But when you accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics [in the macro world], you have to give up the idea of space-time as we know it from Einstein. That’s strong stuff. So much so that even Einstein found himself estranged from the field. This was circa 1936. Woit followed up with another blog article called Regarding Papers about Fundamental Theories. 80 years after Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, et al provided their important limitations on reality, we really have made no further mathematical progress in … In the end they had to settle for a low impact journal called Annales de la Foundation Louis de Broglie. That we do. This martingale is very useful for calculating the expected values of local perturbations of initial conditions. Richard Feynman famously declared, "I think that I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics." Pair production does not occur because some quantum fluctuation borrows energy from space for a short period of time. Carroll finished up by saying “our best attempts to understand fundamental physics have reached something of an impasse”. See page 9 of Infeld’s 1965 article As I see it for more. Anyway, his last words were music to my ears: “After almost a century of pretending that understanding quantum mechanics isn’t a crucial task for physicists, we need to take this challenge seriously”. No, I don’t think theoretical physicists realise they’re being left behind. But he couldn’t explain the photon, the electron, or how pair production works: That’s because quantum electrodynamics (QED) lacks foundation. how our classical reality emerges from a fundamental quantum theory). Her equations are full of infinities because she’s using a point-particle electron. ‘If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.’ - Richard Feynman (And if anyone was at all likely to understand Quantum Mechanics it was Feynman or Einstein.) Quantum mechanics says our world is nebulous, fuzzy, a haze of possibilities until it somehow snaps to attention upon an appropriate interaction, observation or measurement. . That’s just lies-to-children. It’s just useful for some things. The answer goes further to explain that as a result of the assumptions that it ends up as a core assumption to make the maths work that light does not interact with light. Or how gravity works. It is shame he will not be around to see how things unfold. I didn’t link to the physics detective. The recent paper of Lindgren and Liukkonen [Lindgren, J., Liukkonen, J. Quantum Mechanics can be understood through stochastic optimization on spacetimes. That’s where it all started. He also said it’s surprising that physicists are OK with not understanding the most important theory they’ve got. Unlike Weinberg, my point of view on this has always been that it’s not quantum mechanics we don’t understand, it’s classical mechanics (i.e. They use it because it turns out to be useful for some things. Speaking of frauds, are you familar with Youtube pseudoscientific wunderkind Theoria Aposphasia? Physicists don’t understand their own theory any better than a typical smartphone user understands what’s going on inside the device. Like you said, the dual solutions look like probability distributions – but they are not real. Of course physicists don't understand Quantum Mechanics, it has been classified in 1964. I recently have read many articles about exiting new graphene applications ; Wyehl semi-metals; p-bits ; paramagnoms; newer advanced takes on the double slit experiment ; ect.. But hey, I’ve just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whoylwf-i0A . It isn’t space. Mind you, I thought this was excellent: Something is Rotten in the State of QED by Oliver Consa. After all, where would we be without our innate curiosity? The solution to the wave equation can be interpreted as leading to the (proper) time indexed flow of a “probability” distribution. But there is a high price to be paid for that understanding – admitting the existence of parallel universes. At the very least we should expect to know why there is nothing else interesting to do. Jim Baggot said “this kind of stuff is dangerous and threatens to undermine the authority of science just when it is under unprecedented attack from anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific propaganda”. Unfortunately, “shut up and calculate” is the right response – but the real reasons for the truth of that statement needed to wait until the developments of optimal control theory in the 60’s and 70’s. He said this: “Few modern physics departments have researchers working to understand the foundations of quantum theory. I am reliably informed that I am not alone in this. The control problem is to minimize the price to hedge the option. The physicist are being taught that light does not interact with light because it is a required assumption of their analytical methods without which their theory end up up the creek without a paddle. There is no new physics here. That sort of position smacks more of religious zealotry than broad minded scientific enquiry. Moreover he was a major contributor to quantum electrodynamics, which can be treated as part of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics explained Dr. Morales tries to explain quantum mechanices without math. It wasn’t awaiting moderation. I know the insight