3 ms·
> At the end of the day, the journalist asks: "How do you plan to make progress if, after 90 years of quantum theory, you still don't know what it means? Mayb
by misnome 11y ago
> At the end of the day, the journalist asks: "How do you plan to make progress if, after 90 years of quantum theory, you still don't know what it means?
Maybe not asking for lay-person descriptions would gain more consistency. Also, it says "A Group of Physicists" which is remarkably vague - physics is a vast field, and picking random scientists doesn't guarantee actually finding someone who has more than a basic grasp (not a criticism of the individual scientists).
- mathgenius 11y agoI think this is a well observed phenomenon [1],[2]. At least in the theoretical quantum group I am in: there is very little agreement about the interpretation of quantum theory. (Maybe the experimentalists don't care as much.) [1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most... [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoPerhaps quantum theory is itself a manifestation of quantum theory - random, observer dependent, and subject to an unavoidable minimal level of ontological indeterminacy.