6 ms·
I ask you because I definitely do not have an M. Sc. In quantum mechanics - at the lowest level of any system isn’t it inevitable that there is no deeper unders
by jshaqaw 7y ago
I ask you because I definitely do not have an M. Sc. In quantum mechanics - at the lowest level of any system isn’t it inevitable that there is no deeper understanding. At a certain point you have hit the base level and things just “are.” Correct me if this is erroneous!
- platz 7y agoThis is a bigger question than physics can answer. The project of hard science is essentially reductionist and based on predicting events based on hypothesis. Your question is more logical or philosophical. Logic may have something to say about open or closed systems, but mapping that onto the real world will always be a following question.
- shkkmo 7y agoIt seems to me the limited hypothesis "We have reached a point where no further progress can be made in understanding why quantum mechanics works the way it does" is falsifiable and thus not purely logical or philosophical. (i.e. quantum mechanics is the lowest level of physics). It is only the broad hypothesis that is only answerable in philosophy: "There is a point in physics where no further progress can be made in understanding why things work the way they do and we will be purely limited to describing how things work." (i.e. there is some lowest level of physics)
- platz 7y agoYour 'limited hypothesis' can never be proved, because you can't prove things you haven't observed i.e. the proof works only up until counterexample, which by definition of unknowns, counterexamples (or a deeper understanding) would always be a possibility. Falsification is not end end-all-be-all, it's important, but it's not the only thing that matters.
- perl4ever 7y agoWhat scientific law or rule can be proved?
- platz 7y agowhat is the point shkkmo is making?
- shkkmo 7y agoThat the limited hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable and testable while the broad hypothesis is a philosophic question because it is not falsifiable. This is relevant as it is sort of ambiguous as to which hypothesis jshaqaw was asking about.
- platz 7y agobased on the specific wording and vocabulary jshaqaw used, i assumed he was referring to the latter
- beloch 7y agoConsider the equation: 1+1=2 You don't have to understand the mathematical explanation for why this is so (one does exist) in order to have an intuition that serves you well in practically all situations. For most of us, there is no deeper understanding. It just is, and that's good enough. That doesn't necessarily mean there is no deeper understanding, but let's ignore that for now. What I was trying to get across is that basic intuitions we have about the macroscopic world that we can see and touch are often flat-out wrong on the quantum scale. Likewise, human language has developed to describe macroscopic phenomena and struggles to capture the meaning of quantum phenomena. Intuition and language are crucial parts of understanding, but we find ourselves on treacherous ground when we try to apply human language or intuition to quantum systems. The confidence that comes with intuition and mastery of language are wholly counter-productive in quantum physics. You need to constantly reexamine what you think you know in the light of both new discoveries and the math. Both are sources of continual surprise. Hence, if you think you understand quantum physics, you probably haven't given it enough thought.
- onemoresoop 7y agoYes and because we live in the macroscopic dimension we develop the intuition this way and thinking in terms of another dimension makes out heads swirl. Perhaps we’ll never build an intuition at the quantum scale, just some tools to abstract it away and get some benefits out of it.