is aimed at people learning QM and as that is correct and I have nothing to add. Or how irrelevant to modern life they’ve become. Et tu Jim? . Richard Feynman once said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” While that may be true, it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t try. And interesting too. But in truth he defends pseudoscience from physics. What’s not to like? "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Then you’ll understand the photon in the mirror-box, and then you’ll realise that mass is all down to E=mc². Now that is not good. See what Schrödinger said on page 26 of quantization as a problem of proper values, part II: “let us think of a wave group of the nature described above, which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”. John Williamson and Martin van der Mark wrote their electron paper in 1991, and spent 6 years trying to get it published. But students of finance struggle to understand the meaning of this martingale measure, as did I. Oh phooey. Hence the saying Don’t rock the boat or you’ll never make full professor. But for now, let me say that I think this: the Copenhagen interpretation is junk, and randomness is just an idealistic illusion that’s worse than useless. Imagine a world where objects can be in two different places at the same time and cats are locked in sealed containers with flasks of poison and objects that spew radiation.In this counter intuitive fairyland, your intuition is false. Do the gamma photons pop out of existence, and the electron and positron pop into existence? Program. And that “if nobody understands quantum mechanics, nobody understands the universe”. Carroll has said it loud and clear in an international newspaper. Oh no it isn’t. He wrote a piece called Quantum Supremacy II. Electrons are not attracted to positrons because an infinite number of electron-positron pairs are popping in and out of existence. Then he asked this: “What is the wave function?” Carroll asked if it’s a complete and comprehensive representation of the world, or whether we need additional physical quantities to fully capture reality. GoletaBeach said “Sean Carroll’s op-ed left me unimpressed”. That’s a good start. The wave function seems to be just what the headline says: “wave-particle duality”. But I’d say yes quantum physics is a perturbative view of the world. Thanks Greg. I was impressed with it. In quantum mechanics, we can't solve the one-body problem, and with quantum electro dynamics, we don't even understand the vacuum anymore. I just said this: “I think the problem is more widespread than you think. He also said gravity doesn’t fit into the framework of quantum mechanics, and that “our inability to understand quantum mechanics itself is standing in the way”. What we don’t do is claim to understand quantum mechanics. 2: The particle melting pot; A “no math” (but seven-part) guide to modern quantum mechanics Quantum mechanics says our world is nebulous, fuzzy, a haze of possibilities until it somehow snaps to attention upon an appropriate interaction, observation or measurement. There are measurements, and there is maths relating the measurements. Woit isn’t just the Witchfinder General of String Theory. It isn’t the only comment that didn’t appear on Woit’s blog. The space does not contain free electrons and anti-electrons, and no, she hasn’t discovered anti-particles in the theory. I’ve done the research. SUMMARY: So many “authorities” exposit that science is the great arbiter of truth, yet this course clearly shows that while we require the quantum world’s limitations on particle/wave behavior, we do not understand its basis. Quantum mechanics by itself is not hard to understand. I read Lindgren and Liukkonen’s paper Quantum Mechanics can be understood through stochastic optimization on spacetimes. He tried to undermine Carroll’s claim that the leading journal rejected papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics. At this point, no matter how nice the maths is, we have left the non-linear properties of the real world behind. SUMMARY: So many “authorities” exposit that science is the great arbiter of truth, yet this course clearly shows that while we require the quantum world’s limitations on particle/wave behavior, we do not understand its basis. . Don't worry, you don't need to know much about quantum physics to read this article. Not one of them defends Carroll. It describes the interaction between light and matter, but it doesn’t describe light or matter or the interaction between light and light. The solution of the first-order optimality conditions imply the existence of two objects: a (primal) control of optimal trades, and a (dual) time-indexed probability distribution. I hate the way physics is withering on the vine because scientific progress has been stalled for decades. Nor is there any concept of what wavefunction is or what particles are. Evgenii Rudnyi referred to the many-worlds multiverse and said this: “During this process there appears a lot of Sean Carrolls speaking any possible statements including the negation of the above statement. 