Comments

  • Is the Math of QM the Central Cause of Everything we see?
    Does the Universe and the physical laws of physics happen because of math of QM or does the mathematics of QM just describe the behavior?Mike
    The latter.

    What is the cause of things like particle interactions and things like gravity and magnetism?
    I don't know how far into the "cause" you are talking about, but I'll tell you from the point of Quantum Field Theory.

    From the quantum chromodynamics' point of view, protons and neutrons are held together by "residual strong force". Proton and neutron exchange pions that keeps these two together. If you look even closer into it, gluons keep quarks together but also helps produce pions. You can consider this as particle interactions. So gluons are one of the many "force carriers".

    Force carrier of magnetism is photons.

    Theoretically, force carrier of gravity is gravitons. However, the existence of graviton has not been confirmed. It is a hypothetical particle.

    I am trying to understand what the interpretation for this question is. I hear some people say that math determines the behavior of the physical universe while others say that math just describes the behavior. Has this question been settled?

    Depends on the interpretation, but it is generally believed that math just describes the behavior. In light of new, better, and more compatible theory, the interpretation is subject to change. This is a philosophical aspect of physics, not science. I wouldn't go too much into it. I always keep an agnostic view of it. It's not that important either for science.
  • Zeno's paradox
    Space is infinitely divisible in mathematics under the definition of continuous space. Unfortunately, we do not really know whether this is applicable to our world. However, scientifically, it works better if it is.

    We don't know if reality is wrong, but before we can actually argue about that, we should be concerned about the logical fallacy made by Zeno.


    The fact that "one must first travel half way before getting to point A", and that this applies infinitely, is true. That is, however, irrelevant to whether one can move or not. This is because the argument that one must first travel half way is simply a requirement. It has nothing to do with whether one can actually travel that distance or not.
  • Why I think God exists.
    Why do you guys even bother discussing? It's kinda annoying seeing this thread back up when I come to PF. This thread isn't even worth 12 pages. It should have ended with the first three posts excluding OP. It's such a bad logic but this guy can't understand that despite being explained for 12 pages. Explaining his mistakes if futile at this point.
  • Why I think God exists.
    For the 15th time, you are unable to correctly address my point and come back with bullshit. I didn't even talk about information in the above post. WTF are you reading? You are talking about yourself with that pathetic post of yours. You are not even worthy of talking about science with this is the level wrong/biased/metaphysical knowledge you have with this much ignorance and arrogance, much less talk about others. Show this thread to a physicist, then. Share this thread in Physics Forum. See what you'll get.

    EDIT: Oh, wait. I forgot that you can't even tell the difference between a philosopher of science and a scientist. Then forget about what I've just said. You don't even know the right person to refer to.
  • Why I think God exists.
    I said it is your god damn turn. Answer the 1) 2) 3) and 4). This is not fair. I've gave an unbiased information and you completely ignored them once you know that you were wrong the whole time. It has been like that for all this time.

    You failed to address my point, once again. If you don't plan to read, then don't respond in the first place. This is obviously unfair. Why is it me that I will always address your concern and you don't. And even if you do, you can't even properly provide one single legitimate argument.

    For the third time, I freaking said I have an agnostic view of particles because it is subject to change in light of better theory. What the fuck are you reading? To conclude something as something is metaphysical as it can get. What you are doing is exactly metaphysics. I am wondering why you are blaming other people for doing something you are doing. Your links are always in contradicting with what you say. You insist on believing that particles are waves (which is not even a correct interpretation of De Broglie-Bohm theory), but this article provides that there is a disagreement with some other forms of interpretations. So then you are admitting that you are biased and metaphysical when you insist that particles are waves. Thank you, that is all I need to know. You are biased and a believer, far from a scientist. You are another one of those pop-culture science lovers that claims they know science and completely blow it.

    Non-scientist trying to act smart with a scientist is not a smart thing to do. Calling someone a failure as a scientist when you don't even understand a crap and contradicts yourself makes it even worse. I would've asked for more humble and modest approach if you don't understand something. Don't ever do that again, and I encourage you to never do that again with anyone.


