I'm with Einstein on this one. The statistical math we use in quantum mechanics is not "real", it's an human invention to approximate something that we don't understand yet. Id est, a mathematical model that approximates, but does not describe the real truth about the physical universe.
do you mind explaining Bell's inequality? i looked up the wikipedia but it is very wordy and has a lot of equations; i need it stripped of Ponderousness as Scott Aaronson did in this piece
While it is not a really hard thing to understand, requiring only high school math, writing it out entirely here is going to be a bit laborious.
I can really recommend this book: "Dance of the Photons: From Einstein to Quantum Teleportation" by Anton Zeilinger. I read it when I was 16 and it's easy to read, but might shake to the foundations your understanding of the universe (as it did with mine). It clearly lays out why the position you take in your post is hard to maintain given some very simple experiments, even though your position looks so intuitive.
Math and equations don't have to reflect reality, but you are missing the point. The problem is with the very real experimental result of QM. Whichever theory or interpretation you come up to explain it, it won't make it any less weird.
> The statistical math we use in quantum mechanics is not "real", it's an human invention to approximate something that we don't understand yet.
What does it mean to understand something?
You could argue understanding is just as much a human invention as math is.
"Reality" (if there is such a thing) is independent of anything the human mind comes up with (whether that's understanding, math, or something else).... or is it?
Doesn’t that apply to all models used by physics, though? All of it is “with what we know right now”. New measurements and new experiments can always modify a constant or an equation.