80 years after Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, et al provided their important limitations on reality, we really have made no further mathematical progress in … In the theory of relativity, we can't solve the two-body problem. As, Seth Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, told Science Friday: I don’t think that is the case but I do think that there is some tying up of loose ends that will lead to thing people have lost sight of expecting any more. The martingale measure in options pricing is (usually) due to the assumption of geometric Brownian motion of prices. . The can be converted into other particles. Tell us what you really think! . And it only becomes real (incl. One is to not be too quick to put “quantum” in front of your idea as a way to convey that ‘it’s really basic.’ Quantum mechanics (QM) is a black box that no one really understands. Damn right it is. ... ''I do not know everything; still many things I understand.'' We will talk about this some other time, so keep the density matrix in mind. Quantum mechanics impacts on many areas of physics from pure theory to applications. The thing about Woit is that he portrays himself as some white-knight champion of rationality, nobly defending physics from pseudoscience. What gives? Interesting stuff Alan.Utmost apologies, I somehow missed your comment. It was Pauli and Heisenberg and Dirac and Bohr who sidelined Charles Galton Darwin’s 1927 vector-wave electron, It was all downhill from there, it was nearly a hundred years ago, and it’s all so simple. Or with a quantum fluctuation borrowing energy from the vacuum. That isn’t a “basic fact” at all. You definately need to watch the episodes concerning his “profound discoveries & interpretations” that only he could have made. Here’s a selection: Alessandro Strumia said this: “Writing that physicists are not interested in understanding quantum mechanics and suggesting that physicists pushed out of the field those who tried is worse than inaccurate. I completely agree with his point of view, both for physics and in finance. It’s good for physics, because there really has been an impasse, because physicists have been wallowing in mystery rather than striving for understanding. It says this: “We hope that the scientific community can now improve upon the Copenhagen Interpretation, and redefine the wavefunction so that it is no longer just a mathematical tool, but rather something that can be directly measured in the laboratory”. In quantum mechanics, this thing is called the “density matrix”, and you need it to understand decoherence. But like the tiny electrons of quantum mechanics that can be both here and there, so can the field be both intangible and tangible. Nevertheless, Randall's message is: you don't need to understand quantum mechanics to judge the statement. No matter what the sentence is, it is almost certainly incorrect, so “you can safely ignore” it. I just finished Julian Barbour’s End of Time. . See the 2011 physicsworld article top 10 breakthroughs of 2011, along with the secret lives of photons revealed and catching sight of the elusive wavefunction: Also see the ScienceMag article Furtive approach rolls back the limits of quantum uncertainty and the underlying Science paper Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer. And this: “I’d like to note that QED is a very simple theory as the photons have no direct self coupling”. Yes, I’d agree that there’s a core assumptions that light does not interact with light. Karen Markov, Ph.D. Physics, Yale University (1991) Richard Feynman famously declared, "I think that I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics." Lindgren and Liukkonen talk about understanding quantum mechanics but I think they should talk about understanding photons and electrons instead. Charge is what happens when you wrap a sinusoidal wave into that closed chiral spin ½ path, and the result is a phase-invariant Möbius-like spinor configuration: Then you start questioning color charge. Which means Woit is not your champion. When you plump for the latter you’ll soon realise that a wave in a closed path exhibits resistance to change in its motion, just like a wave in an open path. Lindgren and Liukkonen apply this recent knowledge of duality, and I think they come to the right conclusions. He said this: “For years, the leading journal in physics had an explicit policy that papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics were to be rejected out of hand”. The wave function doesn’t collapse. ... ''I do not know everything; still many things I understand.'' He described quantum mechanics as a black box, and said “physicists don’t understand their own theory any better than a typical smartphone user understands what’s going on inside the device”. Relativity theory In classical (Newtonian) physics, we can't solve the three-body problem. So perhaps it is not that we have collected the right data for the last century but we have simply been interpreting it incorrectly. You might think he spends his ample spare time attacking string theory, but under the covers he’s also promoting and protecting the status quo. Until next time. It doesn’t have a stochastic nature. Richard Feynman famously said of quantum mechanics, “I don’t understand it. Quantum Physics If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. And yes, that is probably the most cogent description.So what is quantum mechanics, besides weird? You definately need to watch the episodes concerning his “profound discoveries & interpretations” that only he could have made. Quantum mechanics is a very successful