Recent content by syed

What is the basis for the claim that if there was a deterministic theory, the atoms would not have different decay times? Why didn't you ask the claim maker that I was responding to the same question that you just asked me? If someone makes a speculative claim without basis, it is not...

But they are not exactly identical in the sense that they are still different objects, otherwise we wouldn't say that there are multiple atoms. Each atom is still separated from each other, which is why they have different decay times. The point of an analogy is not to model the exact process...

Your first sentence simply does not follow. By that logic, if one tosses the same coin many times, it should always land on heads if the coin toss was deterministic. A deterministic process does not imply that the same result happens every single time. If it is a chaotic system, like weather...

Well even regarding the second point, what's the difference between a "non classical" explanation and an incomplete explanation?

I keep reading throughout this forum from many members that the general motivation for finding a deeper explanation within QM, specifically with regards to quantum entanglement, is due to an inability to grasp reality based off of classical intuitions. On the other hand, if QM was truly...

In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as Bohmian mechanics, there is the possibility of “action at a distance,” where the behavior of one particle can instantaneously affect another, regardless of spatial separation. I am wondering if such nonlocal influences might violate...

And that intuition from Newton was correct as I already mentioned. There is no action at a distance. My point is just that in order to have any view on what you think the correct QM interpretation is, you must have intuitions that you rely on. If you accept a view that originally seemed...

I have a degree in physics. Secondly, contrary to what you might think, many physicists don't really think about these issues as much since it's just not practical for most day to day things, so being a physicist doesn't necessarily imply that you understand certain interpretations of QM better...

Again, this just isn't describing the issue correctly and is a common misunderstanding. You literally cannot even test QM's truth without some sort of intuitions that inevitably relate to classical physics. As just one quick example, when physicists say that they've measured the momentum of a...

This is not an accurate way of viewing things. It is not that we have a true quantum explanation of the world that is complete and that our intuitions are wrong. It is rather that we simply don't know what is going on. For you to say that our intuitions are wrong implies that there is no clear...

sounds a lot like the Copenhagen interpretation :) What's common to both of these is that they fail to concretely define what is actually going on. And when they fail, they say that it's because of a failure of classical intuitions. The problem is that any unclear theory can make this excuse.

"shut up and calculate" is often related to the Copenhagen interpretation. The term comes from David Mermin and he coined it to literally summarize Copenhagen-type views: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3615/who-was-the-first-to-say-shut-up-and-calculate...

It is hard to distinguish between wrong interpretations and correct but unintuitive interpretations. I think that a lot of people just say "it's not supposed to be classical, it's quantum" without really saying anything of substance or understanding what's actually going on. Okay, it's...

the theory doesn't tell you to shut up and calculate though, that itself is an interpretation :) but otherwise, agreed

The reason why he and other modern physicists are brought up is because people also very commonly and falsely imply that these kinds of questions come from some "misunderstanding" and "bad classical intuitions" rather than for purely rational reasons