I recently wrote an answer on a question and I would infer from the responses that there is not widespread awareness of the context of the development of QM and its various interpretations.
Instead, the physics community has attempted to settle broadly on a Copenhagen interpretation that many pe...
"how the very question has been marginalised in physics?" - it has not been "marginalised", it is simply not physics. It is quite understandable that many people who do physics have little or no interest in interpretations of QM.
@kludg That is only true if you believe that physics is only about making predictions and NOT about telling you something about the world. Perhaps that is the case, but I'm not sure its a clear cut claim. If it's the latter, then what does QM tell us about the world?
@fireballs what does QM tell us about the world (in your sense of word) is the interpretation QM. It is not physics; you can call it metaphysics. I believe it is important to draw the line where physics ends. I don't say the interpretations of QM are useless or uninteresting; they are just not physics.
That is a fair line to draw. I would define physics as things done by physicists (descriptivist, I know), and almost always this includes interpretation. Your definition is just as valid, and possibly even better. "What is physics?" would be a good question to explore further.
@kludg - I cannot agree with your assertion that the interpretational question "is simply not physics"! A good example is the work of John Bell who had doubts in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, influenced also by Bohms causal interpretation. He developed his now famous Bell's inequalities for local hidden parameter interpretations. This work triggered a still ongoing wave of experimental and theoretical investigations. Although presently unimportant for practical calculations, the question of interpretation of QM could lead to further advances, it definitely belongs to physics.
@freecharly The Bell inequalities are physics, because the inequalities can be tested in experiment; why the inequalities were discovered only about 30 years after the EPR paper is very interesting; maybe because John Bell thought much about interpretations of QM; still, it is not physics.
@kludg, I think we are really talking about the same thing. It is not so much that you're saying the marginalising has not occurred, but on the contrary that it is perfectly legitimate to do so as it is "not physics". The only fly in the ointment with that view is that the QM interpretations were all conceived by mainstream physicists, at least one interpretation is always taught in physics classes, all physicists employ at least one interpretation in their work, and nobody outside physics would understand much about them.
@Steve I don't think "at least one interpretation is always taught in physics classes". I believe there is no need to teach any interpretation while teaching QM. If a teacher does teach an interpretation, it does it as a scaffolding, a temporary construction that helps learning QM itself; and surely it is bad idea to teach 2 or more interpretations in a standard QM course because it moves a student away from physics.
@kludg - There might be (or exist already) more results in this field that will be experimentally testable. Just because ideas are not mainstream doesn't mean that they should not be pursues scientifically. I don't know which high priests of physics have decreed that. Einstein's meddling with the meaning of space and time or gravitation was definitely not mainstream at his time. Also think of the work of Aharonov and Bohm, who showed that the vector potential $\vec A$ of the EM field is not just a useful mathematical trick, but is a physical quantity itself that can be tested experimentally.
@kludg, I'll note your view - and I see your point in its own terms that if QM interpretations are themselves "not physics", then it certainly does not do well to teach more than one - but I do struggle to reconcile it with the general picture painted by physicists themselves of the importance of the interpretations (or "QM foundations"). Also, if no interpretation is required by physics, it does leave the question of why it is necessary to employ it at all in teaching, and why it helps (if not by providing a crucial and permanent conceptual foundation for students' understanding QM).
...I do of course accept the need for a QM interpretation to be used in teaching, because for me it forms the central and irreducible concepts of the theory, and that is why students demand it and it cannot be eliminated from the curriculum (because without it, there could be no understanding of what QM is saying or predicting, or how it is applied). Seemingly all prominent physicists have insisted on its central role. I'd be interested in any further analysis (of your own) or sources you have to offer (in an answer, maybe) that bridges these apparent contradictions that your position creates.
@Steve I believe it is a big student's mistake to think that QM interpretations are important to understand QM itself; no, they are not. Probably the minimal knowledge of Copenhagen, explained in 10 minutes, may help learning QM, but no more. QM interpretations are too much for a beginner course; and more advanced QM courses are now taught axiomatically (system is a Hilbert space, state is a vector in Hilbert space, etc). "Seemingly all prominent physicists have insisted on its central role." - Prominent physicist learned QM first. Once you have learned QM, you can discuss interpretations.
No. You were criticized for stating that any attempt at stifling debate had succeeded, not that the attitude was present (which it was), and for your inability to see the difference. The suggestion that you were "pilloried" for that, among other hyperbole here, is a straw man, and it is inconsistent with your stated desire to have a discussion in a 'proper academic manner'. If you do indeed want to do that, stop putting words in other people's mouths, and stop inventing imaginary lynch mobs.
@kludg, to my eye that's not teaching an understanding QM as a physical theory. It is like arguing that teaching a child addition, teaches them that burning twice as much gas yields twice as much heat - you cannot say that by learning maths, they also learn any physics (at best, they learn some tools useful to physics, but the application to physics and the basic concepts of the physical system, then still needs to be explained or gleaned separately). Even if it is only 10 minutes worth of Copenhagen, you don't explore why this remains inextricable from the physics curriculum.
@EmilioPisanty, the attempt at stifling (I originally used the word "suppressing") did succeed to a degree - I've already answered you that you are taking "stifling" to be equivalent to "total silence", when that's not what the word means. Indeed, firearm suppressors are referred to as such (and not as "silencers") precisely because of the subtlety in the word as implying attenuation, not total elimination. You have pilloried me, but I didn't refer to you directly, and I also referred to being praised - are you going to complain about this now (and then complain about your time being wasted)?
Discussion on question by Steve: Quan…
Discussion on question by Steve: Quan…