Quantum Physics is No More Mysterious Than Crossing the Street: A Conversation with Chris Fuchs

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... the-street

It looks like the 'many worlds" interpretation of QM is falling apart too. I think we're about to experience a new Renaissance in physics where there is finally more emphasis placed upon empirical physics and less emphasis on mysticism and metaphysical nonsense.

[Higgsy]

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... the-street

It looks like the 'many worlds" interpretation of QM is falling apart too. I think we're about to experience a new Renaissance in physics where there is finally more emphasis placed upon empirical physics and less emphasis on mysticism and metaphysical nonsense.

You like to claim this, that and the other is falling apart, don't you, without really understanding what you're reading. You link to an interview with the founder of one minority interpretation of QM criticising another minority interpretation of QM. How does that lead to your conclusion that Many Worlds is "falling apart"? I could equally well link to a proponent of Many Worlds who describes it as "quantum mechanics is not mystifying" and thinks that QBism is absurd. What's ironic is that the second minority interpretation of QM, QBism, which you link to appreciatively, is about as mystical and metaphysical as they come, abandoning, as it does, the concept of an external reality and considering only agents and their beliefs.

Meanwhile, the mathematical predictions of QM carry on being confirmed in observation after observation.

[Michael Mozina]

You like to claim this, that and the other is falling apart, don't you, without really understanding what you're reading.

i think I understood it just fine. His way of viewing QM doesn't require all the metaphysical baggage of "many worlds", so from my (empirical) perspective, it's "better".

You link to an interview with the founder of one minority interpretation of QM criticising another minority interpretation of QM. How does that lead to your conclusion that Many Worlds is "falling apart"?

If "many worlds" can be replaced with *one* world and many statistical possibilities, it's a unnecessary to introduce metaphysical constructs into the discourse.

I could equally well link to a proponent of Many Worlds who describes it as "quantum mechanics is not mystifying" and thinks that QBism is absurd.

Please do. I'd love to read it. Even a lot it's proponents admit the many worlds is pretty out there, and I'd enjoy reading some criticisms of the QBism method of interpretation.

What's ironic is that the second minority interpretation of QM, QBism, which you link to appreciatively, is about as mystical and metaphysical as they come, abandoning, as it does, the concept of an external reality and considering only agents and their beliefs.

How is that mystifying to you?

Meanwhile, the mathematical predictions of QM carry on being confirmed in observation after observation.

Both models assume that QM is correct for a *reason*, they just differ on the *reason* for it's success. Are you sure that *you* actually understood what you read?

[Higgsy]

You like to claim this, that and the other is falling apart, don't you, without really understanding what you're reading.

i think I understood it just fine. His way of viewing QM doesn't require all the metaphysical baggage of "many worlds", so from my (empirical) perspective, it's "better".

Whatever your personal preference might be, your claim that Many Worlds is falling apart on the basis that the proponent of one minority interpretation criticised the other is absurd. Even more absurd when the fact is taken into account that Many Worlds has actually been receiving far more attention in the last decade than ever before, and will continue to do so.

You link to an interview with the founder of one minority interpretation of QM criticising another minority interpretation of QM. How does that lead to your conclusion that Many Worlds is "falling apart"?

If "many worlds" can be replaced with *one* world and many statistical possibilities, it's a unnecessary to introduce metaphysical constructs into the discourse.

But you don't do actual quantum mechanics, you merely read superficial popular articles about it, so the complexities of the issues associated with any interpretation go over your head. But in any case, whatever your view of the matter, your claim that Many Worlds is "falling apart" is patently absurd. Statistical possibilities and one world are also part of the Copenhagen interpretation which has been around for 90 years, as well a dozen or more other interpretations of QM, each with their own issues.

I could equally well link to a proponent of Many Worlds who describes it as "quantum mechanics is not mystifying" and thinks that QBism is absurd.

Please do. I'd love to read it. Even a lot it's proponents admit the many worlds is pretty out there, and I'd enjoy reading some criticisms of the QBism method of interpretation.

For a popular intro, read Sean Carroll's "Something Deeply Hidden" in which he explains why he thinks that Many Worlds is the simplest and purest interpretation of QM, and in which he claims the Everettian interpretation leads to a QM that "...isn't hopelessly mystical or inexplicable. It's just physics." He reviews a number of other interpretations including QBism in Chapter 9 and concludes about QBism: "...an incredible amount of effort devoted to solving problems that aren't really there." I would no more suggest that Carroll's critique of QBism means that QBism is "falling apart" than I would suggest that Fuchs' criticism of Many Worlds means that it is "falling apart".

