I think that you have it exactly right.

No, the quantum mechanical command "shut up and calculate" does not mean "shut up and follow me". It means that one should not worry about the interpretation or the meaning of quantum mechanics, but rather focus on the mathematical formalism and the empirical predictions that it makes. It is a pragmatic and operational attitude that avoids metaphysical or philosophical debates that are not relevant for the practical applications of quantum mechanics. It does not imply that one should blindly accept or follow a particular authority or dogma, but rather that one should rely on the evidence and the logic of quantum mechanics.

The correct interpretation of this imperative has already been given by Lyudmil Antonov .

The claim that there is no discussion about the validity of quantum theory is plain false. In every good physical faculty you will be taught that theoretical physics is currently sort of trapped because the existing models (QT+relativity) are essentially explored through, but there is more to be explained (e.g. dark matter or what are quarks made out of) which is pretty frustrating for a lot of theoreticians.

Therefore, if anyone came around with a constructive, verifyable hypothesis which would actually be better instead of just overemphasizing well-known and taught weaknesses, that would be a safe Nobel prize.

“…A paper from a few months ago by Johan Hansson is titled 'The magical "Born Rule" & quantum "measurement": Implications for Physics'. In the paper Hansson describes the attempt to connect QM to reality….”, etc.

- that is commented in SS post 6 days ago now in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_relationship_between_quantum_mechanics_and_the_general_theory_of_relativity/3

As to the thread question

“Does the quantum mechanical command shut up and calculate mean shut up and follow me?”

- really the command “shut up and calculate” has became reallyvery popular in physics for a couple of reasons. The first one is completely objective – QM really addresses to fundamental objects/events/processes in Matter, which drastically differ from what humans observe and analyze really purely instinctively – by using practically material sensors, as that, say, any other living being does,

- while in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- so in every case, when a science addresses to a really fundamental problem, the result completely obligatorily logically is nothing else than some transcendent mental – in physics mathematical - constructions, which are for/by some really mystic reasons and ways can be fitted with experiments.

At that application of mathematics at description and analysis of experimental data turned out to be extremely effective [say, Wigner’s “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”], what created in many physicists an illusion that Matter can be effectively studied remaining mostly in framework of mathematics.

The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and more concretely at application of the conception in physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model , two main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

Including in the model it is rigorously scientifically shown that Matter is rather simple informational system that is based on a simple binary reversible logics, and so there is no mystic in the extreme mathematics efficiency,

- however physics and mathematics are principally different sciences, and so from pure mathematics only some really minor real physical consequences can follow.

Nonetheless, because of the transcendence above, in physics, especially last ~50 years, numerous “solutions” of really fundamental problems were/are published in mainstream journals, etc., where the authors, having no understanding what they study and why they study, produce/ed next and next really transcendent, and, correspondingly, by no means physically grounded and experimentally tested, senseless mathematical construction,

- whereas to construct that it is unnecessary to know physics, and to be an “eminent”, etc., physicist, it is quite sufficient to know LaTeX and prepare luxuriant presentations at conferences; and, since that now is practically unique practice in physics, the 2-nd part of the thread question is really actual in mainstream physics: it is impossible to publish something that is really physical – since that immediately shows that numerous published and publishing “fundamental breakthroughs” really have to physics no any relation. So, if someone wants to publish something in the mainstream it must follow to the principle “shut up, etc.”

An example – more 50 submissions of the SS&VT model above papers were/are rejected by editors of the mainstream journals and arXiv, the last one is rejection by arXiv of the paper “The informational model - Nuclear Force”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force , submission ID submit/4917298, since

“Our moderators determined that your submission does not contain sufficient original or substantive scholarly research and is not of interest to arXiv” (!).

