Is superposition widely accepted?

[Maui]

There are so many interpretations because of the measurement problem and how to go about it, so...

 

[craigi]

Same here.

But even aside from that I am not so sure that was Feynman's view - it most certainly was that the double slit experiment contained the central mystery - but that it was the so called measurement problem can't recall him ever saying. IMHO that isn't the central mystery because every interpretation has a different take on it - the central mystery is we have so many interpretations, each suck in their own unique and different way, and we have no way to decide experimentally between them.

I do know later on in life Feynman was very attracted to Decoherent Histories as championed by the guy in the office next door - Murray Gell-Mann. Feynman evidently would sit in the back of lectures on it and ask some very illuminating and penetrating questions about it that showed he understood it only too well.

Thanks
Bill

I'm not convinced that the Consistent Histories [Griffiths] (ie. Decohorent Histories) interpretation does have any such problems. The only criticism that I've seen of it, is that it makes no testable predictions beyond the Copenhagen interpretation, but it's not intended to be a new theory, just an interpretation without the problems of the Copenhagen version.

 

[bhobba]

I'm not convinced that the Consistent Histories [Griffiths] (ie. Decohorent Histories) interpretation does have any such problems. The only criticism that I've seen of it, is that it makes no testable predictions beyond the Copenhagen interpretation, but it's not intended to be a new theory, just an interpretation without the problems of the Copenhagen version.

I like it as well.

Its issue however is its a lot like defining your way out of problems which is the idea of its frameworks. You run into issues - no problem - its not a legitimate framework. The interesting thing is decoherence automatically enforces those frameworks.

I personally don't hold to it because while it started out as a minimalist interpretation its latest incarnations are far from that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Yes, this is one of the main points which makes it interesting to me too . By the way, I really don't know very much about Feynman in detail, but I've noticed I very much agree with his general approach to science.

Yea - he is the patron saint of no BS science - he cuts to the chase.

Along with Landau he is one of my heroes.

Not perfect of course - evidently he used to sit in seminars and scare the living bejesus out of the person giving it by constantly tearing what they say apart - everyone hated it leaving a total nervous wreck. But what goes around comes around - one guy was so totally humiliated next time he was prepared, and it was Feynman that left a humiliated, stunned, nervous wreck.

Thanks
Bill