Thursday, October 11, 2018

The decline of relativistic mass

Vesselin Petkov notes how the concept of "relativistic mass" has gone out of fashion:
These facts make the campaign against the concept of relativistic mass both inexplicable and worrisome. Instead of initiating and stimulating research on the origin of relativistic mass (and on the nature of mass in general) in order to achieve a more profound understanding of this fundamental concept in physics,7 the relativistic mass is not mentioned at all in many publications8 (see, for example, the well-known textbook [35]) or, if it is mentioned, it is done to caution the readers9, that "Most physicists prefer to consider the mass of a particle as fixed" [25, p. 760], that "Most physicists prefer to keep the concept of mass as an invariant, intrinsic property of an object" [32], that "We choose not to use relativistic mass, because it can be a misleading concept" [36] or to warn them [22, p. 1215]:
Watch Out for "Relativistic Mass"

Some older treatments of relativity maintained the conservation of momentum principle at high speeds by using a model in which a particle's mass increases with speed. You might still encounter this notion of "relativistic mass" in your outside reading, especially in older books. Be aware that this notion is no longer widely accepted; today, mass is considered as invariant, independent of speed. The mass of an object in all frames is considered to be the mass as measured by an observer at rest with respect to the object.
As he explains, this opinion is pretty arbitrary, and relativistic mass is analogous to length contraction or time dilation. Yes, it depends on the frame, and it can be a little confusing, but that's relativity.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Biologist defends de-publishing papers

Computational biology professor Lior Pachter writes:
In the case discussed in this blog post, the underlying subtext is pervasive sexism and misogyny in the mathematics profession, and if this sham paper on the variance hypothesis had gotten the stamp of approval of a journal as respected as NYJM, real harm to women in mathematics and women who in the future may have chosen to study mathematics could have been done. It’s no different than the case of Andrew Wakefield‘s paper in The Lancet implying a link between vaccinations and autism. By the time of the retraction (twelve years after publication of the article, in 2010), the paper had significantly damaged public health, and even today its effects, namely death as a result of reduced vaccination, continue to be felt.
He and his liberal colleagues have a funny idea of what science is all about.

Wakefield's paper did not damage public health. It merely suggested a health concern, based on some very limited data. The proper response would have been to do a more thorough study on measles vaccine safety.

Instead the medical authorities blamed Wakefield for reduced confidence in vaccination, so they retracted the paper and stripped Wakefield of his medical license.

Those who suspected a cover-up of vaccine risks had their suspicions confirmed. Nobody would every publish anything critical of vaccines again, or risk losing his medical license.

Pachter points out that papers on the evolution of sex differences go back to 1895, at least. So how is it that publishing another one will do real harm to women in mathematics? Pachter doesn't actually explain what is wrong with the paper, except that it is politically incorrect and fails to cite some previous work on the subject.

I do not get confidence in vaccines by having a ban on papers describing vaccine dangers. And I do not think that women should get encouragement in math by banning papers on variance in mathematical ability.

Sunday, October 7, 2018

Claiming quantum mechanics is inconsistent

These is whole industry of physicists working in quantum foundations who make various arguments that quantum mechanics doesn't make any sense. They can't deny that quantum mechanics correctly predicts experiments, and yet they keep coming up with clever sleight-of-hand thought experiments and paradoxes that supposedly show that the theory does not work.

The whole enterprise is foolish. If there were really such contradictions, then there would be some failure to predict experiments.

Scott Aaronson pauses from his agony of being a Jewish leftist Trump-hating professor in a red state to explain:
So: a bunch of people asked for my reaction to the new Nature Communications paper by Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner, provocatively titled “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself.” Here’s the abstract:
Quantum theory provides an extremely accurate description of fundamental processes in physics. It thus seems likely that the theory is applicable beyond the, mostly microscopic, domain in which it has been tested experimentally. Here, we propose a Gedankenexperiment to investigate the question whether quantum theory can, in principle, have universal validity. The idea is that, if the answer was yes, it must be possible to employ quantum theory to model complex systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory. Analysing the experiment under this presumption, we find that one agent, upon observing a particular measurement outcome, must conclude that another agent has predicted the opposite outcome with certainty. The agents’ conclusions, although all derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner.
The paper authors separately argue that this proves the many-world interpretation.

