• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,075 questions , 2,226 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,743 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Discussion on the completeness of quantum mechanics and the equivalence (or lack thereof) of quantum interpretations

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Continued chat discussion from here.

asked Apr 11, 2015 in Chat by SchrodingersCatVoter (-10 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Doesn't the variety of "interpretations" mean there still no satisfactory physical picture of QM? Doesn't it mean that Feynman's phrase about "understanding" QM is right?

answered Apr 11, 2015 by Vladimir Kalitvianski (102 points) [ no revision ]

@VladimirKalitvianski No, that is incorrect, because as I said, "which interpretation is right?" is a meaningless philosophical question from a logical positivist (i.e. meaningful) perspective.

@dimension10: Then I am confused. No interpretation at all?

@VladimirKalitvianski Rather, all interpretations are equivalent, because they all describe the same underlying theory (quantum mechanics)

all interpretations are equivalent

How different (opposite) things can be equivalent?

because they all describe the same underlying theory (quantum mechanics)

Because they describe our inability with respect to QM.

They are neither different, nor opposite.

It seems you don't really understand logical positivism. Concentrate on the second part, that is positivism. If the predictions are the same, then two different formalisms or interpretations are equivalent, two different theories are dual to each other, etc.

The various quantum interpretations all give you the same results, because they're just nice descriptions of the same underlying theory, that is quantum mechanics.

I see. However, I see also that these problems are not settled yet.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights