Recent content by bhobba

That's not what I meant. I meant a treatment, while still somewhat informal, is still rigorous, as found in: https://www.amazon.com.au/Theory-Distributions-Nontechnical-Introduction-ebook/dp/B01DM26TPW He defines Schwartz distributions well, but then presents a 'cutoff' type argument to...

The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a...

Nutting things out for yourself is a great way to learn. I could give my answer; however, central to this whole thing is something called Gleason's Theorem: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9909073 Please take a moment to read it, put your thinking cap on, and see what emerges on the other side...

Just a quick question to Ruta. First, I always enjoy your posts, and this is a nice one, especially for helping out a newbie from a different area, sociology. My question is, do you think QFT with the field considered real a realist interpretation? Thanks Bill

Warm welcome. Don't be shy - here you will find answers to any questions you have about science. Thanks Bill

Oh yes. She is terrific, just so rational. I became a patron after watching her first video, and I am glad I did. She is living proof that it doesn't matter what you believe; if your arguments are rational, it is always of value. That applies to all areas, of course, not just science...

Neither do I actually, but in discussions of such things, it is often alluded to. Books and articles are even written on it, e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality Related to this is the so-called Sokal and Sokal Squared affairs (part of what is called the...

There is no experimental finding that favours one interpretation over the other. If there were, it would be a significant breakthrough. Just keep in mind that non-relativistic QM is only an approximation to a deeper theory, which is the best theory we have today - Quantum Field Theory (QFT)...

See: I haven't watched it myself - about to. It would seem he thinks none are any good. I believe his folk theorem clarifies a great deal. Added Later: The Lindblad equation (interesting take): https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2016 Thanks Bill

Although well thought of by many, including me, it is not an orthodox approach. That said, it is the book I recommend studying before seriously looking into interpretations. QM from just two axioms (well, the way Ballintine does it anyway, which is my favourite). And when you add in the...

Yes, EFT is a issue for the orthodox interpretation. Even worse is if you take the relativistic limit of QFT, you still have the necessity of antiparticles, which is the main point of a paper I have posted a few times: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06605 Actually, there are several different, but...

Well said, as usual, Peter. One of my great joys in life, now that I am older, is engaging in thoughtful discussions. I am a Patrion of Dr Fatima (you can find her content on YouTube), who holds ideas different from mine in several areas. Not in physics - she is pretty conventional, but in...

Not in the assumptions. However, when relating it to everyday experience, probabilities are imposed on us - we experience only a single world. There is even controversy about whether the worlds we do not experience are of any relevance: That we experience one world is the basis of Deutsch's...

Of course they don't. But they have the power to suggest insight about the world we inhabit, and, if we are lucky, ways to test that insight. Thanks Bill

Interesting point. The trouble I have with semantic answers to deep questions is whether we have really made progress. These days, for me, the math is the explanation. QM is outside everyday experience; all we can really do is hope it emerges from it...