That conclusion should be enuf to dispose of the argument. The MWI does not predict any experimental outcomes. There is nothing scientific about it. It is like some solipsist saying anything can happen in his imagination.

Aaronson explains the errors in more detail. So does Lubos Motl. Somehow this paper got published in a Nature journal. It has become respectable to trash quantum mechanics with silly arguments.

Friday, October 5, 2018

Fundamental physics is over

About the recent Nobel physics prize, someone commented:
that's not even applied science, that's technology

People do not get that fundamental physics is over (you would not call seriously "string theory" "scientific" would you?).

I know I am repeating what Lord Kelvin said to his embarrassment just before great discoveries in relativistic physics, quantum physics, etc.

Nevertheless, that's truth: everything ends, everything has limits, humanity has limits and science has limits.

The clear indication that we are close to the limit is absence of ANY fundamental discoveries since a long time ago.

We are gradually shifting towards applied science and mere technology. All of three fields, basic science, applied science and technology are essential for humanity, but the fact is that the first one is almost over or probably over already.

Call them for what they are: Nobel Prizes in Technology
I mostly agree with this.

Future historians will look back at the XX century and say that is when the fundamental problems of science got sorted out.

Sure, there are a few things that seem only partially understood, and that a better understanding seems likely or possible. But for many of those things, it is possible that they will never be better understood than they are today.

What do we have to show for this century? Faster lasers. Gravity wave detection. Higgs boson detection. Better telescopes. Etc. But we haven't had any significant advances in fundamental physics in about 40 years.

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Physics was invented and built by men

A reader sends this BBC story:
A senior scientist who said physics "was invented and built by men" has been suspended with immediate effect from working with the European nuclear research centre Cern.

Prof Alessandro Strumia, of Pisa University, made the comments during a presentation organised by the group.

He said, in comments first reported by the BBC's Pallab Ghosh, that physics was "becoming sexist against men".

Cern said on Monday it was suspending Prof Strumia pending an investigation.

It stated that his presentation was "unacceptable".
LuMo compares this to persecuting Galileo here and here.

No woman would be fired for pushing the accomplishments of women or for whining about men. This man was fired for presenting some facts and opinions about men. So his firing proved his point -- physics is sexist against men.

I thought that his punishment was potentially justifiable because he was injecting political opinions into a scientific context. But his talk was to a gender politics workshop where all the other opinions complained about male oppression. They will never get to the truth as long as contrary views are censored.

The Galileo analogy is a little silly. Galileo was allowed to publish his arguments about the Earth going around the Sun. He got into trouble when said the official Bible interpretations had been proven wrong.

I am writing this as the Nobel Physics prizes are announced. Marie Curie got one about a century ago. I don't think that there have been any women since. As usual, three more men got the prize this year.

One of the three prizewinners was a woman, the first in 55 years.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Mermin defends Copenhagen Interpretation

N. David Mermin has written many popular essays explaining quantum mechanics, and now he summarizes his views on how to interpret the theory in Making better sense of quantum mechanics.

He prefers something called QBism, but nearly everything he says could be considered a defense of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Much of the ambiguity and confusion at the foundations of quantum mechanics stems from an almost universal refusal to recognize that individual personal experience is at the foundation of the story each of us tells about the world. Orthodox ("Copenhagen") thinking about quantum foundations overlooks this central role of private personal experience, seeking to replace it by impersonal features of a common "classical" external world.
He is drawing a fairly trivial distinction between his QBism view and Copenhagen. He illustrates with this famous (but possibly paraphrased) Bohr quote::
When asked whether the algorithm of quantum mechanics could be considered as somehow mirroring an underlying quantum world, Bohr would answer "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."
Mermin's only quibble with this is that he prefers "each of us can say" to "we can say". That is, he doesn't like the way Bohr lumps together everyone's observations and calls it the classical world.

Okay, I guess that distinction makes a difference when discussing Wigner's Friend, a thought experiment where one observer watches another. But for the most part, Mermin likes the Copenhagen interpretation, and successfully rebuts those who say that the interpretation is deficient somehow.