    This is it. I am done. You are done. There is nothing to be discussed anymore. All I understood from you is that you understand nothing, and arguing with you is pointless because you refuse to address my points. This discussion was off-topic anyway (you made it that way). Thank you for wasting my time.
  • Why I think God exists.
    You really don't like reading other people's posts do you? Fine. But promise me you will read EVERY SINGLE WORD I have posted so far including this one. I will not accept further question if you fail to do this and say a bunch of irrelevant crap over and over again. I am being EXTREMELY generous with you right now, considering how much you offended me with no grounds whatsoever to back it up but with your delusions.

    1) Picture of pentacene taken by AFM (published in Nature Methods)
    http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v6/n11/images/nmeth1109-792-I1.jpg
    These are clearly atoms arranged to form pentacene. Considering how AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) is based on atomic force that barely affects the sample itself in terms of electronic structure, it accurately and truly shows the real molecule and how the atoms are arranged. If you think this not the actual image of atom because of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", then you are uneducated and stupid. (in fact it is this uncertainty principle that allows us to see these atoms.)

    2) Ongoing discussion: Bohmian mechanics is an incomplete theory that is yet to be accepted throughout the scientific community. Poll (https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069) shows that out of 33 participants in one of the quantum physics conference shows that 0% believed in Bohmian mechanics. This may be a total coincidence since college physics classes barely teach Bohmian mechanics, but that only further shows that it is not widely utilized. This poll is actually pretty fair since they ask the participants several questions and categorizes them based on the answer instead of just asking for the name of the interpretation they believe in. I highly suggest you read the article.

    3) I have shown no metaphysical ideas. Refer to this post:
    I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses.FLUX23
    I don't care if what we call a particle is actually a classical particle (classical mechanics), quantum particle (quantum mechanics), or a quantum of a field (quantum field theory). They are merely interpretations that are subject to change when better theories are provided in the future. What matters to me is if it can reproduce experiments well. But I can still call a particle a "particle" because that is the term used to refer to these things.

    4) I did not use a priori knowledge to support a metaphysical definition as a settled scientific issue. It seems like you don't know what a priori knowledge means.
    Statement: Particle is particle.
    This statement is obviously true. This type of knowledge is called "a priori knowledge".
    Statement: Particle is a quantum of a field.
    This statement requires prior experiment or theoretical investigation to know. This type of knowledge is called "a posteriori knowledge".
    I argued that what you are presenting is only a posteriori knowledge. That is irrelevant to what Chany or I said about atoms and particles because the argument holds independent of what atom actually is. When we talk about "atom" in general, the target of the word "atom" refers to an atom or whatever they actually may be. So "atom" is an "atom" and this is independent of what they actually look like. The target of the word atom remains existent. This is a problem of logic. Not science at all. If you cannot accept this logic, then you don't even belong on this forum.


    Typically this type of question is something I should be doing to you. You are an offensive, ignorant, brat that knows nothing about science but pretends to know, base everything on personal preferences and unscientific speculations and personal metaphysical view, say a bunch of irrelevant crap, refuses to read what other people have written, fabricate facts, fabricate what other people says, and accuse them of wrongdoings that they have not committed. You are a very twisted person. I am so glad you are not a scientist.

    Your turn.

    1) Present all of the evidence. (Don't be biased)

    2) Admit to the ongoing discussions and disagreements among scientists. (Don't be biased)

    3) Refrain from presenting your metaphysical ideas and desires as scientific facts. (Believing in Bohmian mechanics and basing every argument under this assumption is nothing more than just metaphysics.)

    4) And clearly mark boundaries when you cross them. (You are the one doing it, not me.)
  • Why I think God exists.
    Okay, so you still refuse to read.

    I know a priori is not a scientific term. I'm not trying to say anything scientific by saying:
    Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring toFLUX23
    This is pure logic. There is nothing scientific about it. Why do you think I was talking scientific here?


    It seems like you don't understand what uncertainty principle is...Even worse, you also don't seem to understand what atom is...If you don't know these, why did you even think of arguing using these?


