Template talk:Infobox interpretation of quantum mechanics

Interpretations of quantum mechanics cannot be summarized in yes no questions.

In my opinion this infobox design is not a good choice. Attempting to classify something as complex and untestable as an interpretation of quantum mechanics in a set of 9 questions is intrinsically biased and contentious. The nine questions are themselves poorly understood even by experts. The 9 answers all need citations and in many cases the sources will disagree.

Edit: I guess I should have called the topic: Yes/no questions are not verifiable.

I think the infobox should simply list the interpretations and support reader navigation. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a page on Interpretations of quantum mechanics, with an included table of comparisons. This infobox uses those questions.

Since there are these yes/no questions with very varying answers, I think it makes sense to include these in an easily-viewable, consistent format.

TypistMonkey (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the table is equally troublesome. We can discuss removing it as well. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table in the article mentioned here is contentious and rather open to interpretation – I doubt that experts even agree on what all the questions mean (and almost certainly synthesized by editors). Interpretations of quantum mechanics themselves are not that clearly defined. For example, Sean Carroll makes it very clear that there is no single Copenhagen interpretation: it is a whole spectrum of interpretations that share some common features.

Johnjbarton, I presume you mean "this infobox design is not a good choice". —Quondum 16:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(thanks fixed).

As for synthesis, in theory this could be addressed by a source for every answer. I think this requirement would be very difficult to achieve. If you look at the table in the main article it only has a ton of waffly footnotes. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I included that table in one of my talks as an example of how to not study interpretations. Tercer (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TypistMonkey I appreciate that you are trying to improve the presentation of these articles. Maybe we can discuss different kinds of improvements? I believe that the role of interpretations is to explore specific aspects of the nature of quantum mechanics. I think we could find sources for what specific aspect and historic circumstance lead to the proposal and what ideas they simulated. Maybe a genealogy of the interpretations could be a model for an infobox-like view? For example, von Neumann had state-reduction ending superposition, Everett explored a model in which superposition did not vanish but rather ran wild, Zeh pushed this to start decoherence, and objective collapse tackled decoherence with hypothesis leading back towards state-reduction. I think these relationships could be sourced and might better represent the role of these ideas in physics. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the use of this infobox. Yes or not questions are no way to classify models, theories or interpretations. Interpretations is no stamp collection or zoology.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where there are multiples axes on which a theory can be classified, I think they're appropriate. I believe this is such a case.

What relevance do stamp collecting and zoology have to this discussion?

TypistMonkey (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am skeptical that the answers to these questions can typically be boiled down to a simple "yes" or "no". There are multiple flavors of Copenhagen; there are multiple flavors of Many Worlds. The way in which an interpretation claims to be "local", or what role it gives an "observer", often requires careful parsing. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]