and then the way measurements seem to work emerges as an approximation. (And the approximation can be bad if the measuring device is mesoscopic.) Personally, I use the language of MWI in talking to my students about QM, but I don't think it's wrong to use Copenhagen. Most freshman texts don't even talk about these issues, e.g., collapse is never even mentioned.
I do find it objectionable when upper-division texts introduce Copenhagen as if it were the only way to look at things, and without explicitly naming it as the Copenhagen interpretation.
answered 6 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
50.4k6155298
50.4k6155298
add a comment |
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
This question should be closed because it seeks a debate rather than an answer.
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question on the current status of teaching and provides a controversial opinion that may induce debate.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've deleted some comments that were answering the question, and responses to them.
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
5 hours ago