Cheers

“…No, the quantum mechanical command "shut up and calculate" does not mean "shut up and follow me." It is a command to physicists to focus on the mathematics and calculations of quantum mechanics, and to avoid getting bogged down in philosophical discussions about the meaning of quantum mechanics..…”

- what are the commands "shut up and calculate" and "shut up and follow me" is explained in the yesterday SS post – if briefly:

– that is for the completely objective reason – since in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- and, at that, most of mainstream physicists even don’t suspect that yet more 100 years ago the “philosophical” - metaphysical” problems of ontology of the phenomena/notions above has became Meta-physical problems, and so without solutions of these problems fundamentally only such physics “development” - as it is more 100 years already – only composing of some transcendent senseless fantastic theories is possible,

- which the mainstream theories now are – and are in full accordance with “shut up and calculate" command, and

- since the physical community, especially last 50 years, existed/exists as publishing next and next such “theories”, while some really scientific theories too clearly show that, really the community forces physicists either follow the mainstream, or simply block everywhere that is possible the really scientific theories,

- including, if the authors of really scientific theories don’t belong to this community, hoping that after the “alive real authors problem” will be solved, some “outstanding” physicists will discover what is in the real authors theories, models, etc.

Again, any really scientific development of any science is possible only basing on the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s just really – in fundamental contrast to the mainstream philosophy - philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception,

- and scientific development of physics also basing on the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, where, again, since it is based on the conception, more 30 fundamental physical problems are either solved or essentially clarified; the links to main papers see the yesterday SS post.

Cheers

In my opinion, there is no right or wrong theory they are all wrong, thus, the question to me is whether or not they are useful and how easy to use, meaning predicting reality that is relevant to our technological applications or explaining our observations.

As such shut up and calculation fits my philosophy but it really bothers me that QM is not only nonintuitive and impossible for me to understand but also very difficult to use to calculate even a very simple molecule with only a few tens of atoms. As such, the shut up and calculation suggestion is rather foolish to me. We should not stop searching for more efficient algorithms or more elegant ones with conceptionally more understandable interpretations rather than building a huge castle on the sand base. Which is a reasonable choice 100 years ago but not a good one to last for 100 years.

The QM in chemistry and materials science is pretty much an fitting algorithm that has some prediction power for which the basis sets to construct the overall wavefunction are obtained from fitting a lot of experimental data. The calculated results are still needed to check constantly with experimental results, i.e. often not trusted in accuracy.

I don’t know anything about QED and Standard model. My chemistry training doesn’t cover these topics. And I am teaching QM to chemistry students and am quite struggling in explaining its physical meaning because the probability argument does not make sense. I can understand the probability of a state superimposed but cannot understand the probability within a probability.

“…In my opinion, there is no right or wrong theory they are all wrong, thus, the question to me is whether or not they are useful and how easy to use, meaning predicting reality that is relevant to our technological applications or explaining our observations. ….”

- this opinion looks as rather strange one, real scientific predicting reality should be principally independent on technological applications or arbitrary explaining our observation, the predicting should be simply scientific, i.e. must provide just scientific explaining our observations.

Correspondingly that

“…As such shut up and calculation fits my philosophy but it really bothers me that QM is not only nonintuitive and impossible for me to understand but also very difficult to use to calculate even a very simple molecule with only a few tens of atoms. As such, the shut up and calculation suggestion is rather foolish to me. We should not stop searching for more efficient algorithms or more elegant ones with conceptionally more understandable interpretations rather than building a huge castle on the sand base. Which is a reasonable choice 100 years ago but not a good one to last for 100 years.…..”

- is again a strange passage, where “shut up and calculate” fits to a strange – but completely legitimate in mainstream philosophy - philosophy. The real problem in physics isn’t in that some mathematical descriptions/analysis of some objects/structures/effects/processes in Matter are complex, moreover now computers make complex calculations rather easily,

- the real mainstream physics problem is in that too many postulates in physical theories, since relate to fundamental points in design and construction of the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter” [and in a number of other fundamental phenomena/notions – say, Space”, “Time”, “Energy” ], which really are in the physics fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- really are only some transcendent – and really senseless, since fundamentally aren’t adequate to the objective reality – illusory interpretations of the observations.

Including that happened yet more 100 years ago, when rather strange “properties and effects” of Matter’s spacetime were postulated, even at that the energy conservation law is violated. Though yeah, further in mainstream physics – just in complete accordance with the tenet “shut up and calculate” – rather large number of strange “virtual” particles and interactions, “fields”, etc., were postulated as that are really existent/acting in Matter; and this strange process goes in the mainstream rather vividly now.

