4 ms·
The trouble with QM is with it's interpretations, not with the accuracy of it's predictions. The latter informs interest in the former. QM works, but the models
by simpaticoder 2y ago
The trouble with QM is with it's interpretations, not with the accuracy of it's predictions. The latter informs interest in the former. QM works, but the models imply that nature is neither "local" - e.g. entanglement experiments undermine hidden-variables, nor "real" - e.g. a particle does not have a momentum (or position) until you measure it. These physical properties are not just hidden, they are undefined. These implications fly in the face of basic macroscale intuitions about what "physical reality" means, which makes it interesting. Inconsistency is a signal that we have discoveries yet to make. Note that "Many worlds people" think there is no inconsistency - my sketch of a model is fully consistent with that interpretation, if you wish, by simply assign a new universe to every child node in which the node is reached.
- GoblinSlayer 2y agoWhat you say doesn't quite correspond to quantum physics as it's known. Quantum physics is quantitative and precise, so it's difficult to say there's something undefined there. It doesn't suggest nonlocality, absence of hidden variables means only absence of hidden variables. It doesn't suggest antirealism, if only due to precision, you can say it doesn't work how you want, but at worst this makes it unintuitive. Conversely Dirac formalism works as if quantum state exists in itself in precise form, which has a good compatibility with basic macroscale intuitions about what "physical reality" means.
- rini17 2y agoBut quantum physics can't predict exactly where the individual dots on the detector will be, only their distribution. That does not sound totally quantitative and precise and defined. You would not accept such predictions for macroscopic objects :)
- GoblinSlayer 2y agoIt can't do it, because you want it to make a classical prediction. It shouldn't be able to predict what doesn't happen.
- rini17 2y agoI want any theory to predict what actually happens, which is individual dots at detector. Or at least some clear statement how comes our reality is not like that.
- tadfisher 2y agoWould you be satisfied if the theory clearly states: "At the time of measurement, the position of the photon interaction is determined by randomly sampling from the quantum distribution"?
- rini17 2y agoEinstein was not satisfied afaik. Plus by this you're proving we haven't moved on since, which isn't very satisfying either.
- GoblinSlayer 2y agoAt least it shouldn't be nonlocal just because of the erroneous rumor that Bell proved that quantum physics is nonlocal or because randomness, nonlocality and retrocausality are just directly observed.