Re: Feynman on Quantum Mechanics (for Don G.)

On Oct 26, 2:10 pm, Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alpha <omegazero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Sun, 26 Oct 2008:

As I had maintained in other posts, Feynman did say the following:
"I think that I can safely say that nobody understands quantum
mechanics."
(The Character of Physical Law, p 129, MIT Press 1965) as presented in
Wallace's Paradox Lost.

Let's even say (for the sake of argument) that your interpretation here
is correct.

That is not anyone's interpretation. That is a statement by Richard.


It's still the case that "confusion" or "lack of understanding" is a
property of the map, not the territory.  It's not as though quantum stuff
in the real universe has a little tag on it somewhere that says, "cannot
be understood by humans".

So, at best, what you're saying is that a really smart guy, an expert in
quantum theory, in 1965, did not "really" understand QM, and believed that
nobody else in the world did either.

Let's not argue about what might or might not have been true in 1965.
The question is, do _I_ understand QM right now?

Obviously, I'm not nearly as smart as Feynman.  Nor do I know as much about
the mathematical theory of QM as Feynman did.

But.  It's no longer 1965.  It's now 2008.  Science moves on.

I clearly know a lot more about physics than Newton did (e.g. QM, or
relativity).  Might it be the case that I'm actually slightly less confused
about a few minor aspects of quantum mechanics (esp.: interpretations) than
Feynman (apparently) was in 1965?
..

It is more than likely the case that Feynman knew more about the
science he helped develop than most anyone else ever has. And whereas
Wallace's book about interpretations being the source of a lot of the
so-called paradoxical aspects of QM/QFT, thee are still areas of
extreme surprise, unexpectedness and strangness evident in QM that
makes it difficult to reconcile with other, classical notions of what
reality is all about.

For example, when you explain QM by rendering the matematical
equations into sentences about reality, using the operators and
operands of the math to stand for actual quantities/qualities of
facets of reality being transformed appropriately, one gets into
*inevitable* interpretational modes that beg the question(s): what is
happening and how can that be? I.e., the sentences use words that are
themselves subject to interpretation (as are all words). So the
rendering, by Wallace or whoever, is more a craft of art than of
science.



It's always possible...

BTW Don, again, this book by Wallace is definitely up your alley WRT the
exposition of QM without interpretations.  It does discuss the
interpretations though and provides insight as to why each interpretation
comes up with its own paradoxes that are not necessarily part of the theory
itself.

That seems an accurate description of what I've read (in the first half).

Leaving me to wonder why _you_ like the book :-).

I love physics (and neuroscience and computer science and biology
etc); So I like anything that enlightens me further in those areas
over and above what I have already read. ( I like to consider
controversial positions as well.) I like the way Wallace walks
through the various aspects of QM and contrasts the QM POV with the
Classical POV. I also like his clarifying remarks on the so-called
paradoxes.

But the book still points out, as I have stated above, that QM is
ostensibly strange (e.g., indeterminism, uncertainty are fundemental
properties of QM w/o any interpretation) and since most people, even
physicists, cannot really "picture" what is really happening (because
their ideation is still that of classical notions - like point
particles), even such physicists struggle with just *which* of the
various interpretations given by various physicists (like the Dirac
POV, the Bohr POV, the Feynman POV etc.), is close to the real story.
I think Feynman plugged into that uncertainty (by saying that it is
not understood). I see no evidence in any current POV/interpretations
that that struggle has ceased, or that the strangeness of QM has
disolved in some perfect interpretation that makes everything clear
and intuitively satisfactory.



Thanks for the recommendation, though!

NP!


        -- Don
___________________________________________________________________________­____
Don Geddis                  http://don.geddis.org/ ;             d...@xxxxxxxxxx
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad.
        -- Salvador Dali

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Original Sin
    ... reality felt that consciousness plays a fundamental role. ... I don't think there was ever a time where most physicists worried ... about the ontological implications of quantum mechanics one way or the ... Penrose likes to call things paradoxes, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: There are really no Particles
    ... we put an entire human body into pure state?? ... Quantum mechanics arose in response to practical scientific ... They are normal physicists. ... Which interpretation of quantum mechanics is closest to your own? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • New interpretation of quantum mechanics based on cell-structured space
    ... appear from the effects of quantum level. ... space model is cell-structured. ... D-theory is a new interpretation of quantum mechanics. ... The physicists have tried to interpret the quantum mechanics over 70 ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantensprung einzelner Elektronen
    ... physicists regard probability as a measure of knowledge, ... We have neglected the frankly subjective interpretation, ... The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, ...
    (de.sci.physik)
  • Re: Zero Point Emission and Absorption of Quanta
    ... It has all to do with the so called Transactional Interpretation ... photon but in terms of information from the quantum hologram. ... holographic phase conjugate adaptive resonance. ... It concerns an emitter/absorber model of quantum holography defined ...
    (sci.physics)