More see the SS posts above and links in the posts, recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/H_denotes_the_constant_ratio_E_f_Ehf_is_it_possible_that_h_has_an_equation_both_without_E_and_f/1 , and

https://www.researchgate.net/post/No9_Is_the_spin_of_an_electron_really_spin

- are relevant to this thread discussion.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,

You comment, “- this opinion looks as rather strange one, real scientific predicting reality should be principally independent on technological applications or arbitrary explaining our observation, the predicting should be simply scientific, i.e. must provide just scientific explaining our observations.”

I agree with your opinion on a functional theory that meets the criteria you have suggested. I meant that the main purpose of such a theory is to fit existing experimental data a.k.a reality and predict future data with an acceptable accuracy. Thus almost all major calculations are done numerically instead of integrating or differentiating equations analytically that is considered mathematically exact and correct. The rise of artificial neuron networks further challenges the correctness of a model/theory which even has no equations.

Historically speaking, the geocentric theory has no problem to me except it is orders of magnitude more complicated in calculating than our current model, and many suspect our current model is wrong thus many discussions on this platform. The geocentric theory picked a reference frame poorly for calculations. Looking future, using big data strategy, if we can store all possible trajectories in a data structure of the whole universe, it can be a theory of everything. But we know we don’t have that computational power and storage thus in my opinion it is a bad choice for now. Locally for smaller problems such as logistics or budget accounting, this method could be dominating.

Dear Jixin Chen

“…[SS quote]- this opinion looks as rather strange one, real scientific predicting reality should be principally independent on technological applications or arbitrary explaining our observation, the predicting should be simply scientific, i.e. must provide just scientific explaining our observations.”[end quote]

I agree with your opinion on a functional theory that meets the criteria you have suggested. I meant that the main purpose of such a theory is to fit existing experimental data a.k.a reality and predict future data with an acceptable accuracy….”

- it seems you didn’t pay enough attention to that the main point in the SS quote above is that real, i.e. “simply scientific”, theory must provide just scientific explaining our observations. There cannot be some scientific purely “functional theories” – though if we say about technology, that is well possible and that indeed exists in humans practice.

Say, that

“…..Historically speaking, the geocentric theory has no problem to me except it is orders of magnitude more complicated in calculating than our current model, and many suspect our current model is wrong thus many discussions on this platform….”

- if “the geocentric theory” is the theory that Sun rotates around Earth, it was in full accordance with experimental observations; moreover, if Magellan would have recent clocks and angular measurements instruments, he would determine just basing only on observations his coordinates on Earth with seems ~ hundreds of meters precision – not too worse than GPS. But this “functional theory” wasn’t scientific theory. Scientific theory will appear after Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton scientific works, for what, including, it was necessary to understand – what are at least “Earth” and “Sun”, etc.

At that, again, soon 200 years ago physics started to observe, and to elaborate theoretically, observations on the level, when it was/is necessary to understand not only what are “Earth” and “Sun”, but also what are really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

- only basing on scientific knowledge what these phenomena/notions are any really fundamental science development is possible; and just since they are till now fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, sciences, including physics, now consist really of only some “functional theories”, where the functional applications of the theories is provided by fitting really unscientific mathematical tricks with experiments; say the SR/GR are based on completely fantastic postulates that Matter’s space/time/spacetime really are “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, etc.,

- and, say, the SR is well applicable in everyday physics practice till now; there are “extremely effective” QFTs, etc. But real physical development can be only provided that it would be clear that these theories aren’t scientific theories, etc., since are based on unscientific postulates, without the clarifications the theories are real obstacles at real physics development, more see the SS posts and links in the posts, first of all June 16 one, on the page 1.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko ,

Again I agree with your opinion and it is indeed a fair distinguish between science and technology which are probably equally important to both research in theories to understand the nature and daily physical life as well.

