Physicists lost reality in Mathematics

[socrat44]

  Physicists lost reality in Mathematics
a)
1905 - Einstein involved negative time in  SRT
( nobody knew what negative time really was)
b)
1908 - Minkowski  said that Einstein's  equations look ''ugly''
And he gave beautiful mathematical  solution changing
Einstein's ''ugly'' negative time into a positive time.
Minkowski  explained his solution as a  ''space-cone''
Today professors say to students:
''you cannot be physicists if you don't understand  Minkowski's
beautiful mathematical solution'' 
( but nobody explains  what ''space-cone''  or 4-D  really is )
c)
Then in 1919  Kaluza and  O.Klein  involved  5-D
And  in 1969  ''string''- physicists involved 11-D, 27-D, M-D 
These  super - D  have never been observed, but physicists believe
that they are on the right way

You cannot do more complex arithmetic if you don't know what  2+2 = 4
and if you don't know what 4-D really  is,  then more complex dimensions
are only  mathematical play for mathematicians
====
a) Classic view: dimension = direction
There are Descartes' three dimensions in space as
three directions in space. The point where all directions
are united shows place where object is.
We don't need more dimension, 3-D is enough to solve problem.
Looking on watch we know at what time object was in this point.

b) Minkowskki view:
there are four dimensions in space as four direction in space
but this ''space'' is not ordinary but very specific '' an absolute spacetime''.
In this ''absolute spacetime'' we don't know the point and time
where object is exactly.
=====

[mitchellmckain]

  Physicists lost reality in Mathematics

Do you lose reality when you put on sunglasses. Things are darker and the wrong color, but they help you to see when the light is glaring in your eyes.

Mathematics are some very useful glasses for looking at the world also. All you see is numbers and equations and few people are foolish enough to confuse this with reality itself. But it helps you to see a lot of things when rhetoric and belief are blinding people.

a)
1905 - Einstein involved negative time in  SRT
( nobody knew what negative time really was)

Sounds to me like you don't know what Special Relativity really is.

b)
1908 - Minkowski  said that Einstein's  equations look ''ugly''
And he gave beautiful mathematical  solution changing
Einstein's ''ugly'' negative time into a positive time.
Minkowski  explained his solution as a  ''space-cone''
Today professors say to students:
''you cannot be physicists if you don't understand  Minkowski's
beautiful mathematical solution'' 
( but nobody explains  what ''space-cone''  or 4-D  really is )

Sounds like you are confusing theory with strategies for teaching. To be sure there are advances in both and we are learning better ways of teaching physics all the time.

c)
Then in 1919  Kaluza and  O.Klein  involved  5-D

Kaluza found that doing GR in 5 dimensions gave you Maxwell's equations for Electromagnetism as well as gravity. It was just a curiosity at the time because physicists had little reason to believe in 5 dimensions.

And  in 1969  ''string''- physicists involved 11-D, 27-D, M-D 
These  super - D  have never been observed, but physicists believe
that they are on the right way

It is one of the strategies of physics to look at things in different ways. We live on the earth and so the earth is quite naturally at the center of our world. But physics learned that looking at things with the sun at the center made understanding the motion of the planets so much easier. The use of higher dimensional spaces in physics is the same sort of thing. Closing your eyes does not make the world dark and refusing to look at things in ways you don't like does not make reality conform to the way you choose to see it.

You cannot do more complex arithmetic if you don't know what  2+2 = 4
and if you don't know what 4-D really  is,  then more complex dimensions
are only  mathematical play for mathematicians

"Complex" has a special meaning in mathematics, making your statement sound as if you are the one who doesn't understand what you are talking about.

====
a) Classic view: dimension = direction
There are Descartes' three dimensions in space as
three directions in space. The point where all directions
are united shows place where object is.
We don't need more dimension, 3-D is enough to solve problem.
Looking on watch we know at what time object was in this point.

b) Minkowskki view:
there are four dimensions in space as four direction in space
but this ''space'' is not ordinary but very specific '' an absolute spacetime''.
In this ''absolute spacetime'' we don't know the point and time
where object is exactly.
=====

None of this makes any sense. 3d is enough to solve 3d problems. If that is all you want then nobody is making to do any more. By all means stick to what you can handle, but projecting YOUR limitations on the world and everyone else is the intolerance of a medieval savage.

