Talk:Interpretations of quantum mechanics

message: Guys, I'm not an expert at all, but I'm looking at that Comparison Box, where under "Localism," it lists Ensemble as No, and Copenhagen as Yes, and that seems backwards to me.  Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation is explicitly non-local.  The Copenhagen interpretation is that when a laboratory device observes part of an entangled state, There's a wave function collapse where the other pieces of the entangled function now have new distributions.  That's the essence of non-localism.  By contrast, the Ensemble interpretation is local.  That's the essence of the theory, why Einstein developed it, because he strongly clung to localism.  The Ensemble Interpretation does away with this whole business of entangled wave functions that change instantly faster than the speed of light; it's heavily influenced by classical mechanics.  There's only one particle in the Ensemble Interpretation.  The wave fuctions are statistical averages, not properties of one particle.  Am I wrong?
2601:645:8201:E3E0:134:23C6:EC8A:40C4 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Copenhagen" means many things to many people; some variants describe themselves as "local" and others don't. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So why don't we replace "Copenhagen" in the comparison with eg "von Neumann" or any other definite model. It seems really pointless to compare to something no one agrees is a thing. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be interesting to try making table rows for "Bohr", "Heisenberg", "Omnès", "Zeilinger", etc. Well, having a table at all is kind of silly when so many of the entries have to be heavily qualified with footnotes, but it might be worth trying. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Localism: Copenhagen vs Ensemble 

message: Hi XOR'easter, I'm having trouble understanding your removal of the section on stochastic mechanics – It seems to me that everything in the comparison table should have a section written about it. I also don't see why it's listing at minority interpretations of quantum mechanics warrants its removal, effectively all (bar a couple) of the sections on interpretations have a corresponding listing over at that page, so I'm not sure what you mean here. Is there some other reason for the removal? Volteer1 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nelsonian stochastic interpretation is so obscure it's not even asked about in surveys of which interpretations physicists prefer. Per WP:UNDUE, it doesn't really fit in a big-picture overview of quantum interpretations. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that makes a little more sense. All good. Volteer1 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the topic has returned and the description is opaque. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-removed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of stochastic mechanics 

message: Does Quantum Darwinism actually belong on this list? In other words, it's a research program and a methodology, but is it an interpretation of quantum mechanics? Or is it mathematics that can be applied in an interpretation-neutral way? My own inclination would be the latter, but are there actual secondary sources on this? (Sometimes Zurek writes as though he is advancing a new "existential" interpretation, and sometimes he praises the virtues of being interpretation-neutral.) Perhaps both Quantum Darwinism and objective-collapse theories should be moved to another section, called "Related concepts" or something like that. Quantum Darwinism arguably isn't an interpretation by itself, and objective-collapse theories are attempts to answer the kinds of questions that interpretations also try to answer but by replacing quantum mechanics with a different theory. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "objective-collapse" is not an interpretation but a alternative theory and should be distinguished from true interpretations; I also agree that quantum darwinism is not an interpretation but a mechanism; some say it's incorporated in Zurek's Existential Interpretation of quantum mechanics Sánchez-Cañizares: Classicality First: Why Zurek’s Existential Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Implies Copenhagen, but don't know more about that. There was a discussion at Physics Stack Exchange a while ago on whether QD is an interpretation. --Qcomp (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've moved those two subsections into a new section all their own. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-interpretations? 

message: Wikiwau (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not notable: too new, no reviews, insecure web site. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

text: To be a little blunt about it: Wikipedia is not the place for everything that claims to be an interpretation of quantum mechanics. See WP:UNDUE and WP:SECONDARY. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Agree --ChetvornoTALK 18:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Interpretation