Bohm, Bohm, Bohm-Bohm

(Try the title with the Dragnet theme in mind, if you’re old enough.)

The aforelinked Bohemian Mechanical Rhapsody was fallout from some discussion on quantum mechanics interpretations, namely Quick Impressions of Bohmian Mechanics and The Problem of (Quantum) Moderation: On Many Worlds

QM interpretations is a subject that can go into quite amount of detail and some people are quite passionate about it, as some of the comments in those threads show. Alas, I just don’t find myself getting worked up enough to tackle any of it in any real depth. I don’t see that there is ultimately any result that shows one interpretation to be any better in an objective sense, which makes it metaphysics. All of it seems to be ways of casting quantum mechanics in some more comfortable classical (or at least quasi-classical) framework, which I think only serves to deny that quantum mechanics really is weird. If that helps you understand it, great, but don’t lose sight of the fact that science is a description of how nature behaves, not how it really is. It’s only a model, and if you don’t want to go to quantumland because it is a silly place, then pick up one of the interpretations.

Update: The discussion to which Ian referred: Is the wavefunction ontological? (which I did read, honest, and should have thought to include)

Why I Am Majoring in Physics

funny graphs and charts
see more Funny Graphs

The green option was not available before 1977, of course. Not sure what all of the alternatives were then, but mine was partly that I wanted to be Barney from Mission: Impossible. (The TV show, which had no association whatsoever with Tom Cruise)