Furthermore the "classic view" is used for the understanding of nature from before quantum physics. The proper comparison here should between Euclidean and Minkowsky. Furthermore we should include the change in this brought by General Relativity as a third way of looking at things.

a) Euclidean space-time: This is a continuous string of instantaneous 3d snapshots -- like a movie film in three dimensions. One of these snapshots is the present and those before are the past and those afterwards are the future. Furthermore, this is generally associated with the idea of absolute space and time.

b) Minkowsky space-time: The separation of past, present, and future is relative to a particular point in space and time. The future is confined to the inside of a 4d cone defined by the speed of light in a vacuum moving away from that point forward in time. The past is confined to the inside of a 4d cone defined by the speed of light in a vacuum moving backward in time to the origin of light arriving at that point in space and time. The present can be considered to include everything else outside the past and future light cones. This means there is no absolute separation of time into past, present, and future because it depends completely on where you are. Instead, everything is relative.

c) Space-time in General Relativity: Space-time is only locally Minkowsky. In other words the Minkowsky view is an approximation or tangent space at a point, but actual space-time has a curvature to it. This makes the definition of time apart from space even more difficult and so it tends to be an arbitrary choice to some degree.

[socrat44]

@ mitchellmckain, Thank you.
I try to understand your post in my way.
============
1) Mathematics is very useful part of science

2) From 1919 Kaluza / Klein's hypoteza (EM + Gravity)
doesn't work (from any point of view, excapt of math for mathematician)

3) the "classic logical view" must be used to understand quantum physics.
The proper comparison here should between Euclidean and Minkowski.
(Euclidean plus +2D and Minkowski negative -2D , Pseudo-Euclidean )

4) How things look from General Relativity view
How things look from Special Relativity view

5)
a) Euclidean space and time:
two different subjects, conceptions

b) Minkowski space-time:
space-time is one subject, one conception where.

c) Space-time in SRT is a cosmic fabric for everythings

d) Minkowski absolute flat space-time can be curved locally.
The local curvature of flat spacetime depends on masses and speed.
(The gravity-masses in the universe as whole are very few 5% - 7%
This amount of masses cannot curve the universe as whole )
====

[mitchellmckain]

2) From 1919 Kaluza / Klein's hypoteza (EM + Gravity)
doesn't work (from any point of view, excapt of math for mathematician)

What do you mean it doesn't work? You write Einstein's GR equations in 5 dimensions and you get both gravity and EM. That works. But if you mean it doesn't toast bread or open cans then that is quite true. Using things for something which they are not made never works.

Oh and this is NOT mathematics. It is physics. Physics is all about looking at the world in mathematical terms. Sure popular books write all this stuff about what physics has discovered in English, but that is not really physics. It is like the difference between a novel that talks about a game and actually playing the game. Two completely different things. Kaluza and Klein were swedish PHYSICISTS and what they discovered was physics, NOT MATHEMATICS. Just because physics uses mathematics doesn't mean that it is mathematics.

3) the "classic logical view" must be used to understand quantum physics.

incorrect. Classical physics is an approximation. Quantum physics is extremely precise. Logic applies to both. Once again I think you are projecting your limitations on the universe itself.

The proper comparison here should between Euclidean and Minkowski.

(Euclidean plus +2D and Minkowski negative -2D , Pseudo-Euclidean )

Nonsense.
Euclidean geometry does not require a specific number of dimensions, and there is no +2D or -2D with respect to anything.

