Quantum Mechanics: Explained for a Novice

[FabioF]

... a small addition to the discussion ...

Hi,
the main problem physicists have in front of them is NOT to explain "why" things happens, but "how" they do. In this sense, having a perfectly working, purely probabilistic theory to explain the behaviour of electrons, or whatever, should be just enough for a physicist.
Tring to find some hidden reason behind that thery or, even worst, behind its mathematical representation (which is basically the most convenient tool to expose the theory using a shared language), it's matter of philosophy, not physics.
I think this discussion'd better placed in www.phylosophyforums.com[/URL] :)
What do you think?
bye
Fabio

 

[selfAdjoint]

Like it or not, interpretation is one of the things physicists do. "Shut up and calculate" is good advice but it only works as long as you are calculating. Many physicists - and some of the best of them - concern themselves with questions of interpretation, and we can't just delegate that job to the physicsits.

What I wish is that somebody would lay out the consistent histories approach, not the dumbed down version for the public but the one with the details that impresses some of the finest minds in physics.

 

[steersman]

FabioF:

I know for a fact that the questions I'm asking can be answered by the "how" branch i.e. science. I'm not interested in interpretations so much as I'm interested in the facts that lead to problems that lead to interpretations. I'm all for sticking to the facts until I can understand them.

Just on a side note, there is no branch of thinking that can adequately deal with the "why", not even philosophy - unless you completely discount causality.