Mod Moved Comments To Chat
8 Limit the question to the question and strip out the polemic
source | link

I recently wrote an answer on a question that led me to be praised and pilloried in almost equal measure, and I would infer from itthe responses that there is not widespread awareness of the context of the development of QM and its various interpretations.

I think, in particular, I was pilloried in my answer (and am braced to be again) for suggesting that there had been an attempt in physics in the fairly recent past to suppress further foundational work on QM.

Instead, the physics community has attempted to settle broadly on a Copenhagen interpretation that many people find totally unsatisfactory, despite it's internal popularity in physics, and widespread teaching to new entrants to the field.

Since the matter is fresh in my mind, I happen to have stumbled upon a few relatively recent articles from a physicist called Freire, who remarks on the general cultural attitude of the physics community in the latter 20th century in relation to QM. He also discusses specifically the treatment of David Bohm by American academia, and why his work has been neglected in physics (Sci. Ed. 12, 573 (2003), eprint, and Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36, 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0508184).

My question is, is anyone aware of other good sources that discuss the interpretational problem in QM and how the very question has been marginalisedtreated in physics?

I'm only asking for sources, but should anyone want to rebut the assumptions inherent in my question, I'd like to keep any responses reasonable and reasoned, and I'd like the subtlety of my assertions above to be appreciated in a proper academic manner, without being interpreted (and then knocked down) as black-and-white absolutes.

I'd secondly like to avoid any bald opinion-based assertions that "things have now changed" (or even "things were never like that"), unless it is supported by a source (or a detailed answer) that analyses the subject.

I'd also like to forestall any suggestion that this question is about physics "historically" since we are dealing with interpretational questions in physics that are current.

Knowing how some experts in physics are wont to behave, I'll also interpret any flurry of unexplained downvotes adversely against the academic calibre of those responsible.

Right of reply: @EmilioPisanty since provides clarification that the controversy with my previous answer (to which I refer), concerned whether the "attempted suppression" of foundational work in QM had had any effects, not whether the attempt was actual and existed in principle (which he acknowledges as true).

I recently wrote an answer on a question that led me to be praised and pilloried in almost equal measure, and I would infer from it that there is not widespread awareness of the context of the development of QM and its various interpretations.

I think, in particular, I was pilloried in my answer (and am braced to be again) for suggesting that there had been an attempt in physics in the fairly recent past to suppress further foundational work on QM.

Instead, the physics community has attempted to settle broadly on a Copenhagen interpretation that many people find totally unsatisfactory, despite it's internal popularity in physics, and widespread teaching to new entrants to the field.

Since the matter is fresh in my mind, I happen to have stumbled upon a few relatively recent articles from a physicist called Freire, who remarks on the general cultural attitude of the physics community in the latter 20th century in relation to QM. He also discusses specifically the treatment of David Bohm by American academia, and why his work has been neglected in physics (Sci. Ed. 12, 573 (2003), eprint, and Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36, 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0508184).

My question is, is anyone aware of other good sources that discuss the interpretational problem in QM and how the very question has been marginalised in physics?

I'm only asking for sources, but should anyone want to rebut the assumptions inherent in my question, I'd like to keep any responses reasonable and reasoned, and I'd like the subtlety of my assertions above to be appreciated in a proper academic manner, without being interpreted (and then knocked down) as black-and-white absolutes.

I'd secondly like to avoid any bald opinion-based assertions that "things have now changed" (or even "things were never like that"), unless it is supported by a source (or a detailed answer) that analyses the subject.

I'd also like to forestall any suggestion that this question is about physics "historically" since we are dealing with interpretational questions in physics that are current.

Knowing how some experts in physics are wont to behave, I'll also interpret any flurry of unexplained downvotes adversely against the academic calibre of those responsible.

Right of reply: @EmilioPisanty since provides clarification that the controversy with my previous answer (to which I refer), concerned whether the "attempted suppression" of foundational work in QM had had any effects, not whether the attempt was actual and existed in principle (which he acknowledges as true).

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 people find totally unsatisfactory, despite it's internal popularity in physics, and widespread teaching to new entrants to the field.

Since the matter is fresh in my mind, I happen to have stumbled upon a few relatively recent articles from a physicist called Freire, who remarks on the general cultural attitude of the physics community in the latter 20th century in relation to QM. He also discusses specifically the treatment of David Bohm by American academia, and why his work has been neglected in physics (Sci. Ed. 12, 573 (2003), eprint, and Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36, 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0508184).