Back to Quantum, it is hard to judge if its prediction power is from science which is rooted on a fitting of the hidden truth of nature or just a technical mimics of the underlying model that only works because you have enough free parameters to adjust your results to fit the experiment data. If it is the first case, then we might expend the measurements to further check its viability on more extreme cases like we constantly check for other laws such as energy conservation and momentum conservation. If it is the second case, then we are free to seek new models that will fit the past data at higher efficiency of not necessarily higher efficiency just differently to open up possibilities in the future.

Jixin Chen

“…I agree with your opinion and it is indeed a fair distinguish between science and technology…”

- well, however that

“….which are probably equally important to both research in theories to understand the nature and daily physical life as well….”

- as it was written already in the SS post above – looks as the questionable claim. Again – technologies, including “Applied Sciences”, and “Simply Sciences” are different, since at solving physical problems as applications there is no obligatory necessity to understand on really fundamental level – what really are the used at the solutions some observed relations between material objects/systems; the example “the geocentric theory” see the SS post above, but that happens practically in every other technological application case.

Including, say, that

“….Back to Quantum, it is hard to judge if its prediction power is from science which is rooted on a fitting of the hidden truth of nature or just a technical mimics of the underlying model that only works because you have enough free parameters to adjust your results to fit the experiment data…”

- is practically inessential at applications, if some a construction works so that allows to solve some technological problems – let it work, and that’s enough. But if we say about “Simply Science”, the points in

“ If it is the first case, then we might expend the measurements to further check its viability on more extreme cases like we constantly check for other laws such as energy conservation and momentum conservation. If it is the second case, then we are free to seek new models that will fit the past data at higher efficiency of not necessarily higher efficiency just differently to open up possibilities in the future.….”

- really appear, though these points really aren’t independent on each other. Really rational planning of new experiments can be practically only basing on analysis of existent theories, which really reveals the questionable and irrational points in them, formulations of new possible physical corrections and, further, just corresponding experimental testing of the corrections.

And, again – physics soon 200 years already studies Matter on the level when to formulate really new scientific assumptions/hypotheses it is necessary fundamentally obligatorily to have scientific definitions of the fundamental phenomena/notions, at least of what are “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, what [scientific definitions] was more 2000 years just the main subjects for study in the philosophy, but now that really are “Meta-scientific”, including “Meta-physical” problems.

Just since the phenomena/notions above are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in both – mainstream philosophy and sciences, real development of sciences, including physics, principally impossible;

- since basing on transcendent/irrational imaginations about what physics studies it is completely inevitably logically possible only to propose only some transcendent/irrational hypothesis – and corresponding experiments, etc.

Correspondingly really what is proposed in physics is/are so too far from the reality, including really all developed last at least 50 years “fundamental” innovations in physics simply claim that they can be experimentally tested in some future experiments; though proposed experiments are so strange, that mostly cannot be made in any times at all.

Correspondingly what we see in physics now is that despite that in last 50 years in Nature, Phys. Rev, etc. journals every month a few fundamental breakthroughs are published, physics-2023 is the same as physics-1980, on 90% as physics 1940; including till now is based on fundamentally transcendent, and really physically senseless, postulates about what are “space”, “time” , “particles”, “fields”, etc.;

- while Big Machines measure next decimal digits in values of really quite non-informative in this case parameters of particles, seek for “axions”, “sterile neutrinos”; again, etc.

Again, quite logically inevitably real physics development is possible only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions above are scientifically defined, what is possible, and is done only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception,

- and more concretely at application of the conception in physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model; more, including basic links, see the SS posts above; the pointed in the SS June 16 post SS&VT papers must be read by every physicist, who really is going to work in fundamental physics development.

However yeah – yet now technology is on the high level of development – while what will be obtained at fundamental researches mostly will be unnecessary in technology.

Cheers

Does the quantum mechanical command shut up and calculate mean shut up and follow me?

In the case of QM : Answer is a resounding NO ...............

QM never asked professional physicists to shut up and ask nothing

It was SOMEBODY else who said : Shut Up !!

This opinion (not a command) was apparently expressed by David Mermin (condensed matter theorist at Cornell), but sometimes attributed to Richard Feynman. See:

[1] Article Could Feynman Have Said This?

[2] Article What's Wrong with this Pillow?