
Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics - projectileboy
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html
======
Jerry2
Sean Carroll, the author, is a huge proponent and believer [1][1.1] in Many-
Worlds Interpretation (MWI) interpretation of QM. MWI's basic idea is that the
wavefunction is real and that there is no wavefunction collapse. Each time
there's a decoherence, there's a universe split. Some physicists think this is
pseudoscience or 'crackpottery' at best [2] since it can never be proven. A
lot of physicists also don't see any value in MW's interpretation since it
offers no predictive value (if you assume it to be true, there's nothing that
this belief 'buys' you).

So when Carroll talks about 'physicists not understanding QM', he's just
unhappy that most physicists don't share his view about QM and he's been known
for trying to shame physicists for not sharing his view too. [3][3.1]

[1] [http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-
the-...](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-many-
worlds-formulation-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/)

[1.1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxgGYJ3OjM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxgGYJ3OjM8)

[2] [https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/07/many-worlds-
pseudoscience...](https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/07/many-worlds-
pseudoscience-again.html)

[3] [http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-
most...](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-
embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/)

[3.1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y)

~~~
platz
I don't believe any of the possible interpretations of QM have a clear path to
being proven, so are they pseudoscience as well?

If Hawking Radiation can never be observed till the heat death of the
universe, is that pseudoscience, or just really hard to test?

At this regime, all of physics is very hard to design an experiment for on
ranges we have access to.

~~~
nwallin
> I don't believe any of the possible interpretations of QM have a clear path
> to being proven, so are they pseudoscience as well?

The characterization is a little bit harsh, but yes. The Copenhagen
interpretation is non-falsifiable, (relative to MWI) so while I don't know
what it is, I know it isn't science.

There's a reason most reputable scientific journals don't accept papers
dealing with interpretations of quantum mechanics. There's no "there" there.

Hawking radiation is interesting because a proof of lack of Hawking radiation
is a proof of the falsehood of quantum mechanics. Which is really interesting;
any time you can falsify something like quantum mechanics every physicist
should be paying attention. Also, if certain models of string theory are
correct, particle accelerators like the LHC should be able to produce micro
black holes, which will then evaporate in detectable ways. So Hawking
radiation is of observational interest as of 2010 as a possible way to provide
evidence to support string theory. (spoiler alert: we didn't find any)

~~~
NotSammyHagar
It feels like you are way too quick to kick things out that aren't on a path
to being proven. String theory forever has had the problem that it didn't make
experimentally verifiable conclusions. A quick web search finds recent
articles discussing apparently discussing this. Aren't people still working on
string theory?

Or why is mwi impossible to verify.

~~~
mrpara
The difference is, string theorists are _trying_. Everyone knows that it is a
major problem that we cannot currently design experiments to falsify ST or
other quantum gravity theories, and everyone is working towards it in the hope
that one day we may. When it comes to interpretations of QM, there is not only
nothing on the horizon, people don't even speak in these terms. No one is
insisting on falsifiablity, and indeed every new interpretation seems
completely hell-bent on just providing a "story" around the equations in a way
that does not - and fundamentally _cannot_ \- make any predictions that
contradict basic QM. I can count on one hand the number of interpretations I
can think of that make experimentally testable assertions, and for those I
have plenty of respect[1]. But the majority of interpretations and their
proponents seem to deliberately stay within the comfort zone of non-
falsifiablity, writing paper after paper whose actual impact on either physics
or philosophy can be summed up with "yeah well, that's just like, your
opinion, man". I did my MSC in physics under a professor who is a well-known
proponent of MWI (though my master's thesis was not directly related to the
subject). Two years of working side by side with him proved to me that the
detractors of work on interpretations are, by and large, correct in their
assertions about the proponents of them.

[1] There is this one theory whose name I cannot remember, where each particle
in the universe gets their wavefunction multiplied by a delta function or very
thin gaussian at random intervals, and whose sudden localization also causes a
sort of chain reaction and localizes all particles it is entangled with. This
theory is interesting because it helps set a (statistical) limit between
microscopic and macroscopic interactions; basically, when you go past a
certain number of entangled particles, everything will be well-localized
virtually all of the time, but for small numbers of particles we'll see
quantum phenomena. Unfortunately I recall this theory having too many holes,
and perhaps it has already been falsified, but the point is that at least it
made an effort to address inherent problems in QM (namely, wavefunction
collapse) in a way that physicists actually should; by making testable claims.

~~~
MauranKilom
This was linked above and sound like the theory your footnote describes:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory)

~~~
mrpara
That's the one! Thanks.

