>>11392746>If none of them explain the observations wellNo. Quantum Mechanics' empirical success is unparalleled in history. All experiment results are accurately predicted and explained with the Hilbert space formalism and Born's rule. There's nothing ambiguous and controversial about its experiments/observations aspect. The semiconductor, microelectronic, well pretty much all of modern electronics are built from those successes.
The problem is when people look at the wavefunction or the measurement process (to get the probability of event through Hermitian operator acting on wavefunction) they can't just accept that it's the end of the line, they have to ask "what are the physical things behind all that math", "what are they like?" and that leads to different interpretations. Some of them just add more untestable things to the theory, some of them violate locality etc
The Copenhagen view is we don't care, it is not QM's job to speculate about ontological questions such as 'what are really there?' or 'what are they like', this latter question tries to connect QM to human intuitions, but human intuitions are classical, and will lead you to misunderstanding. QM concepts are not `like` anything, they are their own things, and their only descriptions are the math. That's the end of the line. I believe a physical theory only needs 3 components:
- The physical phenomena: the empirical evidence about physical objects gathered by observation or experimentation
- The formalism: provides the mathematical description of the phenomena and enables the physicist to make precise quantitative predictions. In this case this is provided by the Hilbert space formalism
- The link between the formalism and the phenomena. Born's rule does just that. It states the relationship between eigenvalues of the operator (the formalism), and the probability of events (the phenomena).
So nothing is missing in the physics.
