I would recommend Taylor's Scattering theory. He covers the small additional amount of functional analysis needed to describe scattering theory but wouldn't be covered in a typical QM course. It's also very well-written and clear in general.
Well if the fact that current physics makes no use of paths, further advances have made the notion increasingly untenable and irrelevant, e.g. in QFT it's not even possible to define in a covariant observer independent way the position of a single particle let alone a whole path, then I think...
Well when we start taking gravity and non-inertial frames into account in quantum theory, or even just special relativistic inertial frames, we don't even have an invariant notion of particle (see the Unruh effect) or a Lorentz covariant position operator or for some particles we have no positon...
Well you don't need them for all of chemistry, atomic physics, etc. So these paths seem to be doing very little physically.
Also the theory does contradict the notion of paths fairly clearly. Any state ##\rho## won't give a sharp position trajectory as there will always be fluctuations or...
In essence that's what Heisenberg is saying, he's countering a common student error at the time. He's saying that if somebody measured momentum to be within some band ##\Delta p## at ##t_{0}## and then measured position within some error range ##\Delta x## at ##t_{1}##, people thought one could...
This is ultimately related I think to the ambiguity of defining general conditional Probabilities in quantum theory. If we make ##n## measurements with the same set of possible outcomes ##j = 1 \ldots m## and denote the ##i##-th experiment having outcome ##j## by ##E^{j_{i}}_{i}## then classical...
If you're interested, and this doesn't really have much to do with QBism, this is handled in Bayesian theory by de Finetti's theorem, which replicates your intuition here. Basically if you have an ensemble with members labelled ##i = 1 \ldots n## each with a possible outcome for some observation...
I don't see any connection between needing immersion in a second language to nail down advanced vocabulary use and "no humans can ever understand each other". The former is just a basic aspect of language learning, the latter is an unrelated overblown non-sequitur.
If you learn a language...
As far as I can tell all progress has been away from classical-like theories like BM. QFT made more concepts susceptible to complementarity/contextuality such as particle number and even the notion of particle, formulating it correctly required eliminating more non-operational concepts such as...
To be honest given the near century we've had of not needing such a theory while increasing our understanding of nature while remaining in the "EPR-incomplete" theory and all the no-go theorems against the EPR style theories, it's fruitless to keep seeking an EPR theory.
Yeah I find this an odd question. To make scientific progress we had to realize that often most/all observables do not have a well-defined value. To me it would be like having a problem with GR because nobody has told you "why" spacetime is curved. Isn't QM a success because it correctly...
The way I always learned it was gauge redundancy comes from using local fields to describe massless states, since the DOF count differs. Any global symmetry of the massless states then becomes a gauge symmetry of the local fields.
This was dealt with long ago by Bill Unruh and others. It's impossible to directly measure the quantum state, just as it is impossible to directly measure any set of probability distributions, what they actually do is measure a POVM with postselection.
Today papers about weak measurements...