The impossibly stubborn question at the heart of quantum mechanics
/ by Jim Baggott / August 2, 2018 /
Everybody knows by now that quantum mechanics is an extraordinarily
successful scientific theory, on which much of our modern,
tech-obsessed lifestyles depend. It is also completely mad.
Although the theory quite obviously works, we’re left to puzzle over what
we think it’s telling us, with all its ghosts and phantoms; its cats that are
at once both alive and dead; its collapsing wavefunctions; and its seemingly
“spooky” goings-on.
It leaves us with a rather desperate desire to lie down quietly in a darkened room.. . .
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/the-impossibly-stubborn-question-at-the-heart-of-quantum-mechanics
============
/ by Jim Baggott / August 2, 2018 /
Everybody knows by now that quantum mechanics is an extraordinarily
successful scientific theory, on which much of our modern,
tech-obsessed lifestyles depend. It is also completely mad.
Although the theory quite obviously works, we’re left to puzzle over what
we think it’s telling us, with all its ghosts and phantoms; its cats that are
at once both alive and dead; its collapsing wavefunctions; and its seemingly
“spooky” goings-on.
It leaves us with a rather desperate desire to lie down quietly in a darkened room.. . .
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/the-impossibly-stubborn-question-at-the-heart-of-quantum-mechanics
============
The impossibly stubborn question at the heart of quantum mechanics
prospectmagazine.co.uk
Afficher 12 anciens commentaires
I have often posted that string theory is fantasticly useful math but doesn't necessarily describe anything fundamentally real about our underlying physical reality.
It's a favorite of mathematical platonists though!6 j
Modern Mathematical Physics had its birth with Minkowski / Einstein's
conceptions of negative time, many dimensions, space-time . . . . etc
and if somebody doesn't adopt these dogmas he cannot enter
in the church of scientific "Theoretic Math/Physics"
The puzzle is:
Nobody knows what negative time is,
Where can the many dimensions (4-D, 11-D, 27-D) be found in Nature ?
Where is the absolute space-time ?
Conclusion:
The Minkowski / Einstein's ''scientific bible'' must be rewrote.
==============5 j- +Sadovnik Socratus mathematical constructs need not be real.
Many mathematicians fall pray to the delusion that their equations represent fundamental entities in the real world. This is the mathematical platonism I was referring to earlier.
Mathematical physics is nothing more than a description of the behavior of what we observe and is subjective to the scope of the observational framework.5 j - +Jake Heuft If ''mathematical constructs need
not be real'' then it is an abstract game.
Mathematical physic is not subjective subject
it describes objective phenomena
In the real Nature every piece of math is a model
of something in Nature.
(even some mathematicians can use it as an abstract play)
====4 j - +Sadovnik Socratus it is a model of something in nature not the nature itself.
That mathematics describes something real does not make mathematical equations fundamentally real.
The point exactly is that it is abstract not fundamental!
The extra dimensions described in mathematics do not need to be real even if they can be used to describe the behavior of something real.
There's an old saying to describe this. "Don't mistake the map for the terrain"
This is directly applicable to your comment above about where the extra dimensions of string theory and other such theories could exist.
They don't need to exist even if the call be used to describe something that does.
It's like saying the word red and thinking the word is the color. It's a classical mistake in thinking.4 j - A more obvious example perhaps would be the equations for motion.
You can calculate with extreme precision if you have enough information the exact path an object will follow in the real world.
What's going to happen if you go into the real world looking for those trajectories?
Does it make sense to discuss where those trajectories are 'hideing' ?4 j
