Text 1: Physicist Park argues that the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics — wave functions collapsing upon measurement — works because it makes accurate predictions, full stop. Pursuing "deeper" interpretations like many-worlds or pilot waves, she contends, distracts physicists from productive empirical work.
Text 2: Physicist Singh accepts that the standard interpretation yields accurate predictions but rejects the "shut up and calculate" posture. Treating measurement as physically privileged, he argues, leaves a glaring conceptual hole at the foundation of physics. A science willing to leave its core ontology mysterious, Singh contends, has not earned its predictive success.
Based on the texts, how would Singh (Text 2) most likely respond to Park's argument?
- A
He would deny that quantum mechanics yields accurate predictions.
- Bcheck_circle
He would accept predictive success while arguing that conceptual understanding still matters.
- C
He would agree that interpretation is irrelevant to physics.
- D
He would say physicists should abandon quantum mechanics.
Explanation
Singh grants predictive success but rejects abandoning interpretation. B captures his position. A, C, and D contradict him.