What's ironic is that the second minority interpretation of QM, QBism, which you link to appreciatively, is about as mystical and metaphysical as they come, abandoning, as it does, the concept of an external reality and considering only agents and their beliefs.

How is that mystifying to you?

A physics that abandons studying objective external reality for predicting the subjective experience of agents is at least more mystical and metaphysical than one that treats QM as a description of an objectively existing external world.

Understand that I have no horse in this race - I merely think your claim that Many Worlds is "falling apart" is silly and ill-informed.

[Michael Mozina]

Whatever your personal preference might be, your claim that Many Worlds is falling apart on the basis that the proponent of one minority interpretation criticised the other is absurd.

It's certainly a lot more rational to believe the multiple *agents* (like you and me) exist, rather than "multiple worlds". Sheesh. From the perspective of logic and common sense, it's not even a close call.

Even more absurd when the fact is taken into account that Many Worlds has actually been receiving far more attention in the last decade than ever before, and will continue to do so.

Ya, and the LCDM model is still popular too, but I'll bet you won't even touch your dark energy problem with a 10 foot pole now. It's clear that there is a far more *likely* explanation for the "appearance" of acceleration.

But you don't do actual quantum mechanics, you merely read superficial popular articles about it, so the complexities of the issues associated with any interpretation go over your head.

Possibly, but I can understand the core difference between proposing multiple *agents* (people) rather then multiple worlds. It's a fairly straight forward argument.

But in any case, whatever your view of the matter, your claim that Many Worlds is "falling apart" is patently absurd. Statistical possibilities and one world are also part of the Copenhagen interpretation which has been around for 90 years, as well a dozen or more other interpretations of QM, each with their own issues.

True but this model might explain why individuals seem to be influencing the outcome of various tests.

For a popular intro, read Sean Carroll's "Something Deeply Hidden" in which he explains why he thinks that Many Worlds is the simplest and purest interpretation of QM, and in which he claims the Everettian interpretation leads to a QM that "...isn't hopelessly mystical or inexplicable.

I've watched a number of his videos. He claims it's not mystical, and then he proceeds to evoke mystical claims (like many worlds). Sorry, but I don't find his arguments to be that convincing, but to be honest I've always had a hard time swallowing the many worlds concepts. It just sounds like a bunch of metaphysical nonsense, not unlike "dark energy".

It's just physics." He reviews a number of other interpretations including QBism in Chapter 9 and concludes about QBism: "...an incredible amount of effort devoted to solving problems that aren't really there." I would no more suggest that Carroll's critique of QBism means that QBism is "falling apart" than I would suggest that Fuchs' criticism of Many Worlds means that it is "falling apart".

Well, I haven't read the book, so I'll have to wait a see what I think, but solving the need for "many worlds" seems like a pretty serious problem that is solved by QBism.

A physics that abandons studying objective external reality for predicting the subjective experience of agents is at least more mystical and metaphysical than one that treats QM as a description of an objectively existing external world.

No it's not. It simply suggests that agents (individuals) have an effect on the outcome which seems to be born out by experimentation. Even the creation of "many worlds" is a subjective choice by different (agents) individuals.

Understand that I have no horse in this race - I merely think your claim that Many Worlds is "falling apart" is silly and ill-informed.

I simply have a preference for empirical physics vs. metaphysical postulates when possible. In that sense, QBism seems like a clear winner.

FYI, I'm really dying to hear you address your current dark energy problem. If it's possible to "explain" the tension between SN1A data and Planck data via density variations, then it's only logical to get rid of dark energy the same way. If we're located in a "special' place with respect to density, then there's no evidence whatsoever to support exotic energy that also violates conservation of energy laws.

[Zyxzevn]

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... the-street

It looks like the 'many worlds" interpretation of QM is falling apart too. I think we're about to experience a new Renaissance in physics where there is finally more emphasis placed upon empirical physics and less emphasis on mysticism and metaphysical nonsense.

So, when can light be normal EM-waves again?
It seems that physics and astronomers tend to forget about electromagnetic fields all the time.

I made a report about that on saidit (Null hypothesis
It just means that Einstein was wrong with his belief in force-particles.
And that the measurement problem is easily solved.

We see it back when the "quantum jump" is actually a shift that takes time.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20190605/

[Higgsy]

Whatever your personal preference might be, your claim that Many Worlds is falling apart on the basis that the proponent of one minority interpretation criticised the other is absurd.

I simply have a preference for empirical physics vs. metaphysical postulates when possible. In that sense, QBism seems like a clear winner.

I understand that you prefer one interpretation of qunatum mechanics over another. That doesn't mean that either of them is "falling apart".

