3 ms·

If I understand the point of the article it is: a. Not worth understanding the mysteries. b. Electrons have spin classically, so no need to talk about Quantum

If I understand the point of the article it is: a. Not worth understanding the mysteries. b. Electrons have spin classically, so no need to talk about Quantum Field Theory And then posts some equations about spin. I presume (a) is because we would get into “God” territory and (b) is to make the discussion simpler.

tinym 4y ago
No, the mysteries that "are deep, hard to understand, and not worth the effort" are why Scientific American is publishing this junk article. My lay theory is that SA hasn't been worth reading in decades and basically nobody can write well about quantum mechanics for a casual audience..
- edgyquant 4y ago
  That’s because quantum mechanics is for making predictions not answering theological questions. Casual observers generally want to know what this says about our place in the universe and quantum mechanics is way too probabilities based for the average joe.
pdonis 4y ago
Not really, no. Re (a), the mysteries that Woit says are not worth understanding are the ones described in the parenthesis at the end of the first paragraph. (As far as I can tell from reading the actual paper Woit links to, he is being nice about how off base the paper actually is.) As he notes in the second paragraph, the actual story--i.e., how spin actually works in QM--is worth understanding. Re (b), Woit is not saying electrons have spin classically, he's saying electrons (and other quantum particles) have spin in non-relativistic QM, or more precisely that spin can be modeled in non-relativistic QM, so the claim made by Sebens and Carroll that QFT is needed to understand spin is wrong. (AFAIK the key contribution QFT makes is the spin statistics connection, which is a different issue that is not discussed in the article.) The equations Woit posts are a basic presentation of how spin can be modeled in non-relativistic QM.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

tinym 4y ago

No, the mysteries that "are deep, hard to understand, and not worth the effort" are why Scientific American is publishing this junk article. My lay theory is that SA hasn't been worth reading in decades and basically nobody can write well about quantum mechanics for a casual audience..

edgyquant 4y ago
That’s because quantum mechanics is for making predictions not answering theological questions. Casual observers generally want to know what this says about our place in the universe and quantum mechanics is way too probabilities based for the average joe.

pdonis 4y ago

Not really, no. Re (a), the mysteries that Woit says are not worth understanding are the ones described in the parenthesis at the end of the first paragraph. (As far as I can tell from reading the actual paper Woit links to, he is being nice about how off base the paper actually is.) As he notes in the second paragraph, the actual story--i.e., how spin actually works in QM--is worth understanding. Re (b), Woit is not saying electrons have spin classically, he's saying electrons (and other quantum particles) have spin in non-relativistic QM, or more precisely that spin can be modeled in non-relativistic QM, so the claim made by Sebens and Carroll that QFT is needed to understand spin is wrong. (AFAIK the key contribution QFT makes is the spin statistics connection, which is a different issue that is not discussed in the article.) The equations Woit posts are a basic presentation of how spin can be modeled in non-relativistic QM.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]