    I know there are scientist working on theoretical aspect of Bohmian mechanics. I never denied that. In fact, I've already mentioned that. Like I said, I know more than you do. What you have presented so far, I already know.

    So you are admitting that Bohmian mechanics is still faulty at the current stage, and that this is the reason most scientists are reluctant to use it. Thank you. Finally. This argument is done.



    Also, please don't accuse others of something before they accuse you in order to make the other person look like they are doing the wrong thing when in fact it is you. You are the metaphysicist here bro.

    EDIT: I hope this was the Physics Forum. You would have had to deal with hundreds of post that disagrees with you. Are there any physicist here?
  • Why I think God exists.
    Oh my God. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS!!!! WHAT ARE YOU READING!!!!!!!!???????????

    If you are talking about the definition of a particle, then that is something else. Likewise, we can say that about every single thing in this world. I'm sitting on a chair right now, but I am not sure if I can call a stone outside that people are treating it as a chair, a chair. If you are confused about the definition of a particle because you are confused about the distinction between a classical particle and a quantum mechanical particle, then we are talking about something else. You are perhaps confusing the difference between how things should be defined, with how things are. If not, then read below.FLUX23

    This is fallacious as a response to what Chany said (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/52491). Chany's argument bases itself on the fact that, whatever an atom actually may be, atom must exist. Whether particles are classical particles, quantum particles, or quanta of a field, the target of the term particles still exists. It has not disappeared out of the concept. We can later redefine "atom", but that does not mean the target of what Chany said as "atom" has disappeared out of this world. It's just that there is another better and suitable noun to refer to "atom" in light of new evidence.FLUX23

    TheMadFool talks about an object called "God" that we do not know if it, in any form that it actually refers to, really exists. But he claims to scientifically prove its existence based on the fact that people are affected by the belief that it exists. This is, like you said, a bad fallacious argument. Chany attempted explaining this by talking about atoms. Chany's argument does not base itself on the premise that atom is what people classically refer to as atoms. The term "atom" is used in a way to refer to something that actually exists, and does not depend on whether what it actually may be. Whether or not an (classical) atom is actually something else, that "something" still exists. Chany claims that to argue in the way TheMadFool did, that "something" must exist. I think your type of fallacy is called referential fallacy or something. I told you about a priori and a posteriori knowledge because of this.FLUX23

    Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to.FLUX23


    You are the metaphysicist here. You are the wrong one here. You are the one using old tactics to justify yourself. You are the one unable to correctly understand anything because you are clueless. You are the one misinterpreting other people's argument because you are ignoring them.

    Using freaking offensive words to me without any grounds to back it up is just lame.

    I didn't even talk single thing about metaphysics in my post. I already said I have agnostic view of any interpretation of quantum mechanics because it's unscientific to attempt interpreting it.

    Also, the link provides arguments that is against your views. What are you doing?
  • Why I think God exists.
    Or maybe you have your eyes closed.
  • Why I think God exists.
    Oh my goodness...

    First of all, this "there are no particle" thing and "symbolic" crap you keep on saying has already been addressed hundreds of time before, that you kept ignoring. READ FOR GOD'S SAKE. It's fine if you don't understand. You can just tell me what part of it you didn't understand. But ignoring it is a whole different story, especially when that was where it all started. This is getting really annoying.

    Second, I don't give a crap about Einstein's relativity for now. I wasn't even meaning to talk about that. You misinterpreted it because you were clueless and I ended up explaining it. I was talking about relativistic quantum mechanics. As I suspected, you didn't even know the highly successful Dirac's equation, QED, and QFT, and how Bohmian mechanics fails to account for these area (as of now). QFT is so far, and by far, the most successful and advanced quantum mechanical theory today. If you don't know this, you can't even hope to discuss anything with me.

    Third, you can see atoms. Period. End of discussion. I don't even wanna talk about this again. You can actually search online for this. Searching for why a specific type of instrument is used, what the images actually means, and how we determine what we see is what we meant to see a good starting point for someone like you who is totally clueless. It's better if you actually get at least physics/chemistry (both of these intervene a lot) undergrad level of knowledge before you talk about something like this. Don't tell me you don't know the difference between atoms and elementary particles.

