My memory is a little hazy, but I think he set up something mathematically equivalent to schroedinger, probably with random assumptions, yes.I remember very pretty drawings showing that instead of a probabilistic approach, you can show deterministic paths for particles diffracting through a slit.
Where basically, the path of the particle is determined by exactly which part of the slit it passes through, under the influence of some kind of 'quantum force field'.
(Where basically, the path of the particle is determined by exactly which part of the slit it passes through, under the influence of some kind of 'quantum force field'.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:31,
archived)
Yep, that's the one :)I like it and in the unlikely event that I ever have to teach people quantum mechanics that's how I'll start it off, but personally I don't take it very seriously although there are people who do. I also don't take the many-worlds nonsense at all seriously although there are people who do.
I pity anyone I'll ever teach quantum mechanics to.
(I pity anyone I'll ever teach quantum mechanics to.
boris the spider,
Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:35,
archived)
Haha, it's more intuitive but the maths was pretty horrible if I remember rightly.I think the best we can really do is be pragmatic, use the formulas that we know work brilliantly, and leave the interpretation to philosophers.
I can't really see us being able to distinguish between them experimentally.
(I can't really see us being able to distinguish between them experimentally.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:40,
archived)
damn straightmy view exactly. feynam once slagged off physicists for being obsessed with a theory of everything and said "they're just algorithms" and i think there's a lot in what he said.
( boris the spider,
Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:43,
archived)