The difference with Minkowsky geometry is in the metric (how you measure the length of intervals). In Euclidean space you just add the square of each coordinate length and take the square root. But if you add in time to this and measure intervals by adding the square of the length of time to the others, then the result does not match real life. In Minkowsky geometry the square of the length in time is subtracted rather than added. Thus Minkowsky space-time fits the definition of a pseudo-Euclidean space, and like other such spaces you can get a negative interval length. Also while the length of intervals in Euclidean space is only zero when all the coordinate lengths are zero, in Minkowsky you can get a zero interval length when the square of the time length equals the spatial length -- this is the case on the past and future light cones.

4) How things look from General Relativity view
How things look from Special Relativity view

Are you trying to say something here or ask a question?

5)
a) Euclidean space and time:
two different subjects, conceptions

b) Minkowski space-time:
space-time is one subject, one conception where.

Not exactly. They are different ways of doing geometry. But it is true that we need Minkowsky geometry in order to include time correctly.

c) Space-time in SRT is a cosmic fabric for everythings

Huh? Sound like nonsense to me. Special relativity is a revision of the kinematics of Newton from re-evaluating the relationship between space and time based on new evidence. Thus special relativity works at high velocities (near the speed of light) where Newtonian kinematics fails.

d) Minkowski absolute flat space-time can be curved locally.
The local curvature of flat spacetime depends on masses and speed.
(The gravity-masses in the universe as whole are very few 5% - 7%
This amount of masses cannot curve the universe as whole )

This is not only incorrect but inconsistent. Minkowsky space-time is absolutely flat. PERIOD. Only General relativity provides the mathematics for curved space-time with a variable metric which is only locally Minkowsky. But it is true that modeling the universe with GR concludes that the universe is approximately flat on the large scale while there can be curvature locally to the extreme of singularities. But away from such singularities we also say that space-time is approximated locally by flat Minkowsky space-time as a tangent space. In other words space-time is smooth without things like folds or creases.

[someguy1]

In 1623, Galileo Galilei said:

Philosophy is written in this grand book, which stands continually open before our eyes (I say the 'Universe'), but can not be understood without first learning to comprehend the language and know the characters as it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is impossible to humanly understand a word; without these one is wandering in a dark labyrinth.

So you tell me.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

[mitchellmckain]

In 1623, Galileo Galilei said:

Philosophy is written in this grand book, which stands continually open before our eyes (I say the 'Universe'), but can not be understood without first learning to comprehend the language and know the characters as it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is impossible to humanly understand a word; without these one is wandering in a dark labyrinth.

So you tell me.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

I would say that Galileo was a visionary who saw the work of science before modern science really existed. The distinction between science, philosophy, religion, history, law, and entertainment has developed gradually from a past where they were all combined into one.

[socrat44]

@ mitchellmckain,
===========
1) EM and Gravity two different phenomena in nature.
To put them together  in one 5D it is  like
to the giraffe's neck to sew elephant's head.

2) Euclidean geometry is a local, limited  flat space +2D
(+ time + Descartes coordinates,  match our real life.)
Minkowski geometry is an absolutely, unlimited  flat space -2D
( doesn't have independent time and it is absent of gravity ,
these conditions does not match our real life)

3) Only local gravity-masses in local region can curve
the absolute space-time into Riemannian geometry.
#
'' A world without masses, without electrons, without an
electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is, non- Euclidian.''
/ Book 'Albert Einstein', the page 116, by Leopold Infeld. /
============

[socrat44]

   A math point - particle
===
A point particle is an ideal particle (not real image of particle in nature)
 A point particle  is mathematical idealization of particle heavily used in physics

Definitions:
zero-dimensional, a point- mass, a point- charge, a nonzero charge ,
an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume

  Atom:
A proton do have internal structure ( made of quarks - ? ! )
An electron doesn't have internal structure
That is impossible because electron takes part in many different
actions that are reflected by many different laws and formulas
( E=h*f  and    e^2=ah*c , +E=Mc^2    and  -E=Mc^2 ,
   E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV  and  E= ∞  . . . . )

From far enough a way, any finite-size object will look like and behave as
a point-like object, but when we will come nearer, we discover out our error.

