From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

1 point

·
29th Sep 2020

On interpretation, what do you think about this book?

https://www.amazon.ca/What-Real-Unfinished-Meaning-Quantum/dp/0465096050

>Every physicist agrees quantum mechanics is among humanity's finest scientific achievements. But ask what it means, and the result will be a brawl. For a century, most physicists have followed Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation and dismissed questions about the reality underlying quantum physics as meaningless. A mishmash of solipsism and poor reasoning, Copenhagen endured, as Bohr's students vigorously protected his legacy, and the physics community favored practical experiments over philosophical arguments. As a result, questioning the status quo long meant professional ruin. And yet, from the 1920s to today, physicists like John Bell, David Bohm, and Hugh Everett persisted in seeking the true meaning of quantum mechanics. *What Is Real?* is the gripping story of this battle of ideas and the courageous scientists who dared to stand up for truth.

5 points

·
24th Jul 2021

I would add this wonderful book.

What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, by Adam Becker - March 20, 2018

https://www.amazon.com/What-Real-Unfinished-Meaning-Quantum/dp/0465096050

1 point

·
26th Apr 2021

>Hi, I watched videos and read articles about how due to quantum physics reality doesn't exist until we observe it!

That is a popular takeaway of quantum mechanics, but it's not a common take among either physicists or philosophers. Consider the example of a particle in a box. At every point in time, the particle has a state.

In classical mechanics, the state of the particle in the box can be described using 6 real numbers: 3 for position and 3 for momentum.

In quantum mechanics, the particle in the box still has a state at all times. It's just that the state is more complicated. Instead of 6 numbers, you have a function called the "wave function" which needs infinitely many complex numbers to describe. (It doesn't have to look like a wave) This is the case *at all times*. It's the case when you look at it and when you don't look at it.

What trips people up is that when you measure the "position" of the particle, the wave function changes. (collapses) And this new wave function has a special form that can be summarized using 3 position numbers. But that's not because the particle just suddenly sprung into existence. The particle always had a state and suddenly, the state looks like a classical position. (Also note that it is possible for the wave function to have this special position-like form even when nobody is looking at it.)

My friend is a quantum physicist who wrote a book about this actually: https://smile.amazon.com/What-Real-Unfinished-Meaning-Quantum/dp/0465096050?sa-no-redirect=1

>So basically, is naive realism compatible with quantum physics? Do things exist when we are not observing them?

So to answer this question, yes quantum physics is compatible with naive realism. What quantum mechanics says is not that the particle doesn't exist until you look at it. What it says is that the state of the particle is described by a wave function, not the 6 momentum and position numbers. Whether the state of the particle is "real" when you look at it or not doesn't have anything to do with what the state is.

1 point

·
24th Sep 2019

There is a long history there, which I think is explained well in the recent book by Becker.

1 point

·
5th Jul 2018

1 point

·
21st Sep 2017

you'll appreciate this, coming out in a few months. written by a friend

https://www.amazon.com/What-Real-Unfinished-Meaning-Physics/dp/0465096050

-1 points

·
19th Apr 2018

Except yes it is

-3 points

·
19th Apr 2018

Except yes they actually do

< $50

< $50

< $50