- #71
- 8,943
- 2,949
Nugatory said:There's a strong element of personal taste here, and... de gustibus non est disputandum.
But I have to say that I'm siding with what I'm hearing from TheAustrian and WbN. Classical mechanics, E&M, SR/GR, I look at the math and map it back into a physical interpretation of how the world works and I think I understand, but QM... Not so much. It's only in QM that "shut up and calculate" is sound advice, and only in QM that all interpretations fall short in one way or another and I'm stuck with what I get when I calculate.
I think that there is a distinction between QM and theories such as GR. In the case of GR, or Newtonian physics, or Maxwell's equations, or just about any theory besides QM, the theory is taken to be a description of what the world is like. Of course, the description could be wrong, or it could be incomplete, or it could be an idealization, but the theories are about what's going on in the world. It says that there are things such as particles and fields and spacetime, and those things have certain properties that evolve according to certain equations.
Quantum mechanics is different, in that it doesn't seem to be making any claims about what the world is like. The entities that you calculate with--wave functions and probability amplitudes--are not claimed to be entities in the real world at all, nor are they claimed to be descriptions of objects in the real world. They are simply calculation tools for making predictions.
Some people say that that's all you need from a theory of physics--a way to make accurate predictions. I guess in some sense that's true. But I think that it's unsatisfying to people who are interested in physics because they want to understand the world.
Let me give an analogy, which might sound unfair, but it seems accurate to me. Suppose that someone came up with a fortune-telling card game, something like Tarot that was ACTUALLY accurate. If you wanted to know whether it would rain tomorrow, you shuffled the deck and dealt out the cards and interpreted the results according to certain rules. If there were such a card game that made repeatable, accurate predictions about weather would people consider that a scientific theory of the weather? Some might, but many would not.
Many people say that the reason we reject as unscientific those superstitious techniques for telling the future such as Tarot, astrology, reading tea-leaves, etc, is because they are either falsified, or else too vague to be falsifiable. But I think people would not consider them scientific theories even if they were accurate, because it does not give us a reasonable understanding of why the predictions are accurate. How does the arrangement of Tarot cards manage to correlate with future events? How does the arrangement of stars and planets manage to correlate with events on Earth? Even if these techniques were accurate, they wouldn't be considered scientific theories, it would just be more data that a scientific theory would need to explain: why those fortune-telling techniques work.
Quantum mechanics isn't quite in the same boat, but emotionally it feels similar to some people. It gives accurate predictions, but it seems to some people that its accurate predictions are more data that needs explaining, rather than a fundamental theory.