    Most importantly, fourth, stop shifting the discussion into something else. Every time you talk about something on science, I have to fix it for you because you are wrong here and there. This is tiresome. How about we get back into what we were originally discussing? You haven't replied once to my concern despite telling you several times.


    And the link you send me? This must be a joke, right? First of all, he is not a scientist. He is a philosopher working on philosophy of science. Also, I learned nothing new. This is philosophy, not science. It does not add anything to my knowledge of science, not to mention it says "Einstein for Everyone" which is ironic considering your criticism of his Theory of relativity. Thanks for wasting my time.
  • Why I think God exists.
    I would like you to address my concern instead of talking about something else.

    Also, stop trying to convince somebody of something you don't really understand. You cannot win against me in science especially physics and chemistry. I know more than you do, and I know them more accurately than you do. I know that because your knowledge of physics is simply wrong in some places. I know that because you thought atoms can be directly observed using photon (they can, with sophisticated instrument, but by the way you write it, you probably didn't know). That can actually be intuitively understood if you are educated in science without being in a Lab that works on these area. You have several wrong understanding of De Broglie-Bohm theory. You also think I was talking specifically about Einstein's general and special relativity, when the term "relativistic" does not necessarily (in fact usually don't) refer to that.

    I know, in general, the paradox and incompleteness of Einstein's theory of general and special relativity. I don't need you to tell me that. But did you say, Einstein's relativistic theory provide little practical usefulness? Wow, apologize to Einstein right now. Contrary to what you claim, general and special relativity is still quite useful as good approximation in several fields, especially special relativity since they can provide fairly practical explanation or prediction without having to have to go through tremendous sophisticated calculations. Dare tell me if satellites are pointless bunch of crap that we don't need.


    Perhaps you've never really understood the significance of Dirac's equation and Quantum Field Theory (actually there are several approaches to QFT but I am being general here), and how they are important in explaining relativistic scale phenomenons. As so, you also probably don't understand the problems arising from Bohmian mechanics. No wonder why you blindly believe them.
  • Liar's paradox...an attempt to solve it.

    This is poor logic. Being unable to differentiate between two things does not mean two things are equivalent. It just means you don't know how to distinguish them. If I am given two constants A and B without further information, then I don't know what these values are so there is no logic to conclude that A = B.






    I think found a further paradox in the Liar's paradox.

    let, S0 be some statement we are not aware of.

    Let's make another statement:
    S1 = S0 is false

    Right now, S1 itself is not contradicting. It's just saying S1 is false. Let's continue on,
    S2 = S1 is false
    S3 = S2 is false
    S4 = S3 is false
    .
    .
    .
    Sn = Sn-1 is false

    Let's substitute all this.
    Sn = ( ... ( ( S0 is false ) is false ) ... is false ) is false

    It is important that the parentheses are kept so that we won't get confused about the exact target of "is false" is referring to in each statement. Now here are some axioms:
    "(X is false) is false" = "X is true"
    "(X is false) is true" = "X is false"
    "(X is true) is false" = "X is false"
    "(X is true) is true" = "X is true"

    Let's apply these to the sequence above and we get:
    if n = even, then
    Sn = S0 is true
    if n = odd, then
    Sn = S0 is false

    Substitute S0 = This statement is false. Then,
    if n = even, then
    Sn = This statement is false
    if n = odd, then
    Sn = This statement is true

    It does not matter if n → infinity. Sn oscillates between being true and false and does not converge. That is paradoxical.
  • Why I think God exists.
    From the philosopher's perspective, arguing for Bohmian mechanics is fine. The interpretation is, along with Many-Worlds interpretation, less philosophical compared to other interpretations. I'll give you that. As with all of other interpretations, there are strong and weak points. Some people resolved to Bohmian mechanics interpretation for their (classically) intuitively understandable interpretation of Quantum Mechanics like you have, sometimes incorrectly referred to as the realists' approach. Contrary to what you suspect me of doing, I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses. If you are happy philosophically, fine. I don't really care.

