

Can the quantum state be interpreted statistically? - davidmathers
http://mattleifer.info/2011/11/20/can-the-quantum-state-be-interpreted-statistically/

======
redwood
The book "How the hippies saved physics" has some really interesting
historical observations about the shift in academic physics from before WWII
into the Cold War era (and largely from Europe to America).

The crux is that a physics of philosophy, heavy on theory, was largely
replaced by a physics of "engineers in reserve" to be pumped out by
universities as a necessary weapon in order to win the Cold War. Of course the
weapon was fairly successful, as we saw physics pave the way for new applied
engineering, computer development, and chemistry. But it's also true that the
basic tenet of early-20th century theoretical physics---that of questioning
the established narrative---largely disappeared in this era.

Now things are changing again, there are enough educated individuals to study
every conceivable angle; there are mainstream stories in the press about
special relatively potentially facing caveats like never before, etc. All in
all it's an exciting time and healthy that debate is more full again.

The long established narrative in (especially American) academic physics that
there is no questioning of quantum mechanics, and no use hoping for a deeper
theory, is a great example of group think. Sure maybe we'll never have a
deeper theory, but we should always try to find one!

~~~
jerf
"The long established narrative in (especially American) academic physics that
there is no questioning of quantum mechanics, and no use hoping for a deeper
theory,"

Really? The narrative I've heard is that we know Relativity and QM don't go
together very well and it's clear that we need something beyond the both of
them to figure out how the universe works at all scales. And physicists in
general seem pretty excited about any tidbit of data that might contradict one
or the other, because they desperately need clues about what the non-QM/non-
Relativity answer looks like. Who is out there saying that we must not look
for anything beyond QM?

------
Dn_Ab
See also this entry <http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=822> and its
comments at Scott Aaronson's blog.

~~~
Dn_Ab
for other lay people watching - the original paper was over hyped. There is an
interpretation of quantum mechanics that basically thinks that the state of a
quantum object is more or less sampled from an underlying reality that we
cannot fully capture. This viewpoint is not widely held, even a lay person
such as myself found it to not make much intuitive sense - it seemed like
another way of sweeping hidden variables under a rug.

Anyways the paper now mathematically refutes this viewpoint. It still leaves
untouched another probabilistic view point that the state represents no
underlying reality and that quantum mechanics is an extension of bayesian
probability theory to a complex space (this is the view I think makes the most
sense).

In essence the paper simply solidly codifies what most of the physicists
already accepted. So not much changed.

------
Estragon
This really helped me to understand the thrust of the paper. Much better than
Motl's rant.

