@selfawarepatterns

I saw your other post (https://c.im/@selfawarepatterns.com@selfawarepatterns.com/111709412967803934) too, but will reply here.

I think the ψ is a typically constructed bit of math that was chosen/designed to give correct answers to the problem at hand. Like Newton's work on gravity, it produces answers that match our experience, so we deem it correct. But it comes with no explanation.

The point is that math is like a set of legos that trained people can produce anything they can imagine, including giving answers that we want to see, but falling well short of a "theory" in the sense of conveying a complete understanding of the phenomenon being studied.

I think it's time we stop trying to beat the dead horse- QM is not going to get any better than what we've seen over the past century. A replacement for it would have to reach that kind of complete description, and ditch the probabilistic stance, while producing the same overall answers.

I don't think we'll be able to know for certain what specifically is wrong with #QM until that happens.

Importantly, the fact that we have better explanations for interference, diffraction, etc. that predate QM by 100's of years needs to be front & center in the discussion. The same goes for electromagnetism, but closer to the birth of QM.

The assumptions & interpretations made by #quantum mechanics have been problematic from the start, and there really was not enough time for new concepts to sink in. The 'bridge generation' could only think in terms that they had recently learned, and they could not reconcile all the new #information.

Unfortunately, that means that most of the concepts were given narratives that are contradictory or otherwise erroneous or incomplete. #Reductivism can't go below a certain threshold and still produce logical, fundamental statements.

Most linear approximations were (& still are) "good enough" to gain acceptance, but become unworkable the closer you get to the real or complete picture.

The ψ is no different.