- #1
jon4444
- 68
- 1
In QED, Feynman says: "The situation today is, we haven't got a good model to explain partial reflection by two surfaces; we just calculate..."
I've been frustrated in that I'm still not clear if this is the case (is there still no model to explain the behavior). A similar dynamic seems to come up in a lot of discussion threads (e.g., decoherence and entanglement)--when people say "this is understood," are they meaning that there's experimental evidence for a certain conceptual frame-work, or do they just mean, "there's a way of calculating that."
I guess I'm looking for a link-up between interpretation and mathematical accuracy. To use Feynman's statement as an example, he's saying there's high level of mathematical accuracy, but no reasonable interpretation. Was Feynman just alone in his perspective? (I.e., Are other physicists just satisfied in getting math that works?)
I've been frustrated in that I'm still not clear if this is the case (is there still no model to explain the behavior). A similar dynamic seems to come up in a lot of discussion threads (e.g., decoherence and entanglement)--when people say "this is understood," are they meaning that there's experimental evidence for a certain conceptual frame-work, or do they just mean, "there's a way of calculating that."
I guess I'm looking for a link-up between interpretation and mathematical accuracy. To use Feynman's statement as an example, he's saying there's high level of mathematical accuracy, but no reasonable interpretation. Was Feynman just alone in his perspective? (I.e., Are other physicists just satisfied in getting math that works?)