BenMar 4
Best explanation for Quantum Mechanics I've ever heard
Show threadDavid, a Bostonian in Tokyo.

@TheBreadmonkey

In Feinman's 1966 intro to QM he says.

"Quantum objects are not particles and are not waves. They are not clouds. They are unlike anything you've ever known."

I like that. A quantum object is simply something that plays by it's own rules, and those rules are nothing like anything anyone has ever seen.

And it's wonderful that QM is probabilistic at the most basic level. This means that physicists' dream of being in complete control of the universe is completely impossible.

Mar 5 at 5:36amWeb
Show threadSepia FanMar 5

@djl @TheBreadmonkey

It seems possible that there is no hard limit to scientific knowledge, but rather that each further object of investigation becomes increasingly improbable and impossible. So it is possible that we ourselves set a limit because it makes no sense to go any further.

Show threadEggs now in different baskets.Mar 5

@stekopf @djl @TheBreadmonkey

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

Douglas Adams - The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Show threadDavid, a Bostonian in Tokyo.Mar 5

@the_wub @stekopf @TheBreadmonkey

Douglas Adams IS god.

Show threadLRMar 5
@djl @TheBreadmonkey maybe this is necessary for the anthropic principle. (which has nothing to do with the company)
Show threadDavid, a Bostonian in Tokyo.Mar 5

@lritter @TheBreadmonkey

I'm not a fan of the anthropic principle. Physicists' job is to figure out how things work, not come up with excuses for why things don't work the way they want.

(The anthropic principle is second cousin to the multiple worlds stupidity.)

Basically, the elders in the physics world have gotten too old to think straight (I'm 73, so I get to say this), and are desperate for a theory that isn't probabilistic and non-local.

Get over it and grow up: QM is simply correct.

Show threadLRMar 5

@djl @TheBreadmonkey uhm. ok. sounds like you have some emotional baggage to work out :-)

i just meant to say that a non-probabilistic universe might make it impossible for intelligent life to form. or, if formed, it would quickly control the space and destroy it through runaway cascades.

Show threadDavid, a Bostonian in Tokyo.Mar 5

@lritter @TheBreadmonkey

That doesn't sound wrong.

I'm irritated: irritated that despite that Feynman could state it so easily in 1966 (and Bell showed that it (Copenhagen) had to be right with Bell's inequality), much of the "popular" intros to QM get all tangled up in silliness.

And the silliness is because (a) we can't see the wave function, (b) the wave function is infinite in extent, and (c) the wave function collapses to a discrete event _instantly_.

And physicists don't like that.

Show threadLRMar 5
@djl @TheBreadmonkey how do you like TIQM? as a programmer, it made the most sense to me