Recent content by selfsimilar

To all above Ordinarily yes we look at energy as a property and an accounting system more or less. But at the highest level in QFT eventually particles are created with creation operator pumping energy in a space time point. which although it does not indicate what it is...

So ultimately everything is made of energy, no energy no particle, QFT tell us so. What is the substance of energy or at least what is its origin. In another word if this question is mute so is the OP's. since these "waves" are nothing but set relation to show/calculates behavior of the...

If in QFT the particle is generated from the field so the ultimate question then is what is a field made of. And how is it that multiple fields exist in the same space ....etc

There has been some attempts but I don't know how the mainstream looks at it you can also see all the references, there are many others that I have seen. Relativistic particle in a box: Klein-Gordon vs Dirac Equations https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.06313 also...

I agree. That is the sense I was talking about, nothing controversial. You can complicate it like what is mass but mass is equivalent to energy, what is energy( calculational accounting tool!) ...etc.

That is why the answer is qualified by some sense which I mean that something "measurable" is the outcome. As far as I know the equation is generally considered correct that is why we say "shut up and calculate" the dispute is what that answer means, hence interpretations which all claim to make...

all variables used in equations are used to indicate some aspect of the behavior of the system.

its real in the sense that you can derive the density matrix from it which gives the probabilistic interpretation or derive the quiding wave in bohmian interpretation.

this is how physics is done. Schrodinger did basically the same.

Doing physics or science in general amount to doing something like plumbing an old house. As long as you can get the water running in the right places with as little ugliness as possible then it is good enough until the next renovation. Then you can document. Anybody who has done his PHD/Masters...

So the trick was von Neumann equation. A stroke of genius from him and you.

I think I understand TI/UQP now much better courtesy of AI. I will compile some of the questions in a few pages for the interested. I especially agree on the answer it gave regarding the wavefunction , since I long held the idea that the wavefunction had no QM interpretation and does not need...

So in a sense because of the complicated nature of these measurements I give TI the benefit of the doubt until I understand these experiments better.

I have already discussed this issue. While it does seem to be consistent but the explanation makes it borderline since it does not agree on what exactly is been measured which should be eigenvalues as in conventional theory. That is why I brought up more information about what the experiments...

This has added additional uncertainty in my understanding:smile: https://www.google.com/search?q=Quantum+projection+noise&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:08491694,vid:gmbkokgR28Y,st:40