My question is, is anyone aware of other good sources that discuss the interpretational problem in QM and how the very question has been treated in physics?

I'm only asking for sources.

7 Rollback to Revision 5
source | link

I was recently involved inwrote an answer on a conversation about the status of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanicsquestion that led me to be praised and its effects on the research carried out on the foundations of quantum mechanicspilloried in almost equal measure, and I would like to ask for resources to read up oninfer from it that there is not widespread awareness of the background and historycontext of the subjectdevelopment of QM and its various interpretations.

In particular, the Copenhagen view of the foundations of quantum mechanics is that "there is nothing to see here"I think, i.e. that questions about the ontology and interpretation of QM are a waste of time and are not worth researching or thinking about in any depth; in other words, "shut up and calculate". Moreoverparticular, there is a definite impressionI was pilloried in my answer (at least as conveyed by the popular-science press and as taught quite frequently in undergraduate QM coursesand am braced to be again) that this view worked:for suggesting that the conversation aboutthere had been an attempt in physics in the foundations offairly recent past to suppress further foundational work on QM was subsequently stifled.

Instead, and that physiciststhe physics community has attempted to settle broadly "shut upon a Copenhagen interpretation that many people find totally unsatisfactory, despite it's internal popularity in physics, and sat downwidespread teaching to calculate" and leftnew entrants to the foundations of QM mostly untouchedfield.

Since the matter is fresh in my mind, I happen to have stumbled upon a few relatively recent articles by Olivalfrom a physicist called Freire, who remarks on the general cultural attitude of the physics community in the latter 20th century in relation to QM. FreireHe also discusses specifically the treatment of David Bohm by American academia, and why his work has been neglected in physics (Sci. Ed. 12, 573 (2003), eprint, and Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36, 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0508184).

My question is, is anyone aware of other good sources that discuss the interpretational problem in QM, and whether and to what extent the Copenhagen "shut up and calculate" view stifled and shut down research, debate, and public conversations abouthow the foundations of QMvery question has been marginalised in physics?

I'm only asking for sources, but should anyone want to rebut the assumptions inherent in my question, I'd like to keep any responses reasonable and reasoned, and I'd like the subtlety of my assertions above to be appreciated in a proper academic manner, without being interpreted (and then knocked down) as black-and-white absolutes.

I'd secondly like to avoid any bald opinion-based assertions that "things have now changed" (or even "things were never like that"), unless it is supported by a source (or a detailed answer) that analyses the subject.

I'd also like to forestall any suggestion that this question is about physics "historically" since we are dealing with interpretational questions in physics that are current.

Knowing how some experts in physics are wont to behave, I'll also interpret any flurry of unexplained downvotes adversely against the academic calibre of those responsible.

Right of reply: @EmilioPisanty since provides clarification that the controversy with my previous answer (to which I refer), concerned whether the "attempted suppression" of foundational work in QM had had any effects, not whether the attempt was actual and existed in principle (which he acknowledges as true).

I was recently involved in a conversation about the status of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and its effects on the research carried out on the foundations of quantum mechanics, and I would like to ask for resources to read up on the background and history of the subject.

In particular, the Copenhagen view of the foundations of quantum mechanics is that "there is nothing to see here", i.e. that questions about the ontology and interpretation of QM are a waste of time and are not worth researching or thinking about in any depth; in other words, "shut up and calculate". Moreover, there is a definite impression (at least as conveyed by the popular-science press and as taught quite frequently in undergraduate QM courses) that this view worked: that the conversation about the foundations of QM was subsequently stifled, and that physicists broadly "shut up and sat down to calculate" and left the foundations of QM mostly untouched.

Since the matter is fresh in my mind, I happen to have stumbled upon a few relatively recent articles by Olival Freire, who remarks on the general cultural attitude of the physics community in the latter 20th century in relation to QM. Freire also discusses specifically the treatment of David Bohm by American academia, and why his work has been neglected in physics (Sci. Ed. 12, 573 (2003), eprint, and Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36, 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0508184).

My question is, is anyone aware of other good sources that discuss the interpretational problem in QM, and whether and to what extent the Copenhagen "shut up and calculate" view stifled and shut down research, debate, and public conversations about the foundations of QM?

I'm only asking for sources, but should anyone want to rebut the assumptions inherent in my question, I'd like to keep any responses reasonable and reasoned, and I'd like the subtlety of my assertions above to be appreciated in a proper academic manner, without being interpreted (and then knocked down) as black-and-white absolutes.

