I'm just a layman, but once I learned about experiments like delayed-choice quantum eraser[1] any physical wave function collapse stopped making sense to me.
As a calculation tool, like the algorithm in this thread, sure, but not as something that really happens.
That is, there is no collapse. QM is a description of the quantum level of the world relative to our fixed sized, such that it doesn't really make sense to ask "what is really happening" since "what is really happening" is relative to what we can measure and ask from a human perspective. The probabilisitic nature is the description we have to describe systems at the quantum scale since it doesn't really make sense to ask the question what a quantum system looks like at a quantum scale, since measurement devices are inherently classical.
I guess you can say it's sorta like taking some algorithm for some problem, caching all possible inputs, and thus knowing the full solution to that problem but not really knowing the "true" algorithm that has no memory space optimizations. Some might say the problem should have a more "real" solution, but the infinite cache solution might be all we have and it doesn't mean the solution is worthless.
While this may seam unsatisfactory to some, I think QM is a very consistent description to much physics, and alternatives like LQG are inherently problematic as it violates Lorentz invariance since it chooses a privileged reference frame (the reference frame with the smallest length metric). A lot of the hate comes from some physicists who want to introduce their own theories, want to full status and glory of being the next Einstein who disrupted physics, but will never address any criticism of their theories, berate others who work on QM or string theory for not wanting to work on their framework, and essentially saying those who are working on QM/theory don't deserve their jobs nor funding.
Something is happening, it's described by quantum mechanics. What is "really happening" is a moot question, because you're assuming that QM is in invalid description because it doesn't satisfy how you want the world to work.
Sorry, physics doesn't care that you find some descriptions of the world troubling. Some might find the magnetic field troubling since the divergence of the magnetic field is zero. Some might find the fact that mass and energy are equivalent as troubling.
> you're assuming that QM is in invalid description because it doesn't satisfy how you want the world to work.
That's an uncharitable interpretation. People have an objection to speculations like many-worlds because they aren't corroborated by observation, and by nature can't be (iiuc), and are therefore unscientific (though not necessarily untrue). Well-established physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder hold this position and it's not as clear-cut as "the facts don't care about your feelings" like some make it out to be.
> That's an uncharitable interpretation. People have an objection to speculations like many-worlds because they aren't corroborated by observation, and by nature can't be (iiuc), and are therefore unscientific (though not necessarily untrue). Well-established physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder hold this position and it's not as clear-cut as "the facts don't care about your feelings" like some make it out to be.
The disagreement with MWI and the general disdain for QM are separate issues. MWI is an interpretation that doesn't necessarily invalidate the framework, but attempts to extend it. However there's also been a general disdain for QM from various folk who attempt to completely replace it.
Whether Sabine Hossenfelder likes a theory or not is not really an argument, given you're arguing from authority. As an example of her clickbaity title where she doesn't really seem to respect QM:
I think it's well known in the theory community QM can be updated for a more complete framework (carefully obviously), but the idea that QM is "completely wrong" because it's incomplete or introduces some complexities she doesn't like, is completely laughable. It's akin to saying classical mechanics is "completely wrong" because it doesn't predict quantum behavior (despite many anti-QM people claiming QM is wrong because they want to impose their classical understanding onto the quantum world) and then ignoring modern engineering, which uses classical mechanics to describe buildings, cars, machines, etc...
> The disagreement with MWI and the general disdain for QM are separate issues.
Fair point, I guess I didn't sense any disdain from the conversation so I didn't intend to comment on that.
> there's also been a general disdain for QM from various folk who attempt to completely replace it.
Too bad, it's as proven as any other theory out there. I wasn't responding to this as I didn't see any in the conversation, maybe I missed it.
I was responding to the criticism that someone received for pointing out that what quantum mechanics describes (things being in a superposition of states) doesn't match what we observe (things being in one state at a time).
> Whether Sabine Hossenfelder likes a theory or not is not really an argument
Whether actual scientists hold a view is not an argument (nor did I try to use it as one), but it is relevant to pointless random online arguments because it can help us spend our time better and not waste it on debunking things that nobody who knows what they're talking about actually believes, as I was trying to help you do. You yourself said
> I think many "top" physicists (those with high citation counts in theory), generally believe in consistent histories
so your criticism applies to both of us or neither.
> the idea that QM is "completely wrong"
Who are you quoting here? The article you linked doesn't say that QM is "completely wrong" (just that it's not as good as QFT), and neither does anyone in the HN discussion, so I'm not sure what text you're referring to.
> because it's incomplete or introduces some complexities she doesn't like
Actually Hossenfelder is a well-known critic of the idea that simplicity and beauty are requirements of truth, and your remarks aren't supported by the text of the article, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here either.
> Whether actual scientists hold a view is not an argument (nor did I try to use it as one), but it is relevant to pointless random online arguments because it can help us spend our time better and not waste it on debunking things that nobody who knows what they're talking about actually believes, as I was trying to help you do. You yourself said
I don't agree here, argument from authority is not an appropriate argument. If you do not have particulars for an argument, then you shouldn't really have a strong opinion on the topic.
> Who are you quoting here? The article you linked doesn't say that QM is "completely wrong" (just that it's not as good as QFT), and neither does anyone in the HN discussion, so I'm not sure what text you're referring to.
? The article I linked has a headline that's clearly misleading, and not only that, QFT is BASED on QM. You start with some Lagrangian and fields, impose QM restrictions via commutation relations, and perform calculations. What exactly do you think QFT is?
> Actually Hossenfelder is a well-known critic of the idea that simplicity and beauty are requirements of truth, and your remarks aren't supported by the text of the article, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here either.
What exactly are you trying to argue here? You started off dismissing my comments, and now you're defending Sabine for "beauty" and "truth". Beauty and truth relative to her, Sabine? Okay?
> It's all just mathematics. So basically, shut up and calculate.
Does Tegmark shut up and calculate or extensively discuss the metaphysical meaning and reality of his "mathematical universe hypothesis" - whatever it is? I suspect the latter.
