Reimagining of Schrödinger’s cat breaks quantum mechanics — and stumps physicists

I don't think it's that odd. There are all sorts of scientific papers getting published with weird stuff in them that I disagree with, but I do notice it particularly around QM. I think I'm reaching the paranoid suspicion that the high visibility given to "QM is broken" hyped papers, is to deflect the general public from being able to understand QM by burying the pearls within an enormous pile of crap, which is really is nothing more than anti-quantum stuff.

Even people the spend their careers researching QM don't understand it. The general public has no hope.

Even people the spend their careers researching QM don't understand it. The general public has no hope.

You may well be right. I have only an undergraduate education in quantum mechanics, from nearly 40 years ago, and I don't feel I know enough about qubits to understand this paper that's just been published, and Motl's criticism of it.

But perhaps on that basis you should also suspend judgment a bit about your Dr Baird's opinion of Schrodinger's Cat.

You may well be right. I have only an undergraduate education in quantum mechanics, from nearly 40 years ago, and I don't feel I know enough about qubits to understand this paper that's just been published, and Motl's criticism of it.

But perhaps on that basis you should also suspend judgment a bit about your Dr Baird's opinion of Schrodinger's Cat.

Richard Feynman 49 seconds on the subject. https://youtu.be/SczWCK08e9k

Richard Feynman 49 seconds on the subject. https://youtu.be/SczWCK08e9k

Yes, I think that - as least as far as the philosophical foundation of quantum mechanics is concerned - the professors don't understand it, or at least can't agree about it.

Yes, I think that - as least as far as the philosophical foundation of quantum mechanics is concerned - the professors don't understamd it, or at least can't agree about it.

Most physicists aren't concerned with the philosophical implications because it's enough hard work just trying to figure out what QM is revealing about the nature of nature.

Most physicists aren't concerned with the philosophical implications because it's enough hard work just trying to figure out what QM is revealing about the nature of nature.

Hmm. Isn't "what QM is revealing about the nature of nature" a pretty good definition of "the philosophical implications"?

Hmm. Isn't "what QM is revealing about the nature of nature" a pretty good definition of "the philosophical implications"?

One day, a few years ago, I was fortunate enough to share a 3 hour train journey with a quite delightful lady I just happened to sit across from. We quickly moved from what we do for a living - myself being retired and she was an art historian - to our interests and philosophies. Being someone with no academic achievements I was somewhat in awe of hers: two PhDs, one related to her work in art, the other in philosophy. I was reluctant to outline my personal philosophy but she charmed me into full disclosure and, to my great surprise, we found that we had a very similar worldview. In short, we were both idealists.

What relates to this thread emerged after a while when she told me about her daughter who was (probably still is) a working quantum physicist. She described how she had, on countless occasions, tried to engage her daughter into a discussion about the philosophical implications of QM. The daughter steadfastly refused to the point of annoyance. When asked to explain why, the daughter told her that physicists don't do philosophy, they do maths. When pressed as to whether she would at least wonder privately what it all meant, she insisted that nobody - including philosophers - knows what it all means so she and her colleagues just go to work and do the science.

To me (and to the lady on the train) that seems like an abdication of curiosity; the kind of curiosity that would lead Einstein to theories about relativity or Bohr to imagine the nature of an electron. Are we now in an age where such curiosity is being deliberately suppressed? Or is there some arbitrary line being drawn where the search must stop short of considerations about meaning? Is philosophy now taboo for scientists? I think it is obvious that Einstein, Bohr and others in that "Golden Age" were philosopher-scientists but I am at a loss to think of many names that would fit that description today.

What relates to this thread emerged after a while when she told me about her daughter who was (probably still is) a working quantum physicist. She described how she had, on countless occasions, tried to engage her daughter into a discussion about the philosophical implications of QM. The daughter steadfastly refused to the point of annoyance. When asked to explain why, the daughter told her that physicists don't do philosophy, they do maths. When pressed as to whether she would at least wonder privately what it all meant, she insisted that nobody - including philosophers - knows what it all means so she and her colleagues just go to work and do the science.

Indeed, I gather there's a school of thought in physics known as "Shut up and calculate".

Hmm. Isn't "what QM is revealing about the nature of nature" a pretty good definition of "the philosophical implications"?

I'll simply answer with these 3 points of view. Pick the one that suits. 

https://manyworldstheory.com/2014/03/18/...mechanics/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physi...rld-thing/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2...0c72f5152e

It may be that the physicist simply did not wish to speculate on something which was not her area of expertise. It looks like Quantum Foundations is a specialized field within the field of physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foundations

Manelli, who was a prominent proponent on the mind-body Skeptiko forum, was a PhD student in physics studying in this field. His posts on the subject were very interesting. And I remember discussing some experiments which had been designed to answer some of the questions which have been raised in this thread.

Linda