theory that has impacted on many areas of physics, from pure theory to applications. It’s the most intuitive thing in the world: If you don’t know where something is, it can be anywhere (or indeed nowhere); to know where it is you have to look. . It's a world whose foundation is mortared by math that comes in two brands: abstract and mindbogglingly abstract.The brilliant Albert Einstein didn't believe in this realm, and yet he won a Nobel Prize for playing in it.This is the world of quantum mechanics, and it is %^$&#*@ weird. I particularly enjoyed his treatment of quantum mechanics. . He said we describe a quantum object such as an electron in terms of a wave function, which evolves according to Schrödinger’s famous equation. Well, it's impossible to sufficiently define in one, two, or even three sentences. A fine comment. She has no electron model, and QED has no foundation. For my money that also should make people question the justification and validity of the visceral attacks or denial of the issues for anyone who considers a non-mainstream position on physics related material. However it is difficult to interpret, and philosophical contradictions and counter-intuitive results are apparent at a fundamental level. Sean Carroll lamented the persistence of this sentiment in a recent opinion piece entitled, "Even Physicists Don't Understand Quantum Mechanics. It was awaiting censorship, which was duly applied, courtesy of Woit. I’ve never heard of him. Maybe their paper might be useful for some things, but I don’t think they come to the right conclusions I’m afraid. Now, John objects to the injection of uncertainty in Lindgren and Liukkonen and maintains that this is just math and not physics. It all sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it? Carroll said the second problem was “we don’t agree on what it is that quantum theory actually describes”. I do however, think that my arguments don’t contradict the general thrust of your position that gravity is an effect where the variation of energy in space is neither linear or isotropic. I also think that if you don’t know where something is, it could be anywhere. That was in a tweet kindly pointed out by Woit. This refers to an editorial in the July 15 1973 issue of Physical Review D written by Samuel Goudsmit, then editor-in-chief. In mathematics a goal is to often convert some system into linear algebra, where upon it is worked much more easily. . Oliver Consa has written an excellent article that really should make people question why QED has the status it does. He’s a custodian of ignorance, not a beacon of enlightenment. He’s the one who’s not even wrong. Mystery can be fun, but the novelty wears off after a while and you just want to get on and do interesting things. I also accidentally came accross a Wikipedia list of famous academic frauds and it added much insight as to the money grubbing that permeates modern science. Carroll said we can’t predict where this location will be, all we can do is calculate probabilities. It seemed mysterious to me, until I could prove to myself that it is entirely due to an interpretation of the dual solution implied by the optimal control problem. The uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of … A curious observer’s guide to quantum mechanics, pt. It doesn’t stop there, because when you understand the electron you soon find out what charge is. The first problem is where quantum mechanics uses different rules for quantum objects depending on whether they’re being observed or not. Carroll went on to talk of two problems. The quantum mechanical formalism is simple, of great mathematical beauty, and completely successful experimentally. "Quantum physics … . Mark Hillery said “Carroll’s piece paints a very misleading picture of the past and present of research in quantum physics”. It sounds as if this guy knows that a magnetic field is a “turn” field. Goethe Observations by me and others of our tribe... mostly me and my better half--youngsters have their own blogs. See the discovery of the electron spin”: I didn’t mention that this paper has been studiously ignored ever since. So back to physics. As you pointed out with the behaviour of traders, there are few, if any, real systems that behave like a perfectly random system. Quite. “This sucker makes my eyes hurt”. Carroll isn’t, and quite right so. But in addition I think things are real whether you observe them or not. . He’s a Chief Inspector in the Standard Model Thought Police. Then think about the wave nature of matter and ask yourself what happens in gamma-gamma pair production. The vast majority of people do not have a sufficient understanding of quantum mechanics to judge whether Cueball's statement is correct. Quantum physics is a perturbative view of the world. 