Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The logic of Quantum Mechanics

  1. Jan 20, 2007 #1
    Some say that quantum mechanics defies all logic and is not intuitive. They will state that there is no "Ontology" to help us understand it.

    But over the last couple of days I've come up with a possible model of logic that may give us some ontology, restore the intuition, and possibly even help derive physics from logic itself.

    What I have is an equation of propositional calculus that explains why reality can be described by the conjunction of every possible path. This would explain the necessity of path integrals. I don't have a derivation of why the lagrangian, yet. But the non-intuitive part seems to be the path integral which I think I can now explain.

    I would like to discuss this description to see if others can help identify issues, and help fill in the blanks. Someone else may have already thought of this before, and I'd like some comment. One of the major issues for me will be can a "path" be described by one point in the path logically implying the next point. Or are paths beyond the scope of logic.

    Dear Moderator, I ask permission to post this first because I don't want to waste my time if I'm going to be bumped into theory development just because it's new or too oversimplistic. Should I post or not?
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 20, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You may only post this in the IR forum, not here. We no longer have the TD forum, in case you haven't noticed.

  4. Jan 21, 2007 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The IR (Independent Research) forum is a subforum of the General Physics forum. You can see it on the main PF page, in the list of forums.

    There are a number of possible interpretations of QM that are often discussed in this forum. They have been put forth in the professional physics literature and discussed among working physicists, and so they are fair game for discussion here. However, none of them is generally agreed upon to be "the" interpretation, because there is no way of distinguishing among them experimentally.

    In fact, the longest threads in this forum are about the ontology (interpretation) of QM. What we have a problem with, is introducing completely new theories or interpretations.

    One of the main purposes of PF is to help students learn about physics as it is practiced and discussed by the "professional physics community," and so we generally restrict ourselves to physics as presented by peer-reviewed textbooks, journals, etc., and to some extent in arxiv.org (although one has to be careful there because it is not peer-reviewed). The exception to this rule is the Independent Research forum.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook