The discussion revolves around interpretations of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics (QM), particularly whether the uncertainty is intrinsic to particles or merely a reflection of our knowledge limitations. Participants explore the implications of these interpretations and their alignment with classical physics concepts.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretations of the uncertainty principle, with multiple competing views remaining. The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the nature of quantum mechanics and its implications.
Participants express uncertainty regarding the implications of different interpretations of QM, including the potential for classical trajectories and the role of knowledge limitations. The discussion highlights the complexity and nuance in understanding quantum mechanics.
I hope you are headed to the library to get a QM book.wittgenstein said:Anyway, it is obvious that I am so stupid that I should not be allowed to ask that question. BYE
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 said: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.
Ok, other than the popular books, which QM textbook have you tried to study?wittgenstein said: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 said: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 I typed too fast. I should have said, " Will a simpler explanation suffice. "wittgenstein said: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.
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 said:OK I typed too fast. I should have said, " Will a simpler explanation suffice. "
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. BYEmartinbn said:Ok, other than the popular books, which QM textbook have you tried to study?
No.wittgenstein said:My basic question is, is QM actually almost classical except that our influence on the results of an experiment is unavoidable.