FYI, I'm really dying to hear you address your current dark energy problem. If it's possible to "explain" the tension between SN1A data and Planck data via density variations, then it's only logical to get rid of dark energy the same way.

Indeed, density variations are one of several different approaches to address the tension between different measurements of the Hubble constant; and indeed, in time, it might turn out to be the explanation that removes the tension. In doing so, it might also eliminate the need for dark energy, and if so, then that's what will happen. However, we have seen other claims for density variations come and go, and a lot more water will have to flow under the bridge, including supporting evidence that we are indeed in a void. Also that explanation will have to be compatible with a shedload of other observations, so don't expect it to be accepted overnight. The debate in cosmology is vigorous, but since it's cosmologists who are providing all of the observations that you latch onto so greedily, and since you have so little respect for them, I wonder that you take anything that they say seriously.

[Michael Mozina]

I understand that you prefer one interpretation of qunatum mechanics over another. That doesn't mean that either of them is "falling apart".

If it's possible to replace multiple "worlds" with multiple agents (people), only the multiple agent model is well supported by the physical evidence. There are indeed lots of different individuals with lots of different beliefs. There is no evidence however for "other worlds", so a simple Occam's razor argument shows us a *very clear* winner in terms of which model has better core postulates. To me at least, that *completely* undermines the other worlds model entirely. It's unnecessary to postulate the existence of other worlds, and it's unsupported by the physical evidence.

Indeed, density variations are one of several different approaches to address the tension between different measurements of the Hubble constant; and indeed, in time, it might turn out to be the explanation that removes the tension. In doing so, it might also eliminate the need for dark energy, and if so, then that's what will happen. However, we have seen other claims for density variations come and go, and a lot more water will have to flow under the bridge, including supporting evidence that we are indeed in a void. Also that explanation will have to be compatible with a shedload of other observations, so don't expect it to be accepted overnight. The debate in cosmology is vigorous, but since it's cosmologists who are providing all of the observations that you latch onto so greedily, and since you have so little respect for them, I wonder that you take anything that they say seriously.

In the final analysis I *do not* take them seriously since I lack belief in "space expansion" as an empirical cause of redshift, and I presume that we live in a static electric (plasma cosmology) universe.

I can however see for myself that the LCDM model is self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant and there's a relatively simple way to fix it, namely by modifying the local density and doing away with around 70 percent of the metaphysical entities associated with the LCDM model while they're at it. Even to a skeptic of the LCDM model, that seems like a logical step in the right empirical direction.

Such an about face with respect to dark energy does however present a *major* problem for astronomers because they'd have to admit their model has been wrong for at least a couple of decades and those Nobel's they handed out were worthless. All the 'experts" on 'dark energy" would have a cow too. A CDM bang model still has no real explanation for "dark matter", nor any way to demonstrate a cause/effect link between redshift and "space expansion" in a lab. It's forever destined to be a belief system which begins with a pure act of faith in a metaphysical construct.

From my perspective this would be an *excellent* time for astronomers to reconsider the whole "bang" concept because it's been utterly horrific in terms of actually "predicting' anything correctly at higher redshifs.

I'm quite certain that the JWST is going to see "mature' and 'massive" galaxies at the highest redshift that it can observe, just like Hubble, because galaxy evolution is a myth IMO. All the evidence to date is that galaxies in the distant universe look just like the ones closest to us. It's not as though a modified "bang" model is likely to last another 5 years anyway, so if there's no need for dark energy, and 68 percent of the LCDM model is toast, it's a logical time to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate Edwin Hubble's *preferred* explanation for redshift (tired light) rather than to continue to base cosmology models on faith in metaphysical constructs which can never be demonstrated in controlled experimentation.

The way I see it Higgsy, you're *eventually* going to be forced to embrace a Plasma Cosmology model sooner or later, so it only makes sense to do it now rather than modify the BB model again. Just look at what we're already seeing at the highest redshifts. Quasars are way more massive than predicted. Those distant galaxies are as massive, or more massive than our own galaxy. They're as mature too. The concept of galaxy evolution simply isn't supported by the high redshift evidence that we already have, and the JWST is likely to blow away that prediction entirely. Then what?

If astronomers admit they were wrong with respect to DE, who's going to believe them with respect to DM? If they try to abandon almost 70 percent of the BB model now, and then JWST destroys the whole galaxy evolution claim, they'll just have to admit they were wrong about expansion entirely anyway in a few years.

A plasma cosmology model *could* include expansion (of objects, and it could work very will with a static solution to redshift as well. It's a better long term empirical bet in that respect. The BB models has *never* been particularly accurate at predicting new observations at higher redshifts, so what makes you think it's going to be successful at predicting observations at higher redshifts in the future?