Monday, September 17, 2018

Correcting errors about EPR paradox

Blake C. Stacey writes about the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox:
Misreading EPR: Variations on an Incorrect Theme

Notwithstanding its great influence in modern physics, the EPR thought-experiment has been explained incorrectly a surprising number of times.
He then gives examples of famous authors who get EPR wrong.

He gets to the heart of the Bohr-Einstein dispute:
EPR write, near the end of their paper, "[O]ne would not arrive at our conclusion if one insisted that two or more physical quantities can be regarded as simultaneous elements of reality only when they can be simultaneously measured or predicted."

The response that Bohr could have made: "Yes."

EPR briefly considered the implications of this idea and then dismissed it with the remark, "No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this."

But that is exactly what Bohr did. A possible reply in the Bohrian vein: "Could a `reasonable definition of reality' permit so basic a fact as the simultaneity of two events to be dependent on the observer's frame of reference? Many notions familiar from everyday life only become well-defined in relativity theory once we fix a Lorentz frame. Likewise, many statements in quantum theory only become well-defined once we have given a complete description of the experimental apparatus and its arrangement."

This is not a quote from anywhere in Bohr's writings, but it is fairly in the tradition of his Warsaw lecture, where he put considerable emphasis on what he felt to be "deepgoing analogies" between quantum theory and relativity.
In spite of all differences in the physical problems concerned, relativity theory and quantum theory possess striking similarities in a purely logical aspect. In both cases we are confronted with novel aspects of the observational problem, involving a revision of customary ideas of physical reality, and originating in the recognition of general laws of nature which do not directly affect practical experience. The impossibility of an unambiguous separation between space and time without reference to the observer, and the impossibility of a sharp separation between the behavior of objects and their interaction with the means of observation are, in fact, straightforward consequences of the existence of a maximum velocity of propagation of all actions and of a minimum quantity of any action, respectively.
This is well put. The aim of EPR is to explain a simple example of entangled particles, and to argue that no reasonable definition of reality would permit two observables that cannot be simultaneously measured.

And yet that is a core teaching of quantum mechanics, from about 10 years earlier. Two non-commuting observables cannot be simultaneously measured precisely. That is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Theories that assign definite simultaneous values to observables are called hidden variable theories. All the reasonable ones have been ruled out by the Bell Test Experiments.

Complaining that the uncertainty principle violates pre-conceptions about reality is like complaining that relativity violates pre-conceptions about simultaneity. Of course it does. Get with the program.

There are crackpots who reject relativity because of the Twin Paradox, or some other such surprising effect. The physics community treats them as crackpots. And yet the community tolerates those who get excited by EPR, even tho EPR makes essentially the same mistake.

Saying "maximum velocity of propagation" is a way of saying the core of relativity theory, and saying "minimum quantity of any action" is a way of saying the core of quantum mechanics. The minimum is Planck's constant h, or h-bar. The Heisenberg uncertainties are proportional to this constant. That minimum makes it impossible to precisely measure position and momentum simultaneously, just as the finite speed of light makes it impossible to keep clocks simultaneous.

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Joint Hubble Lemaitre credit is a bad idea

I mentioned renaming the Hubble Law, as a way to correct history, but it appears that they have made the matter worse.

The respected science historian Helge Kragh writes:
The Hubble law, widely considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe, may in the future be known as the Hubble-Lema\^itre law. This is what the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union recommended at its recent meeting in Vienna. However, the resolution in favour of a renamed law is problematic in so far as concerns its arguments based on the history of cosmology in the relevant period from about 1927 to the early 1930s. A critical examination of the resolution reveals flaws of a non-trivial nature. The purpose of this note is to highlight these problems and to provide a better historically informed background for the voting among the union's members, which in a few months' time will result in either a confirmation or a rejection of the decision made by the General Assembly.
He notes:
Until the mid-1940s no astronomer or physicist seems to have clearly identified Hubble as the discoverer of the cosmic expansion. Indeed, when Hubble went into his grave in 1953 he was happily unaware that he had discovered the expansion of the universe.
He says the cited evidence that Hubble met with Lemaitre is wrong. Furthermore, there are really two discoveries being confused -- the cosmic expansion and the empirical redshift-distance law. Hubble had a role in the latter, but not the former.

Monday, September 10, 2018

Where exactly does probability enter the theory?