------
whatshisface
The idea that someone with equal ability to do calculations with both could
understand Newtonian mechanics better than they understand quantum mechanics
belies an extremely naive view of how easy it is to perceive the true
metaphysics of classical mechanics. In fact, the metaphysics of classical
mechanics remains unsettled even today, the only reason it seems like there
isn't a lot of philosophical debates left to have is that it has fallen out of
fashion. A brief conversation with any philosopher will reveal that nobody
"understands" the basic essence of being or whatever you want to call it. In
fact, if "understand" means "have direct sensation of the true nature of
reality," or even "have some grasp of the true metaphysics," then nobody
understands anything.

To give a specific example, let's say you have a classical system with only
three particles in the entire universe, and further let's say they are
interacting via a conservative force. So, how many things are there in the
universe? Is each particle communicating with the others to organize their
movements? Then, there would be three things in the universe. Is there a
potential field permeating all of space, into which the particles project
their influence? That would be four things. Is there a "strand of force"
connecting each particle to every other particle? Then, there would be six
things.

The debates in the paragraph above were alive and well in Newton's time.
However they were philosophical debates, not physical debates, because the
three suggestions I proposed (along with the other possibilities I didn't
mention) are all mathematically equivalent and would lead to the same motion.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
The thing is, since all those descriptions are mathematically equivalent,
_nobody cares_ whether, in a Platonic sense, there are three or four or six
things, because _it makes no difference_.

~~~
perl4ever
Isn't the analogy to a similar situation with quantum mechanics, where people
seem concerned with different mathematically equivalent interpretations?

You say "nobody cares", but people do care, and if they care in one context,
why shouldn't they care in another?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Many worlds is an actual difference - one we cannot ever see or prove, but
it's different. "New universes are being created" is _deeply_ different from
"they are not".

Forces at a distance vs fields? Not so much.

------
nitwit005
> Physicists don’t understand their own theory any better than a typical
> smartphone user understands what’s going on inside the device.

This article seems to take a confused definition of "understand". Not
admitting to a full and complete understanding is rather different from
knowing nothing at all.

And to give your typical smartphone user some credit, most of them probably
have some idea of the concepts of radio waves and computers, even if they
don't grasp the details.

~~~
titanomachy
I think it's a somewhat legitimate comparison. The average person can use a
smartphone but couldn't tell you much about why it works the way it does. They
can accomplish all sorts of things with it but they have little insight of its
internal structure. It's the same with Schroedinger's equation: I can use it
just fine, and it's clearly a useful way of looking at the world, but I don't
understand _why_ reality is like that.

------
solinent
I think quantum mechanics is well-understood, the mathematics behind it
provide us with excellent predictions.

I think because at its core it is a probabilistic (or perhaps there are many
worlds, but the implications are identical) theory--there is some inherent
uncertainty in the predictions. This uncertainty builds up over time if left
unmeasured, due to the chaotic nature of the system. We won't be able to
result this uncertainty until we have more precise and accurate measurement
devices.

I was thinking, the only real way for us to progress was to get the results
out of CERN we were expecting--either smaller particles or some detection
method which allows us to peer even deeper into the atom.

I think certain physicists are tired of the search for a unifying theory since
it probably won't help us make better predictions. We need to get out there
and get new empircal data.

~~~
beloch
I did my M.Sc. in quantum physics, and I'll be the first to admit I don't
understand it.

Yes, the equations do seem to predict what we observe in experiments very
well. Shockingly well, given how strange some of the predictions made by them
are! However, we lack an intuitive understanding of _why_ the equations work.
Matter and energy behave very differently on the quantum scale than they do on
the macroscopic scales we're used to observing. If you're trying to model a
pendulum, your intuition about how objects behave in the real world can be of
immense help when performing sanity checks on your equations. Your intuition
is _worse than useless_ when it comes to quantum systems. It's not just flat-
out wrong much of the time, it can lead you to ignore things that should not
be ignored.

Quantum physics has all sorts of English language, short-hand descriptions for
mathematical functions like "tunnelling", "non-local", "spooky action at a
distance" or, as is pertinent to this article "observation". You may think you
understand what these mean, but you're probably at least partly wrong if
you're thinking about them in terms of human language, natural human
intuition, or even the very specific short-hand terminology of physicists. We
are continually teasing out nuances in the math that language simply does not
capture. If we lack the language to adequately describe reality, can we really
understand it?

Feynman was very correct to observe that people who think they understand
quantum physics on a deep, intuitive level, probably do not. Doing quantum
physics with a human brain evolved for bashing stones together is like trying
to breathe in outer space. It's possible with considerable effort and the
right tools (e.g. a space-suit), but if you ever forget that it's a deeply
unnatural thing to be doing you're probably going to get yourself into
trouble.