I'd secondly like to avoid any bald opinion-based assertions that "things have now changed" (or even "things were never like that"), unless it is supported by a source (or a detailed answer) that analyses the subject.

I'd also like to forestall any suggestion that this question is about physics "historically" since we are dealing with interpretational questions in physics that are current.

I recently wrote an answer on a question that led me to be praised and pilloried in almost equal measure, and I would infer from it that there is not widespread awareness of the context of the development of QM and its various interpretations.

I think, in particular, I was pilloried in my answer (and am braced to be again) for suggesting that there had been an attempt in physics in the fairly recent past to suppress further foundational work on QM.

Instead, the physics community has attempted to settle broadly on a Copenhagen interpretation that many people find totally unsatisfactory, despite it's internal popularity in physics, and widespread teaching to new entrants to the field.

Since the matter is fresh in my mind, I happen to have stumbled upon a few relatively recent articles from a physicist called Freire, who remarks on the general cultural attitude of the physics community in the latter 20th century in relation to QM. He also discusses specifically the treatment of David Bohm by American academia, and why his work has been neglected in physics (Sci. Ed. 12, 573 (2003), eprint, and Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36, 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0508184).

My question is, is anyone aware of other good sources that discuss the interpretational problem in QM and how the very question has been marginalised in physics?

I'm only asking for sources, but should anyone want to rebut the assumptions inherent in my question, I'd like to keep any responses reasonable and reasoned, and I'd like the subtlety of my assertions above to be appreciated in a proper academic manner, without being interpreted (and then knocked down) as black-and-white absolutes.

I'd secondly like to avoid any bald opinion-based assertions that "things have now changed" (or even "things were never like that"), unless it is supported by a source (or a detailed answer) that analyses the subject.

I'd also like to forestall any suggestion that this question is about physics "historically" since we are dealing with interpretational questions in physics that are current.

Knowing how some experts in physics are wont to behave, I'll also interpret any flurry of unexplained downvotes adversely against the academic calibre of those responsible.

Right of reply: @EmilioPisanty since provides clarification that the controversy with my previous answer (to which I refer), concerned whether the "attempted suppression" of foundational work in QM had had any effects, not whether the attempt was actual and existed in principle (which he acknowledges as true).

6 deleted 133 characters in body
source | link

I was recently wrote an answer on a question that led me to be praised and pilloriedinvolved in almost equal measure, and I would infer from it that there is not widespread awareness ofa conversation about the contextstatus of the developmentCopenhagen interpretation of QMquantum mechanics and its various interpretations.

I think, in particulareffects on the research carried out on the foundations of quantum mechanics, and I was pilloried in my answer (and am bracedwould like to be again)ask for suggesting that there had been an attempt in physics in the fairly recent pastresources to suppress further foundational workread up on QMthe background and history of the subject.

InsteadIn particular, the physics community has attempted to settle broadly on a Copenhagen interpretationview of the foundations of quantum mechanics is that many people find totally unsatisfactory"there is nothing to see here", despite it's internal popularityi.e. that questions about the ontology and interpretation of QM are a waste of time and are not worth researching or thinking about in physicsany depth; in other words, "shut up and widespread teaching to new entrantscalculate". Moreover, there is a definite impression (at least as conveyed by the popular-science press and as taught quite frequently in undergraduate QM courses) that this view worked: that the conversation about the foundations of QM was subsequently stifled, and that physicists broadly "shut up and sat down to calculate" and left the fieldfoundations of QM mostly untouched.

Since the matter is fresh in my mind, I happen to have stumbled upon a few relatively recent articles from a physicist calledby Olival Freire, who remarks on the general cultural attitude of the physics community in the latter 20th century in relation to QM. HeFreire also discusses specifically the treatment of David Bohm by American academia, and why his work has been neglected in physics (Sci. Ed. 12, 573 (2003), eprint, and Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36, 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0508184).

My question is, is anyone aware of other good sources that discuss the interpretational problem in QM, and howwhether and to what extent the very question has been marginalised in physicsCopenhagen "shut up and calculate" view stifled and shut down research, debate, and public conversations about the foundations of QM?

I'm only asking for sources, but should anyone want to rebut the assumptions inherent in my question, I'd like to keep any responses reasonable and reasoned, and I'd like the subtlety of my assertions above to be appreciated in a proper academic manner, without being interpreted (and then knocked down) as black-and-white absolutes.

I'd secondly like to avoid any bald opinion-based assertions that "things have now changed" (or even "things were never like that"), unless it is supported by a source (or a detailed answer) that analyses the subject.