Until today we are still far a way, to understand the structure of an electron.
=================

[mitchellmckain]

   A math point - particle
===
A point particle is an ideal particle (not real image of particle in nature)
 A point particle  is mathematical idealization of particle heavily used in physics

Definitions:
zero-dimensional, a point- mass, a point- charge, a nonzero charge ,
an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume

Yes, it is picture of things which has always troubled physicists it makes them singularities as a source of a field. The field goes to infinity as you approach the particle. This is one of the things which makes string theory so appealing -- no more point particles and no more field singularities. If only we could get string theory to work...

[socrat44]

   A math point - particle
===
A point particle is an ideal particle (not real image of particle in nature)
 A point particle  is mathematical idealization of particle heavily used in physics

Definitions:
zero-dimensional, a point- mass, a point- charge, a nonzero charge ,
an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume

Yes, it is picture of things which has always troubled physicists
it makes them singularities as a source of a field.
The field goes to infinity as you approach the particle.
This is one of the things which makes string theory so appealing --
no more point particles and no more field singularities.
If only we could get string theory to work...

Why does quantum particle have ''string'' geometric form ?
Why quantum particle cannot have another geometrical forms:
triangle, square, circle, membrane, . . . drum . . . ?

=====

[mitchellmckain]

Why does quantum particle have ''string'' geometric form ?
Why quantum particle cannot have another geometrical forms:
triangle, square, circle, membrane, . . . drum . . . ?

=====

That is why they call it M-theory now. Its not just strings anymore. M-theory consists of branes which instead of just one-dimensional strings can be objects of any number of dimensions.

[Faradave]

Yes, it is picture of things which has always troubled physicists it makes them singularities as a source of a field. The field goes to infinity as you approach the particle. This is one of the things which makes string theory so appealing -- no more point particles and no more field singularities. If only we could get string theory to work...

With USA football season upon us, what better time to take to the field. Point sources and infinities are easy to tackle!

[socrat44]

Why does quantum particle have ''string'' geometric form ?
Why quantum particle cannot have another geometrical forms:
triangle, square, circle, membrane, . . . drum . . . ?

=====

M-theory consists of branes which instead of just one-dimensional strings
can be objects of any number of dimensions.

String-particles ''consists of branes which instead of just one-dimensional strings
can be objects of any number of dimensions.''

===

[socrat44]

Why does quantum particle have ''string'' geometric form ?
Why quantum particle cannot have another geometrical forms:
triangle, square, circle, membrane, . . . drum . . . ?

=====

M-theory consists of branes which instead of just one-dimensional strings
can be objects of any number of dimensions.

String-particles ''consists of branes which instead of just one-dimensional strings
can be objects of any number of dimensions.''

===

More about M - String Particles
====
M-theory is a new idea in small-particle physics that is part
of superstring theory that was initially proposed by Edward Witten.
The idea, or theory, often causes arguments among scientists,
because there is no way to test it to see if it is true.

. . . .

Additional amusement has come for many in guessing what
the M might stand for (possibilities include Matrix, Magic,
Muffin, Mystery, Mother and Membrane).
Regardless of what the M might possibly mean,
M-theory has become one of the most interesting and
active areas of research in theoretical physics today.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

P.S.
Theoretical Physics Is Pointless without Experimental Tests
  / By Abraham Loeb on August 10, 2018 /

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... tal-tests/
=====

[mitchellmckain]

Theoretical Physics Is Pointless without Experimental Tests
  / By Abraham Loeb on August 10, 2018 /

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... tal-tests/
=====

But this is wrong! Don't misunderstand. I am constantly explaining the importance of tests (i.e. demonstrability). It is where any claim to objectivity in science comes from. But this statement by Loeb goes too far. Developments can begin with theory without tests and eventually leads to tests. Thus theory without tests is not pointless. The most you can say is that the validation of the value of theory IN PHYSICS must ultimately come from tests. Mathematics is different, however, and to call mathematics pointless is outrageous.

