Brian Marick

I’ve written what I hope is both a lay-friendly and roughly accurate explanation of the big 1920s debate¹ between (especially) Einstein and Bohr about causality in quantum mechanics. Possibly because I’m a failed physics major, I’d be more bothered than usual if I got things wrong.

So if you have technical or historical knowledge, I’d love for you to give me corrections for https://blog.oddly-influenced.dev/binary/ before it goes live. Thanks.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates

#physics #ScienceHistory

binary

What’s up with quantum mechanics? (36 Views of Mount CritRat) ⊕ Split this off from the real final post so that it’s more easily skippable. Use perseveration as a somewhat rude analogy? I mean, we all do it. About this series

May 27 at 10:54pmWeb
Show threadSpoofer3May 27
@marick I cannot really add to the validity of any of the article. I gather that some physicists are into many worlds interpretation and that string theory continues to be worked on and matured. And people like Daniel Harlow are working towards a theory that includes gravity.
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia

Show threadBrian MarickMay 28
@Spoofer3 Yes, I’m leaning heavily on “most scientists do Copenhagen interpretation” and omitting others. That because my theory is that Popper, like so many intellectuals, is endlessly reiterating an obsession with an old controversy – a general fighting the last war. (His book came out in 1933, so it seems to have been intended to intervene in the Einstein-camp / Bohr-camp debates. Which he was still doing in 1965… and 1985.)
Show threadBrian MarickMay 28

@Spoofer3 Oh and: congratulations. You are one of “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers” who read the piece. I’m pretty sure the audience is going to top out at you, me, and Dawn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjZWL3bq8gw

Henry V - St.Crispin's Day Speech

YouTube
Show threadSpoofer3May 28
@marick Good company.
Show threadSpoofer3May 28
@marick Sean Carroll just released a solo podcast on quantum and has a description of the Copenhagen interpretation in the first 15 minutes or so, https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/05/25/355-solo-looking-quantum-mechanics-in-the-eyeball/
355 | Solo: Looking Quantum Mechanics in the Eyeball – Sean Carroll

Show threadKonrad HinsenMay 29
@marick Your description is mostly correct. A missing point is that measurement requires interaction and thus *changes* the quantum state. If you measure the momentum of a particle, it has a new quantum state after the measurement, and in that state, position is undefined. It's not just impossible to measure position and momentum at the same time. There is no possible quantum state in which position and momentum have well-defined values. That's what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is about.
Show threadKonrad HinsenMay 29

@marick I can offer some additional sociological hypotheses , but they are no better than yours.

Action at a distance is perhaps no longer an issue for later physicists because they grew up with an atomic picture of matter. Distance zero doesn't exist in the (sub-)atomic world. Interaction always happens at some distance, even among the constituents of an atom.

Show threadKonrad HinsenMay 29
@marick "Shut up and calculate" is something I see as pragmatism. If you are stuck on the philosophical side, take a break and make progress somewhere else. It doesn't mean "shut up forever", just "shut up until you have some real fresh insight".
Show threadBrian MarickMay 29
@khinsen I overdid that. Tried to improve it.
Show threadBrian MarickMay 29
@khinsen That’s interesting. Not only “contact is always required,” but “there is no such thing as this ‘contact’ of which you speak.”
Show threadBrian MarickMay 29
@khinsen Thanks. I’ve updated.