As I think someone already mentioned, the Schrodinger Equation question tells more about whether we’re good at differential equations than whether we’re familiar with the ontology of quantum mechanics enough that we’re qualified to judge the plausibility of Many Worlds or other interpretations. Assuming the latter is the point of the question, “… to prove Bell’s Theorem” would probably be a much better test (though still not an excellent one).
If someone can’t do the problem sets for an undergraduate physics class, then I don’t think they should consider themselves qualified to pass judgement on the field.
Undergraduate physics classes (the ones I attended, at least) hardly mention the various interpretations of QM at all. Well, an introductory class did point out that you can’t measure something without physically affecting it, which helped me dispel “consciousness causes collapse” nonsense—but that class didn’t teach how to solve the SE for the hydrogen atom (we just didn’t have the mathematical background to solve second-order differential equations in 3D in spherical coordinates back then).
(Or, in the third volume of Feynman’s lectures, I’d consider the first few chapters way more relevant than the last few for that purpose.)
I assume the purpose of the Schroedinger equation question was to determine how many people had some understanding of the actual physics behind QM, perhaps inspired by the common saying that the only way to understand what QM means is to understand what QM does.
I agree that the question as posed in the 2012 survey doesn’t do a good job at determining either. I don’t even know what it means to calculate the SE. Solve it perhaps? Or calculate the eigenvalues? A better question would be whether one can derive the SE.
Or better yet just ask directly:
Which best describes your understanding of quantum mechanics:
Can’t do QM.
Can do non-relativistic QM.
Can do relativistic QM.
On a side note, the QM question and many others (such as torture vs dust specks) from last year’s survey are right now missing from the preliminary 2013 survey posted by Yvain. Were they intentionally removed, and if so for what reason?
On a side note, the QM question and many others (such as torture vs dust specks) from last year’s survey are right now missing from the preliminary 2013 survey posted by Yvain. Were they intentionally removed, and if so for what reason?
As I think someone already mentioned, the Schrodinger Equation question tells more about whether we’re good at differential equations than whether we’re familiar with the ontology of quantum mechanics enough that we’re qualified to judge the plausibility of Many Worlds or other interpretations. Assuming the latter is the point of the question, “… to prove Bell’s Theorem” would probably be a much better test (though still not an excellent one).
If someone can’t do the problem sets for an undergraduate physics class, then I don’t think they should consider themselves qualified to pass judgement on the field.
Undergraduate physics classes (the ones I attended, at least) hardly mention the various interpretations of QM at all. Well, an introductory class did point out that you can’t measure something without physically affecting it, which helped me dispel “consciousness causes collapse” nonsense—but that class didn’t teach how to solve the SE for the hydrogen atom (we just didn’t have the mathematical background to solve second-order differential equations in 3D in spherical coordinates back then).
(Or, in the third volume of Feynman’s lectures, I’d consider the first few chapters way more relevant than the last few for that purpose.)
Quantum Information science is more relevant for ontological musings of this kind than straight-up Quantum Physics.
I assume the purpose of the Schroedinger equation question was to determine how many people had some understanding of the actual physics behind QM, perhaps inspired by the common saying that the only way to understand what QM means is to understand what QM does.
I agree that the question as posed in the 2012 survey doesn’t do a good job at determining either. I don’t even know what it means to calculate the SE. Solve it perhaps? Or calculate the eigenvalues? A better question would be whether one can derive the SE.
Or better yet just ask directly:
Which best describes your understanding of quantum mechanics:
Can’t do QM.
Can do non-relativistic QM.
Can do relativistic QM.
On a side note, the QM question and many others (such as torture vs dust specks) from last year’s survey are right now missing from the preliminary 2013 survey posted by Yvain. Were they intentionally removed, and if so for what reason?
I’m pretty sure they were there yesterday.