[socrat44]

Theoretical Physics Is Pointless without Experimental Tests
  / By Abraham Loeb on August 10, 2018 /

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... tal-tests/
=====

But this is wrong! Don't misunderstand.
I am constantly explaining the importance of tests (i.e. demonstrability).
It is where any claim to objectivity in science comes from.
But this statement by Loeb goes too far.
Developments can begin with theory without tests and eventually leads to tests.
Thus theory without tests is not pointless.
The most you can say is that the validation of the value of theory IN PHYSICS
must ultimately come from tests.
Mathematics is different, however, and to call mathematics pointless is outrageous.

i can agree,
but to test ''string'' needs LHC around solar system.
===

[someguy1]

Additional amusement has come for many in guessing what
the M might stand for ...

I always figured it's an upside-down 'W', for Witten. I got this idea when I heard that Stefan Banach studied infinite-dimensional complete normed vector spaces and referred to them as "spaces of type B." Just as he no doubt planned all along, these are now known as Banach spaces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banach

[socrat44]

Additional amusement has come for many in guessing what
the M might stand for ...

I always figured it's an upside-down 'W', for Witten.
I got this idea when I heard that Stefan Banach studied
infinite-dimensional complete normed vector spaces and
referred to them as "spaces of type B."
Just as he no doubt planned all along, these are now known as Banach spaces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banach

a)
Mathematics.
The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set-theoretic geometry,
which states the following: Given a solid ball in 3‑dimensional space,
there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint
subsets, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield
two identical copies of the original ball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2 ... ki_paradox
It is pure mathematics.
b)
Physics / chemistry
Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements:
oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements:
potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositi ... human_body
It is pure physics / chemistry.
c)
Philosophy.
Are you greater than the sum of all these stuff ?
It is scientific question, it is philosophy of science.
====

[socrat44]

Additional amusement has come for many in guessing what
the M might stand for ...

I always figured it's an upside-down 'W', for Witten.
I got this idea when I heard that Stefan Banach studied
infinite-dimensional complete normed vector spaces and
referred to them as "spaces of type B."
Just as he no doubt planned all along, these are now known as Banach spaces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banach

a)
Mathematics.
The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set-theoretic geometry,
which states the following: Given a solid ball in 3‑dimensional space,
there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint
subsets, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield
two identical copies of the original ball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2 ... ki_paradox
It is pure mathematics.
b)
Physics / chemistry
Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements:
oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements:
potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositi ... human_body
It is pure physics / chemistry.
c)
Philosophy.
Are you greater than the sum of all these stuff ?
It is scientific question, it is philosophy of science.
====

Why does woman need only 270 days to give birth to a child
and a  ''single-point'' had needed about 14 billion years to create a woman / man ?

Maybe the pregnancy of woman (the birth of child) is not going by the laws
of probability, and not by chance all chemical elements were gathered together
( during 270 days ) to create child.
And who would argue, that when the child gives a first cry,
he / she is a much greater than the sum of all his / her chemical elements ?
==========[

[Neri]

What are called “laws of nature” are pure mental constructs with predictive value in the current state of facts as determined ultimately by sensory experience. Such “laws,” are subject to falsification as new facts become available. General relativity is no exception.

Frequently, scientific theories, even when they have great predictive value, often contain internal elements that are quite arbitrary.

In general relativity (GR), we have the notion that time is a kind of spatial dimension. If one takes the notion of space/time as the actual condition of the real world, we are left with a block universe, an unchanging geometric object. To put it plainly, we are left with a world in which nothing ever happens—where motion and change are mere illusions. Surely, this is preposterous.

Time and space do not in themselves exist separately from the human mind. Yet, because they purport to measure motion and change, they are well founded in reality; for the world is all that happens, not all that exists. In fact, time and space are derived from motion and change. In other words, time and space are discursive, and not intuitive as Kant claimed.

GR, like all scientific theories, is a mathematical model conceived as a comprehensive account of observed events of a certain kind in such a way that the model has predictive power.

