5 ms·

It's harder and harder to do without well developed intuition. To develop good intuition, we need to make good mental model, but we got good (but incomplete) ma

It's harder and harder to do without well developed intuition. To develop good intuition, we need to make good mental model, but we got good (but incomplete) mathematical model instead.

akvadrako 8y ago
I agree and I think the main reason is the anti-realist camp in physics which has taken hold in the past 100 years. This view probably developed because the realist models of quantum mechanics were too difficult for people to accept. It was easier to say that intuitive models are outside the scope of science than to change their set of inconsistent preconceptions.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Could you expand on your comment; I thought a (small?) majority of theoreticians were, shall we say, "super-realists" such that they view the Many-Worlds Interpretation as actuality rather than merely a model? When you say "intuitive models" do you mean ones that echo somewhat Newtonian/Classical physics? Perhaps part of the problem is that schools follow a method of teaching physics where they teach what is easy to teach, knowing it's wrong, and then teach something a little more complex, knowing that's wrong too, etc.. Perhaps we need to start off teaching that the world is non-Newtonian, that it has Quantum weirdness and relativistic effects (according to our best models), and allow that to underlie our intuitions.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    Many worlds is one of the more popular realist models, but it's quite rare for physicists to claim they think it represents reality. It's not taught in any textbooks I'm aware of and even now papers often dismiss experiments having multiple outcomes without even mentioning that they are doing so, coming to absurd conclusions as a result. The situation has certainly improved a lot since the days of Everett, who was basically dismissed as a crack-pot.
    - graycat 8y ago
      But Everett has a cute case of Lagrange multipliers, or if you will, non-linear duality. :-)
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      I've seen Hawking quoted as saying MWI is obviously right. My statement was based on an IoP survey result I saw some years ago (I'm a theoretical physics graduate); I'll try and dig it up as my recollection could be wrong.
      - akvadrako 8y ago
        Hawking said it was right but that it's "just probability". It's not clear what he really thought about all those worlds being real. He didn't seem to believe in quantum immortality, so I don't think he took it seriously. There have been a few surveys over the years, but mostly of conference participants. The results depend heavily on which conference you attend.

It's harder and harder to do without well developed intuition. To develop good intuition, we need to make good mental model, but we got good (but incomplete) mathematical model instead.

akvadrako 8y ago

I agree and I think the main reason is the anti-realist camp in physics which has taken hold in the past 100 years. This view probably developed because the realist models of quantum mechanics were too difficult for people to accept. It was easier to say that intuitive models are outside the scope of science than to change their set of inconsistent preconceptions.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Could you expand on your comment; I thought a (small?) majority of theoreticians were, shall we say, "super-realists" such that they view the Many-Worlds Interpretation as actuality rather than merely a model? When you say "intuitive models" do you mean ones that echo somewhat Newtonian/Classical physics? Perhaps part of the problem is that schools follow a method of teaching physics where they teach what is easy to teach, knowing it's wrong, and then teach something a little more complex, knowing that's wrong too, etc.. Perhaps we need to start off teaching that the world is non-Newtonian, that it has Quantum weirdness and relativistic effects (according to our best models), and allow that to underlie our intuitions.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  Many worlds is one of the more popular realist models, but it's quite rare for physicists to claim they think it represents reality. It's not taught in any textbooks I'm aware of and even now papers often dismiss experiments having multiple outcomes without even mentioning that they are doing so, coming to absurd conclusions as a result. The situation has certainly improved a lot since the days of Everett, who was basically dismissed as a crack-pot.
  - graycat 8y ago
    But Everett has a cute case of Lagrange multipliers, or if you will, non-linear duality. :-)
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    I've seen Hawking quoted as saying MWI is obviously right. My statement was based on an IoP survey result I saw some years ago (I'm a theoretical physics graduate); I'll try and dig it up as my recollection could be wrong.
    - akvadrako 8y ago
      Hawking said it was right but that it's "just probability". It's not clear what he really thought about all those worlds being real. He didn't seem to believe in quantum immortality, so I don't think he took it seriously. There have been a few surveys over the years, but mostly of conference participants. The results depend heavily on which conference you attend.