Quantum Mechanics

[Anonymous No.11765877]

What is your favorite interpretation?

[Anonymous No.11765913]

>>11765877
Relational makes the most sense.

[Anonymous No.11765917]

>>11765877
Bohm/causal

[Anonymous No.11765918]

>>11765877
>19 for many worlds
I didnt know they stacked retards that high

[Anonymous No.11765927]

>>11765913
Elaborating on this:
>Copenhagen
Not the worst, but only has adherents because it's taught as the default. Ontologically weird
>Many worlds
Pop söy
>Consistent histories
Many worlds for 120 IQ
>Bohmian
Doesn't play well with QFT.
>Others
Special snowflake
>Shut up and calculate
You will never be a good scientist. Enjoy your symbol pushing exam grade.

[Anonymous No.11765983]

>>11765877
Shut up and use Copenhagen.

So long as there are no observable results to falsify the interpretations, it's all philosophy and not science.

[Anonymous No.11765985]

>>11765877
>no Von Neumann
muh woo

[Anonymous No.11765995]

>>11765983
>it's all philosophy and not science.
That makes it even more important, anon. Science without philosophy is just circlejerking. We're trying to figure things out here, not do useless busywork.

[Anonymous No.11765999]

>>11765927
QBism is the most satisfying but I have heard that physicists don't take it very seriously at all.

[Anonymous No.11766004]

>>11765995
Epistemology is important, dicking around trying to make equivalent theories because you don't have anything easy left to study isn't important.

I have this theory that all disciplines of study get through boom and stagnation cycles of discovery, where during boom people discover many things and are rigorous because good results are the optimal way to compete and during stagnation, results are so hard to come by that politics are the best way to compete, so rigor suffers and people bicker about pointless bullshit.
And of course, nobody likes to think they're in the stagnation phase.

[Anonymous No.11766050]

Can someone explain consistent histories to me?
I understand many worlds.

[Anonymous No.11766153]

>>11765927
Superdeterminism

[Anonymous No.11766160]

>>11765985
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11766232]

>>11765918
>>11765927
Why the MW hate?

>>11765983
Then why use Copenhagen if it's all philosophy and not science?

[Anonymous No.11766239]

>>11766232
>why use Copenhagen if it's all philosophy and not science?
Most expedient since everybody knows it.
I could go all Occam's razor on you about how it doesn't need a whole lot of unobserved universes to exist, but that's enabling the pointless philosophical argument. Just use the most practical theory until it breaks.

[Anonymous No.11766267]

>>11766004
Big facts in this post

[Anonymous No.11766268]

Copenhagen can be cut off by Occam's razor because it requires collapse.
On the other hand, many worlds doesn't require collapse.
It requires only wave function of the universe.

[Anonymous No.11766272]

>>11766232
MW is functionally useless and somewhat of a dead end in terms of research. If these many worlds exist then presumably it's not possible to traverse between or if it is there's not going to be a reliable method anywhere in the vast well of hocus-pocus that concerns the theory
Mathematically it doesn't really tell you anything you can use. Philosophically it's interesting, but also ultimately useless as it essentially implies that nearly anything can be true given that a world theoretically exists where it is true. It's kinda the polar opposite of solipsism but functionally it's just as much of a dead end. And a shit ton of popsci has been written about it which A: dilutes it's purchasing power as a theory among 'real' scientists (unfortunately, since this is possibly throwing the baby out with the bathwater, no matter how unlikely or mathematically futile) and B: attracts a lot of retards. All this together is kinda responsible for why MW isn't taken seriously (most of the time).
As for Copenhagen model, I'll let a physicsfag explain that one. I assume it's because it works as a good predictor of results but that is out of my field.

[Anonymous No.11766279]

>>11765877
Many worlds is the interpretation that makes the least amount of claims bases on assumptions. This means that any other interpretation, even if correct, would be a guess.

[Anonymous No.11766284]

>>11766268
Is occam's razor really no collapse in this case? Why wouldn't collapse of the wave function be the simplest answer?

[Anonymous No.11766301]

>>11766268
>It requires only wave function of the universe.
That doesn't exist. Wave functions are relative to observers and by definition there is no observer independent of the universe.

[Anonymous No.11766330]

Vortex of Luminous Aether theory is my bet.

Also 0 is a crutch
sphere packing is red pilled
the Cuboctahedron is an important shape

[Anonymous No.11766428]

>>11765913
>>11765917
>>11765927
>>11765985
>>11765999
>>11766153
>>11766268
>>11766279
>>11766330
>>>/x/
Copenhagen is correct

[Anonymous No.11767104]

>>11766284
It is because collapse is not included in Schrodinger equation.
If you simulate Schrodinger equation of interacting multiple particles, you will see emergence of many worlds.
But if you want to see Copenhagen, you need to add collapse manually.

[Anonymous No.11767156]

>>11765983
Quantum suicide gives us observable results.

[Anonymous No.11767227]

>>11766232
>worries why electron goes left or right
>doesn't worry when universes pop up left and right

if this isn't religion, nothing is

[Anonymous No.11767559]

how about two-vector formalism?

[Anonymous No.11767917]

What about Penrose objective reduction?