As someone in this forum has put it, GR is a “mapping out” and “not equivalent to the terrain.”

A graph represents things that happen in the real world but can never itself be equivalent to what actually happens there. Similarly, GR depicts gravitational events by means of a highly complicated geometry. There is no motion in GR, just as there is no motion in a map or graph. A book can describe the motions of a sword fight, for example, but words themselves do not move like swords.

Yet, there is an element of truth in all these representations, but the truth is our truth and not a truth that belongs to the world. It is the truth of ideas and symbols. It is our way of making sense of the world and not the world itself.

However, there is a difference between the ideas of space and time on the one hand and the idea of space-time on the other, and that is this:

Space and time are well founded in reality in that they are derived from motion and change, whereas space-time is not founded in reality, because it denies motion and change, the very conditions that are equivalent to reality.

[ronjanec]

A very well written and very interesting post Neri: You say it in a much more sophisticated way than I do, but I of course agree with what you are saying here about the role of “spacetime” in objective reality.

GR is a “mapping out” and “not equivalent to the terrain”? I’ll have to remember this one.

[socrat44]

GR is a “mapping out” and “not equivalent to the terrain.”
. . . .
space-time is not founded in reality, because it denies motion and change,
the very conditions that are equivalent to reality.

Space-time is a “mapping out the equivalent to the terrain”
So called ''space-time'' is a map of Pseudo-Euclidean negative continuum.
So called ''Pseudo-Euclidean negative continuum'' in reality is an Infinite Vacuum: T=0K.
Continuum of Vacuum was founded in reality, because quantum (!)
motions and changes / fluctuations / transformations go in the Vacuum.
GRT takes place only in local region of the Infinite Zero Vacuum: T=0K.
======

[TheVat]

MOD NOTE: 2 QUITE SIMILAR THREADS ARE OFTEN MERGED HERE. PLEASE DO NOT START NEW THREADS WHEN AN EXISTING THREAD EXISTS IN WHICH YOUR TOPIC CAN BE DISCUSSED.

ALSO: WE ARE NOW DOWN TO TWO MODS. SIMPLY NO TIME TO ANSWER PMs and get into debates about where things go. Sorry.

[socrat44]

The impossibly stubborn question at the heart of quantum mechanics
/ by Jim Baggott / August 2, 2018 /

Everybody knows by now that quantum mechanics is an extraordinarily
successful scientific theory, on which much of our modern,
tech-obsessed lifestyles depend. It is also completely mad.
Although the theory quite obviously works, we’re left to puzzle over what
we think it’s telling us, with all its ghosts and phantoms; its cats that are
at once both alive and dead; its collapsing wavefunctions; and its seemingly
“spooky” goings-on.
It leaves us with a rather desperate desire to lie down quietly in a darkened room.. . .

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/scie ... -mechanics

============

[hyksos]

The impossibly stubborn question at the heart of quantum mechanics
/ by Jim Baggott / August 2, 2018 /

Everybody knows by now that quantum mechanics is an extraordinarilysuccessful scientific theory, on which much of our modern, tech-obsessed lifestyles depend. It is also completely mad. Although the theory quite obviously works, we’re left to puzzle over what we think it’s telling us, with all its ghosts and phantoms; its cats that are at once both alive and dead; its collapsing wavefunctions; and its seemingly “spooky” goings-on.
It leaves us with a rather desperate desire to lie down quietly in a darkened room.. . .
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/scie ... -mechanics

socrat44,

If it is any consolation , we have threads on this forum that go far deeper into these topics than the Prospect Magazine article.

1.) Why do large objects not exhibit quantum behaviors? viewtopic.php?f=51&t=34045

2.) the status of String Theory viewtopic.php?f=39&t=34522

3.)Objective Collapse theories. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34064

4.)wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30520

5.)fleshing out the Many Worlds Interpretation viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34414

[JustAsking]

If you're interested, the book What's Real by Adam Becker is great. Really talks about the detailed history and personal stories associated with foundational QM.