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

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.

Though taking a somewhat different angle, I can't help feeling that there's an echo here of a 19th-century view that our knowledge of physics was virtually complete, all that remained was to dot a few i's and cross the t's. Of course, not long afterwards, whole new vistas were opened up...

The history of the development of physics in the early 20th century is often presented with the benefit of hindsight as a neat kind of narrative, where each step leads to the next, and so on. However looked at from the other end of the timeline, with no hindsight available, what one has is curiosity and unanswered questions.

Though taking a somewhat different angle, I can't help feeling that there's an echo here of a 19th-century view that our knowledge of physics was virtually complete, all that remained was to dot a few i's and cross the t's. Of course, not long afterwards, whole new vistas were opened up...

The history of the development of physics in the early 20th century is often presented with the benefit of hindsight as a neat kind of narrative, where each step leads to the next, and so on. However looked at from the other end of the timeline, with no hindsight available, what one has is curiosity and unanswered questions.

On that subject, I feel I must give another plug to a book I read some years back and which I still feel is probably one of the better accounts of early 20th century physics even though it is written as a historical novel. The book is called Triad by Tom Keve (I believe I have mentioned it here previously) and here's a description.

https://www.amazon.com/TRIAD-physicists-...B008PUZ6BK

Short-listed for the 2010 European Book Prize, rooted in extensive research, faithful to historical fact, TRIAD examines the parallel development of psychoanalysis and quantum physics in the early part of the 20th century. Next to physics and psychoanalysis, the book also explores the Jewish cultural connection.This third element of the triad, takes the reader from provincial ghetto to Budapest cafe society, from Kabbalah to enlightenment, from the mysteries of the universe to the mysteries of the universe. Numerous and unexpected family ties between the practitioners of the various arts enlivens the author's exploration of the counter-intuitive theories and monumental discoveries which have changed all our lives. The historical novel format allows the author to probe and expound the major themes of the book: the role of the unconscious in the creative process, the evolution of radical ideas, the importance of cultural and family history, the role of professional rivalry, jealousy, friendship and hero worship. A fascinating and unusual book, with a rich, rich cast and a wealth of ideas.

Though taking a somewhat different angle, I can't help feeling that there's an echo here of a 19th-century view that our knowledge of physics was virtually complete, all that remained was to dot a few i's and cross the t's. Of course, not long afterwards, whole new vistas were opened up...

The history of the development of physics in the early 20th century is often presented with the benefit of hindsight as a neat kind of narrative, where each step leads to the next, and so on. However looked at from the other end of the timeline, with no hindsight available, what one has is curiosity and unanswered questions.

I think that there’s a fundamental difference between the 19th century scientists and current scientists,  not all of them, of course, but the mainstream. 

Back then I think they truly believed what they said, these days they delude themselves.

Maybe I’m wrong of course, but I think by choosing to ignore the ‘big questions’ QM brought to the table, we have been treading water. Until we are more honest, and more humble, I don’t think we will really make any real progress.

A valid point of view I suppose.

However,

Back then I think they truly believed what they said, these days they delude themselves.

How might one distinguish the two, as viewed from the inside, if we place ourselves in someone's shoes? Is it even possible?

A valid point of view I suppose.

However,
How might one distinguish the two, as viewed from the inside, if we place ourselves in someone's shoes? Is it even possible?

I don’t there was yet an elephant in the room, as there has been since the double split. 

I may be deluding myself, but I think QM was a split in the road, and we chose to go down the one that looked far easier, but led only to the rubbish dump. The flower garden lies waiting down the other one.

There are a few brave explorers out there though, it’s not all bad.

Courtesy of the Daily Grail - here's a report of a related experiment (a real experiment, not a thought experiment), which is interpreted to demonstrate that one of the following three assumptions is violated: (1) locality, (2) free choice and (3) consistency of observations by different observers:
Experimental test of local observer independence
Massimiliano Proietti, Alexander Pickston, Francesco Graffitti, Peter Barrow, Dmytro Kundys, Cyril Branciard, Martin Ringbauer and Alessandro Fedrizzi
Science Advances  20 Sep 2019: Vol. 5, no. 9, eaaw9832
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832

Abstract: The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most markedly exposed in Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether the observers’ narratives can be reconciled has only recently been made accessible to empirical investigation, through recent no-go theorems that construct an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers. In a state-of-the-art six-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by five standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.