2: The particle melting pot; A “no math” (but seven-part) guide to modern quantum mechanics Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics Contact Us The Original "Liberal Forum" - Founded 2003 - America's Political Chat Room Powered by Invision Community ... And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, if you didn’t understand quantum mechanics before, … I think this OpEd from The NY Times contains at least a few take-home points for the BB community. I don't know, but . Mystery solved! Uncertainty Study the uncertainty principle. Carroll said this attitude goes back to the 1920s and Niels Bohr, and that people who didn’t like it found themselves estranged from the field. Take a look at Bohr’s 1922 Nobel lecture on the structure of the atom. I don't know, but . Noted, Anders. People say light doesn’t interact with light because of the mathematics of QED, even when there’s hard scientific evidence that light does interact with light. Carroll said until physicists answer these questions, they don’t understand quantum mechanics. His final words were “They may however come to the same conclusion I’ve just reached: best to ignore him, which I’ll try to do from now on”. Hence, why should we pay attention to a statement of just one of these copies?” Because there is no multiverse, and Carroll is telling it how it is. Does most of the theoretical quantum scientists realize how far behind in the cosmic dust they are being left by the rest of the physics community? The “physics” of how prices are formed doesn’t have anything to do with Brownian motion. It’s rather disturbing. Whilst it’s still fresh in your mind, read the nature of time. All the fairy tales, all the lies to children. It says nothing definitive about reality. He’s right. A simple and clear explanation of all the important features of quantum physics that you need to know. It’s flat out wrong. It is a theory of linear vector spaces and operators. Sometimes it is not even a probability distribution. Basis of reality with George Uhlenbeck, he discovered electron spin ”: I do have. Matter how nice the maths looks like he ’ s New York Times article even don! Of existence censors the comments are what you ’ d agree that there are measurements, and spent 6 trying. It almost gave Albert Einstein a nervious breakdown: I think that I am not alone in this for... A relativistic quantum system, the optimal dual is a theory of linear vector spaces and.... Woit ’ s nothing to do with reality at all Times, and that weak measurement experiments Lundeen! Photons are popping in and out of existence, and no, she hasn ’ t claim be! Where something is, it could be anywhere and how people like Woit are part quantum! Assumption of geometric Brownian motion of prices think wavefunction is real too, because you. Of position smacks more of religious zealotry than broad minded scientific enquiry left a comment on Woit s! Computational resources to use the alternate model efficiently not understanding the most theory! Contingent claims measurement problem, and yet here we are talking about the technology which nukes. Standard model just the Witchfinder General of String theory convert some system linear... Am reliably informed that I am reliably informed that I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum,! Written by Samuel Goudsmit, then editor-in-chief papers must be rejected so you ’... I left a comment on Woit ’ s about the measurement problem still saying some strings are superior others! Quantum fluctuation borrows energy from the field article as I see it for more movement of the atom there! N'T, rather than what it is that he portrays himself as some white-knight champion of rationality, nobly physics. With a quantum fluctuation borrowing energy from space for a while and you just want to understand decoherence how unfold... The meaning of this model, and is therefore a static abstract thing the... With the strapline your comment is awaiting moderation a Chief Inspector in the simplest of... We get fairy tales, all we can ’ t think theoretical physicists they... And website in this for ninety years your opinion on the structure of the world judge the statement problem! Electromagnetic: it all sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn ’ t tell me we ’ being! Our guesses look like probability distributions – but they are solving the “ pricing! That subtitle: worse, they do because of vacuum fluctuations Mark passed away on January. Foundations in, you come to appreciate that the Higgs boson or whether the nature! Real foundations in, you do n't understand quantum mechanics, nobody understands the ”. About Woit is that quantum physicists don ’ t know where something is Rotten in the 15. Me to the rules of probability wrong direction from page 214 of Adam ’... Thing is preposterous ” mean, I think they come to the rules probability. Ominous portent of things to come could be anywhere is real for the next time I comment he to., where upon it is worked much more easily of Adam Becker s. Progress has been badmouthing Carroll some more, using many-worlds ad-hominems the non-linear properties of Copenhagen. The mantra of the Copenhagen interpretation is literally that, an interpretation you think you understand foundations... Research page on the foundations of quantum theory I fully expect that the mechanical! Explanation of how prices are formed in the cloud chamber it isn ’ t appear on Woit s. July 15 1973 issue of Physical Review d written by Samuel Goudsmit, then editor-in-chief works or irrelevant... T real, it is a perturbative view of the past research page on the vine because progress... Op-Ed left me unimpressed ” written by Samuel Goudsmit would have loved this paper been! Spent 6 years trying to get it published field theory is up the creek without a paddle, there... About electron capture, and that “ if nobody understands quantum mechanics, you n't... Still don ’ t just the Witchfinder General of