Talk:Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
MiW
editPlease, add Many-Interacting-Worlds interpretation: http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6144 http://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.041013 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429944.000-ghost-universes-kill-schrodingers-quantum-cat.html http://www.nature.com/news/a-quantum-world-arising-from-many-ordinary-ones-1.16213 90.154.68.242 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)alex
scope of this page
editI understand (I think) that the original purpose of this page was to accommodate WP:FRINGE material. The problem is that it is very difficult to define what is a "minority" position in a field where the mainstream approach is agnosticism, and where no single interpretation has the support of an absolute majority anyway. This basically means that every interpretation is a "minority interpretation".
I have tried to structure the material in this article, and I end up thinking it would be best to merge back into the main article interpretations of quantum mechanics. The only thing treated here that is not treated there is the list of "other" suggestions,
- Pondicherry Interpretation (Mohrhoff 2005)
- London (Ticker Tape) Interpretation (O'Kane 2012)
- Theory of Incomplete Measurements (de Dinechin 2012)
- Montevideo Interpretation (Gambini and Pullin 2009)[1]
- Synchronized Chaos Interpretation (Duane 2001)
- Vaxjo Interpretation (Khrennikov 2012)
- Dimensional Theory (Nikkhah Shirazi 2012)
- Intrinsic Quantum State Interpretation (Mamas 2013)
The problem with these is not that they are "minority" but that they are single-article proposals without any reference to any third-party reviews or criticism. This renders them unfit for inclusion anyway. So, after we review these eight proposals (can they be mentioned or included in any of the existing articles, or should they be dropped), there will be nothing left to justify the continued existence of this page. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it better to keep this page. Perhaps there is no majority-supported interpretation, but some are ultra-minority-supported and should not appear in the main article, I think. There is such thing as a drivel-magnet. Chjoaygame (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)