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..."(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

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?)

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Accurate equations vs. accurate models in QM

Loading...

Similar Threads - Accurate equations accurate | Date |
---|---|

I Is this an accurate article on the shape of a photon? | Jun 5, 2017 |

Can we accurately measure the momentum of a particle? | Feb 21, 2015 |

What is the most accurate theory in physics recently to predict quantum behavior? | Oct 18, 2014 |

How can an asymptotic series give accurate results as in QED? | May 4, 2013 |

Most accurate form of maxwell equations? | Jul 31, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**