Why is there no 'classical' interpretation of movements in quantum mechanics?

juanrga

It is less useful on that (i) explains less than current models and (ii) cannot be used to do predictions.

Although you mean real in the sense of non-mathematical, the remarks given before about quantum states still apply. It is also evident that you do not understand what is math and what is real. Your claim that a wave is something REAL, when is a mathematical construct with a limited validity, says it all.


Another problem of your philosophical approach is that the movements and positions of particles and their interactions are non-local, realistic, and non-deterministic.

Xilor

I'm not claiming anything, I am asking why it has to be like that. Why doesn't a REAL wave work? Why is a purely mathematical model preferred over that?


Again, I'm aware that no current models have particle movements which are local, realistic and deterministic, so I am asking why this is the case. Which experimental evidence or arguments derived from those show that particle movements have to be non-local and non-deterministic?

Demystifier

One of the possibilities is that particle trajectories in spacetime are classical (or at least local), but that the usual local relativistic proper time is not the true physical time. Instead, a nonlocally modified proper time can account for all nonlocal correlations. For more details see
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1102.1539

stevendaryl

"Many-worlds and similar stuff are nonsense"

That's quite a leap, and I don't think that the two papers you cite actually justify such a strong statement.

juanrga

All questions already answered before.

I emphasize again that there is nothing as a REAL wave, a wave is an idealized model of reality.

Neither it is true that QM is based in a "purely mathematical model". QM is a physical theory.

Nervous

I recognize that the many-worlds hypothesis basically "explains" everythin by saying "It just turned out that way." Which isn't much of an explanation at all, but I also thought it was a logical conclusion from the Feynman sum-over-histories.

Is there a problem with the sum over histories that I'm unaware of, or is the many worlds interpretation not really a consequence of it?

juanrga

You will not find the exact quote because is mine, but you can find many interesting words: "belief", "misguided", "meaningless", "extravagance", "funny", "nonsense", "smokescreen",...

quotes as:

"There is nothing to the many-worlds theory. "

"violation of the scientific ethos"

"is full of home-made puzzles and ambiguities."

And even quotes very close to mine:

"The 'explanation' is nonsense."

"And he cannot prove it since statistics makes no sense in MWI"

"The presence of such arguments that flatly contradict other statements
shows that MWI is a smokescreen without a consistent mathematics behind."

Xilor

These questions have not been answered. Again you only answer with: "it is not like that". I'm asking WHY it is not like that. What experimental evidence or arguments derived from those forbid a real (as in opposed to a mathematical construct) wave which allows locality, determinism and realism for particle movements.
Determinism could arrive from chaotic interactions with the wave, which give the appearance of randomness.
Locality is never broken because there are only interactions within the part of the wave nearby.
Realism is upheld because the particle and the wave always have set positions which don't depend on observations. Observations only cause the wave to change/disappear or the particle to change in such a way that it can't interact with the wave anymore.

Either I'm wrong about those observations (please tell me why then), or there is something else forbidding a real wave (please tell me what then), or I can't understand why something like that isn't thought about.