    As a scientist, Bohmian mechanics is inadequate and needs to be refined or remodeled to be accepted. There is a good reason why. Contrary to your statement, Bohmian mechanics is only consistent in non-relativistic level. It cannot be extended to the relativistic level for many-particle case, either (some attempts are there, but they are scientifically yet to be accepted). The spin is screwed up in this theory. It also unnecessarily complicates Schrodinger's equation by adding extra equation, and yet the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle still applies. That means it doesn't really give us any new information at all. This is the consensus among most physicists today, but that is subject to change if Bohmian mechanics are refined in a way that is scientifically sound and surpasses current theory of Quantum Mechanics. Until then, scientists using QM should stick with current QM.

    Either way, what I strongly disagree and discourage is to assume that one type of interpretation (that is not even widely accepted) is true and base argument on it. One should always base an argument on premises that are neutral. Like I have done, my claims are neutral and agnostic about interpretations. Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to.
  • Why I think God exists.

    I apologize for the late reply. I did read it, but did not have enough time to respond.

    By all means, I know what particles refer to and what they are in QFT. I don't need you to tell me that. Also, forget about Bohmian mechanics. It clarifies Copenhagen interpretation, and it works in a non-relativistic level, but otherwise it is generally not well accepted in Quantum mechanics, not to mention they are not that practical in terms of how they do not help advance quantum mechanics at all. Unless someone works on it and works on it good enough to convince the science community, I highly recommend you not to try to believe it the true interpretation yet. What I did not realize was something more fundamental that you were talking about. Now I understand what you were trying to say below.

    I think, upon inspection, the precise description of atoms, molecules, quarks, boffins, hadrons, bosons, quanta, photons, dark matter, spin, etc. are quite malleable and are more or less symbolic as are words and some other mathematical construct. I remember reading Bohr describing the nucleus as a water drop, which led directly to Meitner's description of fission. Symbolism should always be recognized for what it is and not confused with what actually might beRich

    This is fallacious as a response to what Chany said (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/52491). Chany's argument bases itself on the fact that, whatever an atom actually may be, atom must exist. Whether particles are classical particles, quantum particles, or quanta of a field, the target of the term particles still exists. It has not disappeared out of the concept. We can later redefine "atom", but that does not mean the target of what Chany said as "atom" has disappeared out of this world. It's just that there is another better and suitable noun to refer to "atom" in light of new evidence.

    TheMadFool talks about an object called "God" that we do not know if it, in any form that it actually refers to, really exists. But he claims to scientifically prove its existence based on the fact that people are affected by the belief that it exists. This is, like you said, a bad fallacious argument. Chany attempted explaining this by talking about atoms. Chany's argument does not base itself on the premise that atom is what people classically refer to as atoms. The term "atom" is used in a way to refer to something that actually exists, and does not depend on whether what it actually may be. Whether or not an (classical) atom is actually something else, that "something" still exists. Chany claims that to argue in the way TheMadFool did, that "something" must exist. I think your type of fallacy is called referential fallacy or something. I told you about a priori and a posteriori knowledge because of this.
  • Why I think God exists.
    To the best of my understanding, the is no particle. Just a symbolic representation (am mindful image) of a particle when it is convenient for purposes. Likewise, the symbolic wave (another image) when it is convenient for practice purposes, as with the double b slot experiment. I believe it is imprecise to discuss it otherwise. There is a chasm of difference between instantiating it as a particle (or a wave) and labeling it a particle (or a wave) and that is what the philosopher may choose to explore. True, one can call it a wave-particle but where does that leave us other than a confused image.

    My own preference is viewing it as a wave (not particle) with wave perburtations being viewed as patches but not such. This would be the De Brogle-Bohm version. In such an image, the is no real psyche though the permutations may be mathematically treated as such. As always, I am seeking precision.
    Rich

    If you are talking about Bohmian mechanics, that is merely one way to interpret quantum mechanics. It fails in several places with some other discipline of quantum physics in terms of how mechanics work. Unlike quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics, Bohmian mechanics fail on the relativistic level, if I remember correctly (although there are several attempts to make Bohmian mechanics relativistic). Quantum field theory more correctly accounts for relativistic level of discussion. In fact, the interpretations and premises of Bohmian mechanics only clarifies some part of Copenhagen interpretation, but otherwise does not provide any practical formulation of things, thus the reason other interpretations are still used today.

