What has changed since the Copenhagen interpretation?

[A. Neumaier]

The statement that macroscopic world obeys classical laws is quite obsolete, because there are many counterexamples. For instance, superconductor in a superposition of macroscopic currents in the opposite directions.

Can you give a reference for the latter?

 

[Demystifier]

Can you give a reference for the latter?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10894533
Do you think it's a challenge for your thermal interpretation of QM?

 

[A. Neumaier]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10894533
Do you think it's a challenge for your thermal interpretation of QM?

Thanks for the reference from 2000. A more recent (2018) review of macroscopic quantum state preparation is here:

Fröwis, Florian, et al. "Macroscopic quantum states: Measures, fragility, and implementations." Reviews of Modern Physics 90.2 (2018): 025004.

It is primarily an experimental challenge. But there are no associated foundational problems as quantum mechanics is not violated in the experiments.

Why should it be a challenge for the thermal interpretation? Is it a challenge for Bohmian mechanics?

 

[Auto-Didact]

Thus you view algebraic equations as a particular case of ordinary differential equations?

You misunderstand me: when doing research into some phenomenon characterized by an equation, my null hypothesis is usually that all equations (algebraic or transcendental) and (partial or ordinary, discrete or continuous) differential equations are actually specific parts, properties or aspects of dynamical systems until demonstrated otherwise; this does not mean that the equations are so in and of themselves, but that they are so when looked at from the right perspective in the correct context, i.e. when the right scientific question is asked. For me, the right question is almost always the interesting question in a scientific context and specifically not any questions in the context of mathematical formalism.

It goes without saying that I'm biased and focus on some equations more than others, e.g. equations with a deep established model behind them, often directly from the context of physics, than just random equations or obviously trivial equations. This quickly gets complicated because many empirical equations of phenomenon that are encountered are simplifications, truncations, linearizations, regressions and so on and they require care to reveal their deeper nature. Looking at an equation naively such as a beginner would is, I think, a mistake of premature closure of classification, because doing that too strictly makes one incapable of correctly generalizing with as a result that the person is only able to see the equations (the trees), not the larger classes they belongs to (the forest); many of these classes are essentially uncharacteristed by mathematicians so far, or still the subject of ongoing research.

There tends to be a stark difference between how physicists and mathematicians approach the subject of mathematics as a theory; moreover, it seems as if most practitioners say one thing (e.g. believe in formalism) while do something else (e.g. practice Platonism). In either case, the view I'm arguing for is aligned with how most classical physicists (from Newton up to Fourier, Laplace, Lagrange et al. up to Poincaré and some dynamicists today) viewed the relationship between mathematics and physics. I suspect that not just physics, but all advanced applied mathematics (mathematical biology, economics and so on) has this same form; this would in some sense be the answer to Wigner's observation regarding the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences.

From my experience in doing research it turns out more often than not, that my null hypothesis is true, with the caveat that what exactly the original equation is w.r.t. the dynamical system requires a very careful characterization: they don't all share the same relationship to some dynamical system, but so far they all fall into a set of specific themes. In my idiosyncratic view, this is the correct theoretical methodology of how to practice theoretical physics based on advanced pure and applied mathematics; I think many physicists and mathematicians actually mean this when they refer to 'being guided by mathematical beauty' with beauty being specifically the experience of recognizing a relation to the same kind of equations they were exposed to (i.e. the canonical equations of physics) during training.