Peter Woit writes:
A central question of the interpretation of quantum mechanics is that of “where exactly does probability enter the theory?”. The simple question that has been bothering me is that of why one can’t just take as answer the same place as in the classical theory: in one’s lack of precise knowledge about the initial state.
Lee Smolin says he is writing a book, and there are 3 options: (1) orthodox quantum mechanics, (2) many-worlds, (3) hidden variable theories, like pilot waves. All attempts at (2) have failed, so he says "My personal view is that option 3) is the only way forward for physics."

This is a pretty crazy opinion. No one has been able to makes sense out of probabilities in a many-worlds theory, and Bell test experiments have ruled out all sensible hidden variable theories.

Lubos Motl posts a rant against them, as usual:
Quantum mechanics was born 93 years ago but it's still normal for people who essentially or literally claim to be theoretical physicists to admit that they misunderstand even the most basic questions about the field. As a kid, I was shocked that people could have doubted heliocentrism and other things pretty much a century after these things were convincingly justified. But in recent years, I saw it would be totally unfair to dismiss those folks as medieval morons. The "modern morons" (or perhaps "postmodern morons") keep on overlooking and denying the basic scientific discoveries for a century, too! And this centennial delay is arguably more embarrassing today because there exist faster tools to spread the knowledge than the tools in the Middle Ages.
Lumo is mostly right, but it is possible to blame uncertainties on lack of knowledge of the initial state. It is theoretically possible that if you had perfect knowledge about a radioactive nucleus, then you would know when it would decay.

However it is also true that measurements are not going to give you that knowledge, based on what we know about quantum mechanics. This is what makes determinism more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

I agree with Lumo that deriving the Born rule is silly. The Born rule is part of quantum theory. Deriving it from something equivalent might please some theorists, but really is just a mathematical exercise with no scientific significance.

This question about the origin of probabilities only makes sense to those who view probably as the essential thing that makes quantum mechanics different from classical mechanics. I do not have that view. Probabilities enter into all of science. It is hard to imagine any scientific theory that can be tested without some resort to a probabilistic analysis. So I don't think that the appearance of probability requires any special explanation. How else would any theory work?

It is very strange that respectable physicists can have such bizarre views about things that were settled about a century ago. I agree with Lumo about that.

Saturday, September 8, 2018

Another claim for QC real soon

Latest quantum computer hype:
Today the [Berkeley-based startup Rigetti] launched a project in the mold of Amazon Web Services (AWS) called Quantum Cloud Services. "What this platform achieves for the very first time is an integrated computing system that is the first quantum cloud services architecture," says Chad Rigetti, founder and CEO of his namesake company. The dozen initial users Rigetti has announced include biotech and chemistry companies harnessing quantum technology to study complex molecules in order to develop new drugs. The particular operations that the quantum end of the system can do, while still limited and error-prone, are nearly good enough to boost the performance of traditional computers beyond what they could do on their own -- a coming milestone called quantum advantage. "My guess is this could happen anytime from six to 36 months out," says Rigetti.
My guess is that their investors said that they require results in 6 to 36 months.

There is no chance that this company will have any success before the funding runs out.

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Vote to rename law to Hubble-Lemaitre Law

Astronomers have long credited Hubble for discovering the expansion of the universe, even tho he had little to do with it.

If they can decide that Pluto is not a planet, then they can correct this error. Now they will vote on it:
Astronomers are engaged in a lively debate over plans to rename one of the laws of physics.

It emerged overnight at the 30th Meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), in Vienna, where members of the general assembly considered a resolution on amending the name of the Hubble Law to the Hubble-Lemaître Law.

The resolution aims to credit the work of the Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître and his contribution—along with the American astronomer Edwin Hubble — to our understanding of the expansion of the universe.

While most (but not all) members at the meeting were in favor of the resolution, a decision allowed all members of the International Astronomical Union a chance to vote. Subsequently, voting was downgraded to a straw vote and the resolution will formally be voted on by an electronic vote at a later date.
As the article explains, the Belgian Catholic priest published both the theory and the experimental evidence for it, before Hubble had a clue. Hubble did later publish some data confirming Lemaitre's paper as he had a better telescope, but the data was very crude and not really much better.

