- #1

- 73

- 0

I would challenge the tradition of viewing Bohr as the most important quantum physicist. I think all of the modern physics, in a nutshell, is "relativistic quantum field thoery". Thus, we need to choose between two people: the author of Lagrangian formulation OR the author of Hamiltonian one. The former guy is Richard Feynman; unfortunately I don't know who the latter guy is, but I am pretty sure it is not Bohr.

The only kinds of things Bohr did is the endless list of "rules" and "postulates" of quantum mechanics which only made it more and more ugly. In reality there is no such thing as quantum mechanics to begin with. It is merely a low speed limit of quantum field theory. Plus, neither quantum mechanics nor field theory needs any axioms. Quantum mechanics all follows from Schrodinger's equation (notice, Schrodiger's, NOT Bohrs). The only thing "missing" is exclusion principle. Quantum field theory all follows from Feynmann's path integral. And, here, we don't even need to separately introduce "exclusion principle" either, as long as we remember to stick Grassmann numbers into path integral! So, whether we look at QM or QFT, we need to pay attention to either Schrodinger or Feynmann; Borh was basically a time waster!

And, speaking of Schrodinger's vs Feynmann, the former is a non relativistic limit of the latter. People who do interpretation of quantum mechanics, for the most part, focus on Schrodinger. Again big mistake. It is especially hypocritical since one of the big issues is "can measurement be compatible with relativity". Well, if they worry about relativity so much, why not take relativistic theory such as QFT? Why stick with QM??? I also don't have much respect for "quantum informatin" either. What is "information" anyway? It is way too abstract for me.

In my own career, I am doing "INTERPRETATION of quantum FIELD theory", which has been wrongly neglected for a very long time. I do'nt worry about "quantum information", nor do I worry about endless specific alice-bob problems. ALL I am doing is just finding classical mechanisms of producing mathematical information of good old Feynmann path integral. Once I understand THIS, the rest is supposed to follow!

I think all of the physics in a nutshell is Feynman path integral, which makes Feynmann the one and only guy I respect. Yeah in my work I want to re-interpret path integral by comming up with "classical" mechanism behind interference and things like that. So if Feynmann doesn't think his path integral should be reinterpretted, then that is where we disagree. But still, fact remains, his theory is simple, whether I agree with it or not, AND it encompasses ALL of quantum mechanics as its mathematical consequences; which means that anyone else's work, including Bohr's, is just a waste of time.

The only kinds of things Bohr did is the endless list of "rules" and "postulates" of quantum mechanics which only made it more and more ugly. In reality there is no such thing as quantum mechanics to begin with. It is merely a low speed limit of quantum field theory. Plus, neither quantum mechanics nor field theory needs any axioms. Quantum mechanics all follows from Schrodinger's equation (notice, Schrodiger's, NOT Bohrs). The only thing "missing" is exclusion principle. Quantum field theory all follows from Feynmann's path integral. And, here, we don't even need to separately introduce "exclusion principle" either, as long as we remember to stick Grassmann numbers into path integral! So, whether we look at QM or QFT, we need to pay attention to either Schrodinger or Feynmann; Borh was basically a time waster!

And, speaking of Schrodinger's vs Feynmann, the former is a non relativistic limit of the latter. People who do interpretation of quantum mechanics, for the most part, focus on Schrodinger. Again big mistake. It is especially hypocritical since one of the big issues is "can measurement be compatible with relativity". Well, if they worry about relativity so much, why not take relativistic theory such as QFT? Why stick with QM??? I also don't have much respect for "quantum informatin" either. What is "information" anyway? It is way too abstract for me.

In my own career, I am doing "INTERPRETATION of quantum FIELD theory", which has been wrongly neglected for a very long time. I do'nt worry about "quantum information", nor do I worry about endless specific alice-bob problems. ALL I am doing is just finding classical mechanisms of producing mathematical information of good old Feynmann path integral. Once I understand THIS, the rest is supposed to follow!

I think all of the physics in a nutshell is Feynman path integral, which makes Feynmann the one and only guy I respect. Yeah in my work I want to re-interpret path integral by comming up with "classical" mechanism behind interference and things like that. So if Feynmann doesn't think his path integral should be reinterpretted, then that is where we disagree. But still, fact remains, his theory is simple, whether I agree with it or not, AND it encompasses ALL of quantum mechanics as its mathematical consequences; which means that anyone else's work, including Bohr's, is just a waste of time.

Last edited: