5 ms·
Yes and most of that is wrong. Physics doesn't deal with probability but with explanations. (Yes also in QM)
by ThomPete 4y ago
Yes and most of that is wrong. Physics doesn't deal with probability but with explanations. (Yes also in QM)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kgwgk 4y agoExplain that to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Maybe they can still take back this year’s prize and give it to some physicists who deserve it.
- ThomPete 4y agowhy dont you explain it to me?
- kgwgk 4y agoYou want me to explain what? I don’t see a problem in people who deal with probabilities getting a physics prize.
- ThomPete 4y agoExplain to me how that refutes what I am saying.
- kgwgk 4y agoWhat you're saying is irrefutable in the sense that you can define things as you please! I was pointing out that at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences they are not aware that physics doesn't deal with probability and have given the Nobel Prize in Physics this year to some people who write the kind of books and papers that apparently you consider wrong - full of probabilities of transition, detection and whatnot.
- ThomPete 4y agoAgain, give me an example of what we are talking about so we can see what kind of probability we are talking about. And the Nobel price giving credit to something that turns out to be wrong isn't really something novel.
- kgwgk 4y agoI thought that would be one of the QM textbooks that are mostly wrong according to your vision of physics and probability: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/introduction-to-quantum-optics/F45DCE785DC8226D4156EC15CAD5FA9A https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/introduction-to-quantum... Or maybe you could give an example of what textbooks are we talking about...
- ThomPete 4y agoWell given I am a proponent of the Everett interpretation I would say any textbook that talks about quantum wave collapse.