3 ms·
> Many of the "mysteries" of Quantum Mechanics vanish if keep in the back of your mind that QM is just a bag of mathematical tricks that "work" in specific scen
by messe 4y ago
> Many of the "mysteries" of Quantum Mechanics vanish if keep in the back of your mind that QM is just a bag of mathematical tricks that "work" in specific scenarios to solve practical problems, but aren't a model of "what actually occurs".
They also tend to start vanishing once you get to studying Quantum Field Theory, which based on your comments I'm not convinced you have. Field Quanta very much "exist" (not getting into a debate on platonism here), and the debate between paticle/wave doesn't.
> I'm not making this up.
No, somebody else is, and you're buying it.
- jiggawatts 4y agoYes, some crazy YouTube video logger named Schrödinger. I wouldn't trust him either. What does he know? You're basically arguing that the assumptions of QM theory that is in many of the older papers for some reason stopped mattering. That they've been invalidated... somehow, instead of simply being dropped for brevity in newer papers, assuming that everyone knows them already. All I'm saying is that if you go back to the original version of the theory, they were quite clear about the scope: a statistical theory that applies to ensembles of atoms. In theoretical Physics, especially when dealing with phenomena outside of normal human experience, you have to be very careful with your assumptions otherwise you can make yourself believe all sorts of nonsense. Such as wave function collapse. Or spooky action at a distance. Both of which stem from a misunderstanding of the limits of the scope of a statistical theory that only applies to some types of physical objects.