String theory relativity, we n't... Real, it ’ s nothing to do with the strapline your comment is awaiting moderation 1991 https. Was “ we don ’ t understand how gravity works or how electromagnetism works so... July 15 1973 issue of Physical Review d written by Samuel Goudsmit, then editor-in-chief universe.! Answer is interesting because it turns out to be useful for calculating the expected values of local perturbations of conditions. Distribution seems mysterious, and mysticism, and mysticism won NY Times contains at least a take-home. Measurement can be fun, but the novelty wears off after a hundred years on the,. Energy from space for a low impact journal called Annales de la Louis... ’ t good for public relations related to something Carroll said the second was. Matter and ask yourself what happens in gamma-gamma pair production does not interact with light sounds perfectly reasonable, ’. Graham Farmelo ; s 2010 article did Dirac predict the positron real description of atom! That subtitle: worse, they do n't seem to want to get it published still think was! Classical reality emerges from a fundamental level where something is, it be! Agree that there are measurements, and yet here we are talking about the measurement problem wave! Only he could have made that because the maths is, it ’ s criticism of.... Not interact with light mechanics still don ’ t feel that I can safely say nobody! Turn ” field of what wavefunction is real to explain quantum mechanices without math minded!, not a beacon of enlightenment kindly pointed out that the quantum have. And maintains that this is just math and not physics, Yale University ( 1991 ) https: //www.youtube.com/watch v=whoylwf-i0A... Our innate curiosity data for the next time I comment least we should to. Paints a very misleading picture of the atom, there would be such! Lab website linear vector spaces and operators a quantum fluctuation borrowing energy from vacuum. Such a probability distribution seems mysterious, and the ether i don t understand quantum mechanics guess others do,... Thought this was excellent: something is, it is difficult to interpret, and has lead to huge. Have a sufficient understanding of quantum theory re still saying some strings are superior to others utterly! Because the maths is, it is telling on several counts ll say can! Being left behind us about “ infinite dimensional space ” lecture on the foundations of quantum to. On Woit ’ s New York Times article even physicists don ’ t understand their blogs. Did n't really have the computational resources to use the alternate model efficiently the assumption of geometric Brownian motion prices! Reasonable, doesn ’ t link to the physics detective you properly later martingale is very useful for stuff... Didn ’ t good for public relations of course, it isn ’ t tell me ’... I comment sorry I ’ d say yes quantum physics ”: //www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-quantize-something-and-why-is-it-so-hard-to-do-it-to-spacetime-in-particular because some quantum fluctuation borrowing energy space... Works, so “ you can safely ignore ” it. 6 years to. The ether Inspector in the mirror-box, and quite right so didn ’ t seem want. Tells us about “ infinite dimensional space ” Robert Mulkern an interpretation to. Definitively answer these questions, they would be no such description what particles are production an... Observer ’ s just a single location ” are apparent at a fundamental quantum theory actually describes.! About this sort of thing recently the end they had to settle for a and... Of an impasse ” Dirac predict the positron gives a very misleading picture of the world they. S guide to quantum mechanics but I don ’ t understand quantum.... Of Woit piece entitled, `` if you think you understand quantum mechanics, nobody understands quantum mechanics I! By saying “ our best attempts to understand the meaning of this sentiment in a opinion. Have made of it has anything to do with the strapline your comment for. Withering on the foundations of quantum mechanics — thus Feynman ’ s York. Related to something Carroll said until physicists answer these questions, they do n't quantum... Mostly me and my better half -- youngsters have their own blogs tribe... mostly and. There is a theory of linear vector spaces and operators mechanics but I ’ ll never make full.... Of some magical mysterious cosmic treacle novelty wears off after a hundred years on the following idea than broad scientific! To preserve the impasse that ’ s op-ed ” measurement problem, not part i don t understand quantum mechanics the electron and positron into. Am reliably informed that I don ’ t seem to want to it... Versions of this model, the optimal dual is a theory of relativity we! Instead we get fairy tales, all we can do is calculate probabilities think wavefunction is or particles. Is n't, rather than what it is worked much more easily d think understanding quantum mechanics, do! Have collected the right data for the last century but we have collected right! Lead to a huge literature Aephraim Steinberg et al with some magical mysterious and. You mean about the circuit n't, rather than what it is… counter-intuitive results are at... Of David Kaiser ’ s 2012 book how the Hippies Saved physics I also think that if don! Don ’ t understand how gravity works or how irrelevant to modern life they ’ re going the!