~~~
jshaqaw
I ask you because I definitely do not have an M. Sc. In quantum mechanics - at
the lowest level of any system isn’t it inevitable that there is no deeper
understanding. At a certain point you have hit the base level and things just
“are.” Correct me if this is erroneous!

~~~
beloch
Consider the equation: 1+1=2

You don't have to understand the mathematical explanation for _why_ this is so
(one does exist) in order to have an intuition that serves you well in
practically all situations. For most of us, there is no deeper understanding.
It just is, and that's good enough. That doesn't necessarily mean there is no
deeper understanding, but let's ignore that for now.

What I was trying to get across is that basic intuitions we have about the
macroscopic world that we can see and touch are often flat-out wrong on the
quantum scale. Likewise, human language has developed to describe macroscopic
phenomena and struggles to capture the meaning of quantum phenomena. Intuition
and language are crucial parts of understanding, but we find ourselves on
treacherous ground when we try to apply human language or intuition to quantum
systems. The confidence that comes with intuition and mastery of language are
wholly counter-productive in quantum physics. You need to constantly reexamine
what you _think_ you know in the light of both new discoveries and the math.
Both are sources of continual surprise.

Hence, if you _think_ you understand quantum physics, you probably haven't
given it enough thought.

~~~
onemoresoop
Yes and because we live in the macroscopic dimension we develop the intuition
this way and thinking in terms of another dimension makes out heads swirl.
Perhaps we’ll never build an intuition at the quantum scale, just some tools
to abstract it away and get some benefits out of it.

------
taneq
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum
mechanics." \- Richard P. Feynman

~~~
analog31
A related comment from one of my physics profs: "You don't understand quantum
mechanics, you just get used to it."

~~~
jeffwass
Never heard that one before, but I love it.

~~~
platz
The original version is from Von Neumann

John Von Neumann once said to Felix Smith, "Young man, in mathematics you
don't understand things. You just get used to them."

------
russellbeattie
I think the author (Sean Carroll - whose other books I've read and pre-prdered
the one this article comes from) is trying to point out that we're at a stage
where maybe we should regroup a bit and find better analogies for what's
happening in the quantum world, which may lead to better understanding in the
future. The mish-mash of crazy phenomena could be laid out a bit more
logically than "wow, check out this insanity!" We need to kill Shrodinger's
cat, stop yammering about entanglement, and stop talking about wave functions
as if they're real things. There has to be better ways to describe this stuff.

Personally, I think they should start with the nomenclature. It may have been
amusing at first to call things strange and up and down and colored, etc. but
at this point it's a mess, especially when it's now clear that many particles
are just the same thing with varying energy levels.

Also, while I'm on a rant, the double slit experiment is crap. It never shows
the particle grouping pattern, just the interference pattern. They _talk_
about measuring the photon at the slit, collapsing the wave function and
creating a grouping as if by little ping-pong balls, but it's never
demonstrated!

~~~
mensetmanusman
The double slit experiment has been repeated many times in single-particle
(photon, etc.) mode.

[https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Esperimento-della-
doppia...](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Esperimento-della-doppia-
fenditura-effettuato-con-elettroni-Le-immagini-sono-prese-
dopo_fig47_262251891)

Here is data showing particle grouping patterns. This forms the basis of the
many-particle interference pattern.

If you put a detector near the slits to try to measure what passes through,
then this pattern does not arise.

~~~
russellbeattie
"...then this pattern does not arise."

Have you ever _seen_ an example of that? There's not a picture on the internet
of two groupings that I can find.

