Talk:Quantum weirdness

Delete or convert to article about the book

This seems like a list of things someone does not understand. The idea that some but not other aspects of QM are "not intuitive" or that QM vs say relativity or electromagnetism is "not intuitive" have no basis in other than personal opinion.

Rather than deleting some on could convert this to an article about the book with the same title. However the book does not seem notable. Only 11 citations on Google Scholar, 3 reviews on Amazon, and a professional review paned it (https://www-tandfonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/00107514.2017.1344313) Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged it. Do an AfD, or I will in a week or so (to give a little time for improvement). It appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, without sources to back it up, just statements. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced and incorrect claim.

I deleted this sentence but it was [1]reverted by @Lambiam

• Many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.

All interpretations of QM are, by definition, consistent with QM and thus include all of the "quantum weirdness" claimed by the article. No interpretation has been proposed consistent with macroscopic experience, otherwise we would not have quantum weirdness. The acceptance of interpretations is not relevant to the article. The claim is unsourced. For these reasons I deleted the content a second time and ask for consensus to be agreed before it is re-added. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The sentence does not state or suggest that these interpretations are incorrect. Where they fail, is to serve as explanations in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday experience. That is what the sentence states, neither more, nor less. Interpretability in terms of everyday experience is only achievable by glossing over essential aspects. It is not possible to reconstruct the mathematical description of QM from such verbal explanations in terms of classical physics. Inasmuch as these interpretations can be mathematically modeled isomorphically, the same "weirdness" appears as before, just as you say yourself. In other words, they still defy everyday intuition.

Our article on interpretations of quantum mechanics is amply sourced; there is little need to repeat these citations in this stub. I've given one citation, which I thought should suffice. The sentence just before the cited piece of text is, "Although quite a few physicists seem to sympathize, though often with reservations, with the principles of the many-worlds interpretation, it can certainly not claim to have gained wide acceptance." While this refers to the EWG interpretation, the same statement can be found in general in our article Interpretations of quantum mechanics: "Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best 'represents' reality." I did not write this, and it is sourced. The measurement problem is also obviously not only relevant for the EWG interpretation. A purported explanation cannot be satisfactory if we cannot define what it is it is explaining.  --Lambiam 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Somehow we reading the same words and coming to opposite conclusions.

The sentence says "..interpretations...have been proposed...in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday experience." You will need a reference for this claim. Wikipedia is not its own reference. Moreover I don't believe any interpretation relates to everyday experience and you won't find a source.

The sentence contradicts the article. The sentence claims interpretations take away the weirdness. That defeats the purpose of the article.

I believe we could find sources for something like:

• No "interpretation" of quantum mechanics have been proposed that explains quantum phenomena in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience.

Is that what you meant? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)