4 ms·
I see where you are going and you probably have a point but I also will have to think about that for some time. On the other hand my ad hoc reaction is that the
by danbruc 8y ago
I see where you are going and you probably have a point but I also will have to think about that for some time. On the other hand my ad hoc reaction is that the problem is much more severe for quantum mechanics than it is for classical mechanics.
In classical mechanics we use a slightly wrong model of the world but then everything is consistent and works as long as you are not stepping into regions where the approximations are no longer good. Quantum mechanics yields correct predictions for a wider range of phenomena because we no longer pretend that Planck's constant is zero, it explains some strange features of classical physics, but it is - at our current level of understanding - also no longer self-consistent.
And while quantum mechanics is certainly less intuitive I think that is not really the issue. Once you leave Newtonian mechanics behind and step into the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulation, even classical mechanics becomes a quite abstract theory. I am certainly still better at picturing phase space flows than superpositions in momentum space but I have no fundamental problem with abstract representations.
But that time evolution is supposed to be unitary while I am not looking and then suddenly goes out of the window, that is something you can not simply ignore. It's not not intuitive, it's not consistent. And it's not limited to a region of the theory where we might expect the theory to break down, it's right in the center of it.