~~~
mensetmanusman
Here is a transition image of the double slit experiment being disturbed to
skew the probability distribution function:
[https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mask-movement-A-mask-
is-...](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mask-movement-A-mask-is-moved-
over-a-double-slit-inset-and-the-resulting-probability_fig1_232608419)

~~~
russellbeattie
Thanks. Just to be clear, I understand and believe the results of the
experiment. That said, none of those pics show two distinct blobs as described
by Feynman, et. al. :-)

------
mellosouls
Despite the forthright title, it is worth noting that this is an _Opinion_
piece in the NYT and there are other physicists who would be uncomfortable
with the popularising tendency to woo-ify our most successful scientific
theory.

~~~
platz
This opinion piece is written by a well-known research professor at CalTech
and sits behind Feynman's old desk.

He's been extolling this exact message for years.

I think he would say he's trying to de-woo QM by asking folks to think
critically about it's principles

He is not saying that the predictions that QM gives is wrong.

He's a hard materialist and rejects the Copenhagen interpretation of QM (as
many do who think intently about it) and prefers Many World's Interpretation,
but admits there's more work to be done. He's saying in the article that folks
should work on it.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll)

~~~
mellosouls
I'm well aware of the author's credentials, writings and views - and would
have thought that being in a position of popular renown would have made him
more cautious of playing to the crowd with titles that indicate mysticism is
the _acknowledged_ heart of the scientific project.

~~~
tim333
I'm not sure how you get from a title like "Even Physicists Don’t Understand
Quantum Mechanics" to the "mysticism is the acknowledged heart of the
scientific project" thing. The heart of science has been trying to figure out
things we don't understand which is not the same as mysticism.

~~~
mellosouls
Quantum Mechanics is sold as weird and magical and unfathomable etc in popular
representations. The title _clearly_ bolsters that view and insists the
author's confusion is shared by physicists generally.

~~~
meowface
Carroll says essentially this exact same thing in most of his podcast episodes
and his dozens of talks and interviews. I don't think there's any
sensationalism here. He is indeed saying that the public's impression of QM as
inscrutable and mysterious is basically right, in this current scientific
climate, and that, even worse, many physicists want to keep it that way.

------
scotty79
I think the problem is that people have trouble shedding the illusion that
particles are small balls on 3d billiard table.

If they accepted that the wave function with all it's weirdness is the
particle they colud get a better feel for quantum mechanics.

Funny thing is that Schrodinger equation that describes how wave function
evolves simplifies to classical movement equation if you consider "pointlike"
wave function.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_theorem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_theorem)

There's no need for thinking that there's a collapse of the wave function and
then some little ball pops up that's governed by different equation. The
equation is the same. Just a lot od terms can be simplified if wave fuction is
small and sharp. Just like there is no collapse when you slow down from
relativistic speed even though you can now skip relativistic terms in
equations and still get mostly correct result.

~~~
millstone
How did you conclude that there's no need for thinking that there's a collapse
of the wavefunction? How does wavefunction collapse arise from the Schrodinger
equation?

~~~
scotty79
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_theorem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_theorem)

Basically classical mechanics is just Schrodinger equation for sharp, small
wave functions.

So you don't need to think that due to measurement classical particle pops up
out of fuzzy thing that the wave function is. Instead you can think instead
that due to measurement wavefunction itself reshapes to be really narrow and
sharp but it still obeys same shrodinger equation. Just now thanks to
sharpness you can simplify the equation a lot so it becomes classical motion
equations.

~~~
username90
An integral part of quantum mechanics is the actual discrete states, ie the
eigen values which it probabilistically chooses during a wave function
collapse.

Hence it doesn't behave like a wave, also it doesn't behave like a particle,
it behaves like a mix of both. That is quantum mechanics and we don't fully
understand the maths of it yet, ie when do these waves behave like particles
and when do they behave like waves ie when do the wave function collapse?

~~~
scotty79
What I'm saying is you don't have to see eigen values as something of
different nature than the wave function. They represent very condensed wave
function. Instead of getting rid of all probability by calculating eigenstates
you could get rid of just a part of probability (sort of like by using fuzzy
numbers in your calculation instead of real numbers) and get something that is
close to eigenstates but still is a wave function. If you track such object in
time and space you'll see it still obeys Schrodinger equation.

