Physicists disagree on what quantum mechanics says about reality

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is to Quantum Field Theory (QFT) what Newtonian mechanics is to Einsteinian relativity. QM remains useful in many domains - just as Newton does - but it’s not the fundamental framework. The Standard Model is built on QFT, not QM. We should be cautious about extracting philosophical conclusions from QM, just as we wouldn’t from Newton.

The upshot is that QFT makes it much clearer that we’re working with mathematical models of reality, not direct representations of ontological truth. QM tends to blur that distinction, which contributes to the proliferation of divergent and often misleading interpretations.

Last month was the 100 year anniversary of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. From https://x.com/NobelPrize/status/1950245213194137724 :

> On this day 100 years ago physics laureate Werner Heisenberg submitted a paper that revolutionised quantum mechanics.

> Heisenberg was only 23 years old when he submitted the paper "Quantum mechanical reinterpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations" (1925)

Umdeutung paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umdeutung_paper

Uncertainty principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

> The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known.

Kinda surprised that "No need for an interpretation" was so low. I bet most respondents just picked "Copenhagen" and went on with their day (apparently around half of experimentalists, ever practical, picked Copenhagen.)

Full disclosure: I think Copenhagen is as good as any of the others, but find many-worlds more intuitive. Spontaneous collapse is another nice way to get around the measurement problem. The math is the same no matter which.

It's fun to think about, but until one of the differing interpretations leads to a testable prediction, not much progress will be made.