The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal

Re:The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of phy... by perl4ever on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @09:18PM (#18499721)

Is it possible though, that Copenhagen is wrong in a similar manner to epicycles that give the correct numerical answer?

That's the impression I get as a non-physicist, that yes it's kind of an aesthetic preference, but on the other hand aesthetics are important and sometimes are pivotal in finding new insights.

Ugly may not be completely objective, but it isn't completely arbitrary either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of phy... by sanxiyn on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @10:23PM (#18499941)

I should correct an important misconception. Epicycles do not produce correct predictions.

Epicycles can produce correct point location of planets, but do not produce correct phase. Galileo observed heliocentrism-compatible phase of Venus with his telescope. That was the crucial experiment, not the simplicity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of phy... by perl4ever on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @02:02PM (#18505092)

I don't think it's important to my point. The point remains that multiple theories can be equivalent in some restricted sense, yet the more aesthetic one might have greater potential.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of phy... by ymolodtsov on Sunday November 25, 2018 @09:09AM (#18526916)

But it matters. All the major interpretations give you the same results (otherwise we’d just test it and rule out the wrong ones).

[ Parent | on HN ]