Nobody does that because that won't help you with predicting results of your
experiments and it's way more work. But it gives you insight some people crave
while others feel it's completely unnecessary.

~~~
username90
> What I'm saying is you don't have to see eigen values as something of
> different nature than the wave function. They represent very condensed wave
> function.

They do not represent very condensed wave functions, have you taken even a
single course in quantum mechanics? You should have learned about the Double
slit experiment in high school at least, how do you explain that using only
the schrödiner equation?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-
slit_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)

~~~
scotty79
The wave function are reshaped by the slits. When it interacts with the
barrier with two slits it gets reshaped to have for example very low value
directly after the barier far away from the slits. And then final reshaping
into something extremely sharp occurs at the screen.

The final reshaping is so precise that given photon wave function gets
condensed precisely to a single atom of a particle of the photographic dye.

Anything except for those reshapings is governed by Schrodinger equation.

> [Eigenvalues] do not represent very condensed wave functions

User kgwgk said: "Note that eigenvalues are wavefunctions just like any other
state"

Even if mathematically they don't. Same way as limit of a function at some
point outside the domain of a fuction is not a value of that function. But if
you consider something close to that limit it is still value of that function.

Limits are useful for calculations but if the function represents someting
real, limits unlike the function don't actually exist. They are one step more
removed from reality than the function is.

What I'm saying is that it might be useful for developing intuition for
quantum mechanics to consider that eigenvalues don't exist. That they are just
mathematical constructs that are useful to represent wavefunctions that are
close in shape to them.

The genral tendency is exactly opposite. To consider wave function to be
mathematical construct (becouse complex numbers and no macroscopic analog) and
eigenvectors and states they describe as reality (just because we measured
something close to their precisely calculated values).

~~~
kgwgk
The interaction with the slits is governed by Schroedinger’s equation because
it is not a measurement (if it is a measurement the interference pattern
disappears).

~~~
scotty79
Sort of. Shrodinger equation doesn't so much describe interaction with the
slit barrier as it describes propagation through space not occupied by the
slit barrier.

The only difference between passing through a slit and the measurement at the
screen is the size and location of the "hole". Measurement at the screen is
just a silt of the size of single atom.

If your measurement is just ensuring that photon passed through one slit not
the other you no longer have interference pattern at the screen but you still
get diffraction pattern. Your measurement didn't collapse a wave to single
point because it wasn't precise enough.

~~~
kgwgk
> Shrodinger equation doesn't so much describe interaction with the slit
> barrier

And what would describe the interaction with the slits according to you?

~~~
scotty79
If you want to have precise description you would have to look at how
interaction with wave functions of electrons bound in atoms of the barrier
reshapes wave function of incoming wave reshaping it in a way that some of it
bounces off, some of it dissappears to encompass the act of potentially
absorbing the photon on the barrier. And part of the wave is left undisturbed
to propagate through the slits.

Completely infeasible to calculate but I argue valuable to think about. :-)

~~~
kgwgk
You know that is all happening according to Schroedinger’s equation, right?

~~~
scotty79
Culling of the the wave function due to absorbtion by the atoms of the barrier
that happens or not with some probability is a consequence of Schrodinger
equation? I thought it describes evolution of the wave function in spacetime
empty or not (like around nucleus) but doesn't cover any kind of decay,
absorptions, emmisions and such.

\---

We reached max thread depth and I can't reply to your response. Not sure if
you are going to see this.