    Your concern with definition of particle arises from your confusion of a priori and a posterirori knowledge.
  • Why I think God exists.

    If you are talking about the definition of a particle, then that is something else. Likewise, we can say that about every single thing in this world. I'm sitting on a chair right now, but I am not sure if I can call a stone outside that people are treating it as a chair, a chair. If you are confused about the definition of a particle because you are confused about the distinction between a classical particle and a quantum mechanical particle, then we are talking about something else. You are perhaps confusing the difference between how things should be defined, with how things are. If not, then read below.


    I'm sorry, but what you said in that post is wrong. In science, there is a specific term to express your description of particle: quasi-particle (in a loose sense. This term is actually used for solid or sometimes in molecules as well, but its definition seems to be rather loose and can be applied to others, recently.) These are actually not, particles, but "seems like" they have the properties of such, and are treated mathematically as particles, thus the term. Plasmon, phonon, exciton, are some of these examples. This is distinguished from actual particles, like the one we are talking about.

    Also, an atom cannot be viewed with photon or any microscopes that utilize light source as probes (generally. There are several new methods like PIM (photoionization microscopy) and QEM (quantum entanglement microscopy) that utilizes photon in a very sophisticated way). This is because a photon has a large wavelength that exceeds the resolution of the material we are looking at. I said AFM (atomic force microscopy), TEM (transmitting electron microscopy) as well as STEM (scanning transmitting electron microscopy), STM (scanning tunneling microscopy), APT (atom probe tomography), etc. These probes do not use photon. Out of these microscopic methods, AFM may be the one that most accurately shows what atom should look like, since it is based on repulsion force that minimally interacts with an atom and changes its state, meaning it does not entail disruption of what we are trying to observe.

    While you are right, and I agree, that the mathematical formulations of these particles are symbolic, these mathematical methods are chosen with precise care to make sure what we are observing is a real particle. Quantum mechanics works this way. So what we are observing is, in fact, a particle.
  • Why I think God exists.
    You are right in one sense.

    But it should be well noted that the Standard Model didn't just come out of nowhere by theorists. They all started from experiments, and then moved on to mathematical formulations to support or explain the obtained results that is consistent with other experiments and science. Finally, they test these theories again by doing controlled experiments. Once they observe what was predicted by theory using apparatus that is logically and scientifically capable for observing what they want to observe, then the theory is confirmed.

    So in the end, these particles do "really" exist. Of course, we can't observe them with our eyes, but we use tools that we know for sure that is able to observe them. Once we do, then it really do exist. For example, we can actually observe an atom visually by AFM, SPM, TEM, and some other techniques. There is no problem calling these as atoms, and there is nothing mathematically symbolic about it. Digging that down with science is what allows us to confirm elementary particles.

    I am not sure if you are a scientist or not, but they are much much more than just symbols interpreted from mathematical formulations.
  • Why I think God exists.
    He says it is and have been saying it is, no matter how many times other people explained that it is not. Welcome to the other side.
  • Why I think God exists.
    Can we test these interpretations, or, at the least, collect more data and evidence to further refine them? Science is not my field beyond some research into it for various reasons, like epistemology and having to listen to people talk about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.Chany

    Yes. In fact, it is continuously being refined. Currently, the most popular interpretation is the Copenhagen Interpretation, one of the older interpretation. There is a reason why it has been accepted for such a long time, for the simple reason that it works well with the currently available knowledge. Nonetheless, Copenhagen interpretation is philosophically a mess and very abstract.
    Although it is not strictly an interpretation anymore, quantum decoherence is widely considered to be true (it can be tested experimentally). Copenhagen interpretation, Many-Worlds interpretation, and many other interpretations can still be compatible with the result of quantum decoherence. Therefore, quantum decoherence doesn't really disprove any other interpretation, but it surely is one that encompasses other interpretations, and quite a legitimate one.