I'd also like to forestall any suggestion that this question is about physics "historically" since we are dealing with interpretational questions in physics that are current.

Knowing how some experts in physics are wont to behave, I'll also interpret any flurry of unexplained downvotes adversely against the academic calibre of those responsible.

Right of reply: @EmilioPisanty since provides clarification that the controversy with my previous answer (to which I refer), concerned whether the "attempted suppression" of foundational work in QM had had any effects, not whether the attempt was actual and existed in principle (which he acknowledges as true).

I recently wrote an answer on a question that led me to be praised and pilloried in almost equal measure, and I would infer from it that there is not widespread awareness of the context of the development of QM and its various interpretations.

I think, in particular, I was pilloried in my answer (and am braced to be again) for suggesting that there had been an attempt in physics in the fairly recent past to suppress further foundational work on QM.

Instead, the physics community has attempted to settle broadly on a Copenhagen interpretation that many people find totally unsatisfactory, despite it's internal popularity in physics, and widespread teaching to new entrants to the field.

Since the matter is fresh in my mind, I happen to have stumbled upon a few relatively recent articles from a physicist called Freire, who remarks on the general cultural attitude of the physics community in the latter 20th century in relation to QM. He also discusses specifically the treatment of David Bohm by American academia, and why his work has been neglected in physics (Sci. Ed. 12, 573 (2003), eprint, and Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36, 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0508184).

My question is, is anyone aware of other good sources that discuss the interpretational problem in QM and how the very question has been marginalised in physics?

I'm only asking for sources, but should anyone want to rebut the assumptions inherent in my question, I'd like to keep any responses reasonable and reasoned, and I'd like the subtlety of my assertions above to be appreciated in a proper academic manner, without being interpreted (and then knocked down) as black-and-white absolutes.

I'd secondly like to avoid any bald opinion-based assertions that "things have now changed" (or even "things were never like that"), unless it is supported by a source (or a detailed answer) that analyses the subject.

I'd also like to forestall any suggestion that this question is about physics "historically" since we are dealing with interpretational questions in physics that are current.

Knowing how some experts in physics are wont to behave, I'll also interpret any flurry of unexplained downvotes adversely against the academic calibre of those responsible.

Right of reply: @EmilioPisanty since provides clarification that the controversy with my previous answer (to which I refer), concerned whether the "attempted suppression" of foundational work in QM had had any effects, not whether the attempt was actual and existed in principle (which he acknowledges as true).

I was recently involved in a conversation about the status of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and its effects on the research carried out on the foundations of quantum mechanics, and I would like to ask for resources to read up on the background and history of the subject.

In particular, the Copenhagen view of the foundations of quantum mechanics is that "there is nothing to see here", i.e. that questions about the ontology and interpretation of QM are a waste of time and are not worth researching or thinking about in any depth; in other words, "shut up and calculate". Moreover, there is a definite impression (at least as conveyed by the popular-science press and as taught quite frequently in undergraduate QM courses) that this view worked: that the conversation about the foundations of QM was subsequently stifled, and that physicists broadly "shut up and sat down to calculate" and left the foundations of QM mostly untouched.

Since the matter is fresh in my mind, I happen to have stumbled upon a few relatively recent articles by Olival Freire, who remarks on the general cultural attitude of the physics community in the latter 20th century in relation to QM. Freire also discusses specifically the treatment of David Bohm by American academia, and why his work has been neglected in physics (Sci. Ed. 12, 573 (2003), eprint, and Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36, 1 (2005), arXiv:physics/0508184).

My question is, is anyone aware of other good sources that discuss the interpretational problem in QM, and whether and to what extent the Copenhagen "shut up and calculate" view stifled and shut down research, debate, and public conversations about the foundations of QM?

I'm only asking for sources, but should anyone want to rebut the assumptions inherent in my question, I'd like to keep any responses reasonable and reasoned, and I'd like the subtlety of my assertions above to be appreciated in a proper academic manner, without being interpreted (and then knocked down) as black-and-white absolutes.

I'd secondly like to avoid any bald opinion-based assertions that "things have now changed" (or even "things were never like that"), unless it is supported by a source (or a detailed answer) that analyses the subject.

I'd also like to forestall any suggestion that this question is about physics "historically" since we are dealing with interpretational questions in physics that are current.

5 added 321 characters in body
source | link
4 Basic bibliographic hygiene and respect for the cited author's surname.
source | link
    Notice added Book Recommendation by Qmechanic
3 edited tags; edited title
| link
2 edited tags; Post Made Community Wiki
| link
1
source | link