Is my understanding of the answers given correct?

[martinbn]

Anyway, it is obvious that I am so stupid that I should not be allowed to ask that question. BYE

I hope you are headed to the library to get a QM book.

 

[wittgenstein]

This was already answered. The explaanations have to match the observations. They are what they are because that is how nature is. Why they seem extraodinary to you? I can only speculate: it's because you haven't put in the effort to learn some QM.

Because a simpler explanation will suffice. We cannot help but influence our experiments. We do not need many worlds etc. Its just that we influence the results of an experiment and cannot delete that influence. Why does " many worlds" seem extraordinary to me?

 

[martinbn]

Because a simpler explanation will suffice. We cannot help but influence our experiments. We do not need many worlds etc. Its just that we influence the results of an experiment and cannot delete that influence. Why does " many worlds" seem extraordinary to me?

Ok, other than the popular books, which QM textbook have you tried to study?

 

[wittgenstein]

Because a simpler explanation will suffice. We cannot help but influence our experiments. We do not need many worlds etc. Its just that we influence the results of an experiment and cannot delete that influence. Why does " many worlds" seem extraordinary to me?

Anyway, you are making this discussion personal. You really should be less defensive. All I asked was why such extraordinary ( I find Many worlds extremely extraordinary. that there are many planets in other universes with duplicates of me. That doesn't sound extraordinary to you? , I am also including the idea that a particle is everywhere and Wigner etc ) explanations are needed.

 

[wittgenstein]

Anyway, you are making this discussion personal. You really should be less defensive. All I asked was why such extraordinary ( I find Many worlds extremely extraordinary. that there are many planets in other universes with duplicates of me. That doesn't sound extraordinary to you? , I am also including the idea that a particle is everywhere and Wigner etc ) explanations are needed.

OK I typed too fast. I should have said, " Will a simpler explanation suffice. "

 

[wittgenstein]

OK I typed too fast. I should have said, " Will a simpler explanation suffice. "

For example, Suppose there is a dark room that I cannot see into. I send basketballs into it. They ricochet out of the room. I will not be able to tell both the position and momentum of the objects that they ricocheted off of. That seems analogous to me firing particles in the 2-slit experiment. There is nothing mysterious going on. I do not have to propose multiple universes etc. Why is any extraordinary explanation needed?

 

[wittgenstein]

Ok, other than the popular books, which QM textbook have you tried to study?

OK so I am too stupid to be allowed to ask a question. You obviously have no answer to my question, " Why are extraordinary explanations necessary?" I think the idea of many worlds is very extraordinary, Anyway, you are obviously upset and making this personal. BYE

 

[hutchphd]

My basic question is, is QM actually almost classical except that our influence on the results of an experiment is unavoidable.

No.
Asked and answered.
Next Question Please

 

[fresh_42]

I cannot see that we can come forward here.

• The requested level "A" of an answer contradicts the possible content.
• We do not discuss scientific viewpoints outside our current best knowledge.
• Yes, everybody is allowed to question things. This is how we usually learn: why is formula xyz correct? It makes no sense to question an entire physical branch in order to learn.
• I got the impression that the word classical is misinterpreted as simple in this case.
• My favorite quotation of @phinds kicks in: "To think outside the box, you must know what's in the box."
• The question has basically been answered.
• The question has basically been answered, $1900 \sim 1925$.

This thread is closed.