It is an amusing historical fact that Einstein, Eddington, and other leading cosmologists clung to the idea of a steady-state universe, while a Catholic priest and Vatican astronomers led the way to convincing everyone that the universe had a beginning in what is now called the Big Bang.
But Hubble was not the first. In 1927, Georges Lemaître had already published an article on the expansion of the universe. His article was written in French and published in a Belgian journal.

Lemaître presented a theoretical foundation for the expansion of the universe and used the astronomical data (the very same data that Hubble used in his 1929 article) to infer the rate at which the universe is expanding.

In 1928, the American mathematician and physicist Howard Robertson also published an article in Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, where he derived the formula for the expansion of the universe and inferred the rate of expansion from the same data that were used by Lemaître (a year before) and Hubble (a year after). ...

In January 1930 at the meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in London, the English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician Arthur Eddington raised the problem of the expansion of the universe and the lack of any theory that would satisfactory explain this phenomenon.

When Lemaître found about this, he wrote to Eddington to remind him about his 1927 paper, where he laid theoretical foundation for the expansion of the universe.
It should be called the Lemaitre Law, or maybe the Lemaitre-Robertson Law, if you want to give an American some credit.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Modifying gravity is called "cheating"

Gizmodo reports:
A fight over the very nature of the universe has turned ugly on social media and in the popular science press, complete with accusations of “cheating” and ad hominem attacks on Twitter. Most of the universe is hiding, and some scientists disagree over where it has gone.

It’s quite literally a story as old as time. Wherever you look in the cosmos, things don’t seem to add up. Our human observations of the universe’s structure—as far back as we can observe—suggest that there’s around five times more mass than we see in the galaxies, stars, dust, planets, brown dwarfs, and black holes that telescopes have observed directly. We call this mystery mass, or the mystery as a whole, “dark matter.”

Several thousand physicists researching these dark matter-related mysteries will tell you that dark matter is a particle, the way that electrons and protons are particles, that only appears to interact with other known particles via the gravitational pull of its mass. But there are a few dozen physicists who instead think that a set of ideas called “modified gravity” might one day explain these mysteries. Modified gravity would do away with the need for dark matter via a tweak to the laws of gravity. ...

Then, in June, the most sensitive dark matter particle-hunting experiment, called XENON, announced it had once again failed to find a dark matter particle. A story titled “Is Dark Matter Real?” followed in the August issue of Scientific American, ...

“It’s only if you ignore all of modern cosmology that the modified gravity alternative looks viable. Selectively ignoring the robust evidence that contradicts you may win you a debate in the eyes of the general public. But in the scientific realm, the evidence has already decided the matter, and 5/6ths of it is dark.”
In other words, it is a cheat to tweak the laws of gravity to accommodate the slow galaxy rotation, but not cheat to hypothesize a new particle.

Hoping for a dark matter particle was one of the main reasons for believing in SUSY, as SUSY requires about 100 new particles. Maybe the lightest one is the dark matter particle.

Another little controversy is whether the evidence for dark matter already contradicts the Standard Model. Not necessarily. Wilczek pushes axions as an explanation that I think is consistent with the SM.

Also, the SM only tries to explain strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions. Dark matter could be some substance that does not interact with those forces, and thus could exist independently from the SM.
In Gizmodo’s conversations with 13 physicists studying dark matter, a pretty clear picture emerged: Dark matter as an undiscovered population of particles that influence the universe through gravity is the prevailing paradigm for a reason, and will continue as such until a theory comes along with the same predictive power for the universe’s grandest features.
It is odd to call the substance a particle. We only call electrons particles because of how they interact with light, but dark matter does not interact with light.
“Everywhere the dark matter theories make predictions, they get the right answers,” Scott Dodelson, a Carnegie Mellon physics professor, told Gizmodo. But he offered a caveat: “They can’t make predictions as well on small scales,” such as the scales of galaxies.
I am surprised that anyone would brag about a theory that only works on scales much larger than galaxies.

Monday, August 27, 2018

Billion new dollars for quantum computation

Peter Woit announces:
Moving through the US Congress is a National Quantum Initiative Act, which would provide over a billion dollars in funding for things related to quantum computation.
A billion dollars?!

IBM and Google both promised quantum supremacy in 2017. We have no announcement of QS, or any explanation for the failure.

I am not the only one saying it is impossible. See this recent Quanta mag article for other prominent naysayers.

If Congress were to have hearings on this funding, I would expect physicists to be extremely reluctant to throw cold water on lucrative funding for their colleagues. Maybe that is what is keeping Scott Aaronson quiet.

Previously Woit commented:
It’s remarkable to see publicly acknowledged by string theorists just how damaging to their subject multiverse mania has been, and rather bizarre to see that they attribute the problem to my book and Lee Smolin’s. The source of the damage is actually different books, the ones promoting the multiverse, for example this one.
This was induced by some string theorists still complaining about those books that appeared in around 2005.

It is bizarre for anyone to be bothered by some criticism from 13 years ago. The two books did not even say the same thing. You would think that the string theorists would just publish their rebuttal and move on.

Apparently they had no rebuttal, and they depended on everyone going along with the fiction that string theory was working.

Likewise, the quantum computation folks depend on everyone going along with the idea that we are about to have quantum computers (with quantum supremacy), and it will be a big technological advance. We don't need two books on the subject, as it is pretty obvious that IBM and Google are not delivering what they promised.

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Professor arrested for pocketing $4 in tips

Quantum computer complexity theorist Scott Aaronson seems to have survived his latest personal struggle, with his worldview intact.

He bought a smoothie, paid with a credit card, and took the $4 in the tip jar. An employee approached him, and politely explained that the tip jar is for tips. He grudgingly gave $1 back.

The manager then called the cops, and cop interviewed him to confirm what he had done. He was still oblivious to what was going on, so the cop handcuffed him and arrested him. That got his attention, and the manager agreed to drop the charges when the $4 was returned.

There is a biography about physicist Paul Dirac that calls him "the world's strangest man" because of a few silly anecdotes about him being a stereotypical absent-minded professor. That biographer has not met Scott.

Scott says that it was all the fault of the smoothie maker for not clearly explaining to him that he does not get to take change from the tip jar if he pays with a credit card. Scott is correct that there was a failure of communication, and surely both sides are at least somewhat to blame.

I am not posting this to criticize Scott. Just read his blog where he posts enuf negative info about himself. If I wanted to badmouth him, I would just link to his various posts where he has admitted to be wrong about various things. I am inclined to side with him as a fellow nerd who is frustrated by those who fail to explain themselves in a more logical manner. I am just posting it because I think that it is funny. After all, Scott has been named as one of the 30 smartest people alive and also one of the top 10 smartest people. And yet there are people with about 50 less IQ points who have no trouble buying smoothies, or understanding a request to put the tip money back.

Monday, August 6, 2018

Copenhagen is rooted in logical positivism

From an AAAS Science mag book review:
Most physicists still frame quantum problems through the sole lens of the so-called “Copenhagen interpretation,” the loose set of assumptions Niels Bohr and his colleagues developed to make sense of the strange quantum phenomena they discovered in the 1920s and 1930s. However, he warns, the apparent success of the Copenhagen interpretation hides profound failures.

The approach of Bohr and his followers, Becker argues, was ultimately rooted in logical positivism, an early-20th-century philosophical movement that attempted to limit science to what is empirically verifiable. By the mid-20th century, philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn and W. V. O. Quine had completely discredited this untenable view of science, Becker continues. The end of logical positivism, he concludes, should have led to the demise of the Copenhagen interpretation. Yet, physicists maintain that it is the only viable approach to quantum mechanics.

As Becker demonstrates, the physics community’s faith in Bohr’s wisdom rapidly transformed into a pervasive censorship that stifled any opposition.
This is partially correct. Quantum mechanics, and the Copenhagen Interpretation were rooted in logical positivism. Much of XX century physics was influenced, for the better, by logical positivism and related views.

It is also true that XX century philosophers abandoned logical positivism, for largely stupid reasons. They decided that there was no such thing as truth.

This created a huge split between the scientific world, which searches for truth, and the philosophical world, which contends that there is no such thing as truth. These views are irreconcilable. Science and Philosophy have become like Astronomy and Astrology. Each thinks that the other is so silly that any conversation is pointless.

Unfortunately, many physicists are now infected with anti-positivist views of quantum mechanics, and say that there is something wrong with it. Those physicists complain, but have gotten nowhere with there silly ideas.