Is QM generally believed to be able to describe Newtonian mechanics?

[Pony]

TL;DR Summary

Is QM generally believed to be able to describe Newtonian mechanics / SR as we observe it, not counting gravity, and objective collapse theories?

I have a hard time to grok QM. I wonder if it is my fault. Probably QM and all the interpretations are incapable to explain the world as we observe it (either in Newtonian mechanics, or in Special Relativity), not counting gravitation, also not allowing "objective collapse" (which would be a different theory).

IIRC @Demystifier has several papers about how none of the interpretations work, and how measurement is still a problem. I am asking about the mainline view, is for example MWI generally viewed as something that explains the world that we observe (without gravity), how we observe it, and such?

 

[Nugatory]

Yes.
If it weren’t consistent with observation we wouldn’t it wouldn’t work and we wouldn’t use it.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I have a hard time to grok QM. I wonder if it is my fault.

It is your limitation, but not your fault.

Probably QM and all the interpretations are incapable to explain the world as we observe it (either in Newtonian mechanics, or in Special Relativity),

On the contrary, Newtonian mechanics and special relativity are incapable of explaining the world as we observe it -- unless we also take quantum mechanics into account!

 

[A. Neumaier]

I am asking about the mainline view, is for example MWI generally viewed as something that explains the world that we observe (without gravity), how we observe it, and such?

MWI is surely not the mainline view.

The world is explained by quantum mechanics, no matter which interpretation you choose.

 

[Demystifier]

IIRC @Demystifier has several papers about how none of the interpretations work, and how measurement is still a problem.

That's not exactly what I said. There are many interpretations that work in a sense, but neither is perfect, each of them has some unappealing features.

 

[PeterDonis]

Is QM generally believed to be able to describe Newtonian mechanics / SR as we observe it, not counting gravity, and objective collapse theories?

Your question is too vague. Newtonian mechanics/SR, taken literally (as opposed to being used as approximations), are not consistent with observations. So are you asking whether QM is consistent with observations? Or are you asking whether QM is consistent with Newtonian mechanics/SR?

And Newtonian mechanics and SR are not even consistent with each other. So I'm confused as to what you are asking.

 

[Vanadium 50]

And in science we do not decide the truth or falsehoold of a proposition by taking a poll.

 

[Frabjous]

And in science we do not decide the truth or falsehoold of a proposition by taking a poll.

We use the scientific consensus which is completely different.

 

[PeterDonis]

We use the scientific consensus which is completely different.

No, we don't. Scientific truth is decided by testing predictions against experiments. Theories which have passed many such tests will have a "consensus" among scientists that they are correct, yes, but the consensus is not why we believe them to be correct.

 

[Frabjous]

No, we don't. Scientific truth is decided by testing predictions against experiments. Theories which have passed many such tests will have a "consensus" among scientists that they are correct, yes, but the consensus is not why we believe them to be correct.

Using that definition, most discussions of quantum interpretations are just psuedoscientific drivel.

 

[PeterDonis]

Using that definition, most discussions of quantum interpretations are just psuedoscientific drivel.

Most discussions of quantum interpretations are not "scientific truth", they are either speculation or philosophy. That doesn't make them "pseudoscientific" or "drivel", since they are still based on the math of QM, and the math of QM has passed many, many experimental tests. They are just not necessary to use the math of QM to make predictions.