At 11:34 PM 6/20/04, Amanda Marlowe wrote:
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That's not so true now. We've had 80 years to think about it. While I'm > no expert, I've been thinking about the ramafications of QM for a few years > now....more than I care to admit. :-)
Well, I expect once the quantum revolution is truly underway, we'll never really know what hit us. Some of the things we can do already, like sculpting electron orbitals (however briefly) totally boggles my mind.
> It is valid statement if one equates "understands" with "provides a > realistic explaination of." If one does not require a realistic > philosophy, then understanding comes a lot easier. I tend to like a > Kantiant philsophy as a foundation.
How would you define "understanding" qm then? I've had several classes in qm in my past, and I am pretty sure I don't "understand" it in any way that makes real sense to me. I was once able to solve homework problems and such in qm, but they were more exercises in mathematics to me than any meaningful sort of thing. I could (and probably will have to) give a simplistic description of some of the basic concepts, but don't think I'll ever understand it in the same way I understand, for example, Newton's laws.
Who was it who responded to that type of objection to QM with something like "Just shut up and calculate!", meaning that if it "provides a realistic explanation of" what is observed during experiments in the real world, it doesn't matter if no one understands how it works . . .
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