If you are using electrons instead of photons for double slit experiment
barrier still absorbs them. They get caught by atoms of the barrier or
exchange virtual photons with electrons of the barrier. Shrodinger doesn't
cover that I think.

~~~
kgwgk
In principle you can model the interaction between the electrons and the
particles in the barrier and the whole system evolves according to
Schroedinger’s equation and will be described by a wavefunction. This
wavefunction may be a superposition of states where the electron goes through
the slits and states where it doesn’t. Until there is a “measurement” - a
“detection” which is “amplified” - you cannot say what has happened to the
electron: every outcome remains possible and the system remains described by a
wavefunction. If the detection happens first at the screen there will be a
probability of finding the electron at each position and a probability of not
finding it at all.

Note that the detection on the screen is done using a
scintillator/photomultiplier or something like that to amplifify the detection
of a single electron into a measurable electric signal.

------
speeder
What I don't exactly understood is why the hostility toward theories that
could lead to quantum gravity and whatnot? What are the historical reasons for
it?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's complicated, and it's going to take a long time for historians - and
multiple books - to untangle the failure.

But so far as I can tell it started because Bohr was a bit of a tyrant and
didn't like having the Copenhagen Interpretation questioned. So that set the
tone for the first few decades. And QM was still developing, so it was more
important to solve specific problems than worry about generalities.

After that, progress was still being made on the Standard Model, so there was
academic selection pressure pushing graduates towards PhD specifics and away
from more philosophical speculations about Quantum Origins.

And after _that_ the String Theory people were much better at aggressive self-
promotion than any of the competing QG theories. So something related happened
again.

Now there's no data to allow further fundamental progress on the Standard
Model. SM alternatives continue being ruled out. And String Theory has run
into very serious problems, So there's more interest in Quantum Origins and
alternative QG theories. The odds of a big breakthrough are very low, they're
higher than they used to be.

And also it's really kind of annoying not to understand what's happening.

~~~
whatshisface
> _And after that the String Theory people were much better at aggressive
> self-promotion than any of the competing QG theories._

I'm not sure if that's a fair interpretation of history. At the time string
theory still looked like the best option, and some say that even today it is
the closest thing we have to a consistent theory.

~~~
tim333
Was there ever a sting theory that looked plausible to explain gravity say? As
far as I can tell it started off as a simple model of how the nucleus held
together - to stop the protons flying apart lets model stings holding them
together. And then after that it's been let's play with the maths and the
aggressive self-promotion thing mostly.

------
wozer
You can read about the newer theory mentioned (but not explained) in the
article here:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%8...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory)

------
droptablemain
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum
mechanics." \- Richard Feynman

------
keypusher
> If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand
> quantum mechanics.

Richard Feynman

~~~
mayankkaizen
This is the third time I'm reading this quote here.

------
jvanderbot
Isn't this a tautology?

It's the same with all probanalistic descriptions of a phenomenon, isnt it?

You can use probability to model all kinds of things that you cannot (yet)
directly model, cannot observe, and do not understand. It seems natural that
it's a way to describe a system not well understood.

Isn't many worlds what you get when you interpret the Randomized Model as
Truth?

------
GistNoesis
Time to grab your tinfoil hat. Of course physicists don't understand Quantum
Mechanics, it has been classified in 1964. Before that time we didn't really
have the computational resources to use the alternate model efficiently.

You've got to remember we are talking about the technology which make nukes.

What if the physics world was as simple as the one we teach in high school, a
simple classical world with a twist. In the 1950s there were even science kits
for kids with Uranium. We were on the track towards a world with clean
infinite energy. Clean, yes, because the first fusion bomb had just been
tested, and fusion technology was just around the corner.

Then the cold war paranoia made everything change. The Vietnam War brought
what ifs ?

What if the know how was so simple that any Vietcong could build a nuke ? What
if one of those damn pacifists decided to make one at home ?

They gathered a few people from Los Alamos to seek council. The tale has it
that it was Von Neumann that put the final nail in the coffin of the green
world utopia. With machines using its architecture, it would, before a few
decades, be simple for everyone to simulate everything from chemistry to atom
bombs. It was simply not acceptable. They devised a plan to make sure that was
not going to happen.

The beauty of science is that once you accept a false result, you can easily
disprove the true theories. Then it's just a question of smoke and mirrors
(should I say vapor chambers, and single particle detectors ?). Control the
experiment results by making sure the experimenters know the theory it needs
to prove.

That's how in 1964, a crackpot physicist made the world non-local. It was such
a success to attract young new people to the field, that those who knew better
played along.

Of course since then smart people saw through the veil and are thankful for
the elders' wisdom to not free the dragon.

~~~
beders
" it has been classified in 1964"

oh, and math too? All over the world? Seriously...

~~~
GistNoesis
QM comes from a time where computers weren't powerful enough. It's a non-local
theory that's helpful to calculate by hand. With the advancement of computers,
they stumbled upon ways of calculating the same results faster in a different
way. It was deemed too dangerous. So they figured a way to backdoor the
science.

Come on, it's not that hard of a campfire story to understand, burning-man was
last week and area 51 raid is very soon, you gotta step up your game...

