Do you think quantum mechanics accurately represents the workings of the universe?

I think it’s really great!

Isn’t this sort of like asking for an opinion of gravity?

Even though it doesn’t always work in my favor, I think it’s an excellent idea.

Clearly, it is both great and terrible at the same time.

I’m more likely to believe in the principles and theories behind quantum physics than I am in the Bible.

What do you really want to know?

The books I have on the subject are, I’m pretty sure, written in Farsi.

I have nothing close to a mathematical brain. Fascinating stuff though.

I think quantum physics is fabulous and awful at_the_same_time !

It’s confusing but when people know how to dumb it down a few notches it can be fascinating!

What are you asking, exactly?

@elbanditoroso what type of theories and principles have you read about that helps you understand?
@syz just asking really, I’ve heard allot about it over the years looking to get a clearer understanding?

Then perhaps you should ask something more specific, like “Can you explain quantum physics to me?” or whatever component you’re having difficulty with.

Well, it explains a lot…

Quantum physics gets along very well without my opinion.

If it were a matter of opinion I would be of the opinion the quantum physics should be easier to understand.

Quantum physics is about randomness. I think we may be more deterministic, Einstein would agree… (God does not play dice) , Bohr would tell us both to stop telling God what to do.

Why don’t we ask Schrödinger’s Cat!

@ARE_you_kidding_me, I didn’t think it was as much about randomness as it is about probability.

My opinion of Quantum Physics? I like it, because I like weird stuff in general, like weird not following the ”i before e except after c or when followed by a as in n_ei_ghbor. And the quantum world is truly weird.

@ARE_you_kidding_me That quote is pathetically out of date now, and invoking Einstein’s name may be an attempt at an appeal to authority fallacy, but one doomed to fail as Einstein’s “common sense” objections to quantum mechanics are just as faulty as the average person’s common sense is when applied to phenomena at the sub-atomic level. That’s what lead Richard Feynman to say, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

It needs a better cheering squad…more pompoms and navel rhinestones and fewer arcane tracks in bubble chambers.

Without it, no fluther.

Here is my theory. Intelligent life could only evolve in a world where the laws of quantum physics reduced to Newtonian physics at normal interaction distances. Imagine what it would be like if you were in one place at one instant and then suddenly several feet away in the next instant..

What is the question? The answer is not far behind.

The problem with quantum mechanics is they never finish when they say they will.

Yes, it’s a pretty good explanation of how things work. The difficulty is that it is really hard to completely understand, but then the universe is not a simple subject. It’s the intellectual arrogance of man that the universe can be reduced to just a few sentences.

As helpful as it is in explaining things at the atomic level, I think it is inadequate as a general theory to explain the universe as we know it and will be less adequate as our knowledge of the universe extends beyond our solar system. There is so much we don’t know that it would be foolish and arrogant to claim that any of our theoretical models will prove sufficient to be a good theory of everything.

I’m fascinated by the theory of quantum physics but always haunted by the suspicion—no, make that belief—that there are greater powers out there laughing their asses off for thinking we could ever comprehend how the universe works.

We can’t even figure out how to avoid a government shutdown.

there is no actual evidence, scientiist do changes minds every 4 years, human intellectuality is limited, but creator our GOD knows , He has an answer

@kbgenesis Since human intelligence is so limited, how do you so confidently assert you know the answer to all?

Objectivity exists only in subjective observation.

^ I may not know much about quantum mechanics but I know that much is true.

@Yetanotheruser You realize, don’t you, that your assertion suffers the same fatal flaw that @kbgenesis‘s does. If you are right, then you cannot know that you are right.

In fact, solipsism is impossible to disprove, but useless to believe in. I choose to believe there is objective truth because that lets me make things work.

@zenvelo Indeed, those lousy estimates !

Since the question has been edited into something very different from it’s original (“What’s your opinion about quantum mechanics?”), I’d answer that yes, quantum mechanics seems to be the only useful tool we have to describe some real phenomena.

Most of quantum mechanics has no experimental verification at all, it’s simply very difficult to produce the conditions and measure the effects of processes at a quantum mechanical level. That doesn’t mean those aspects of quantum mechanics are wrong (or right), and no real scientist is pretending quantum mechanics has “all the answers” or even that it does a great job of explaining things. But it’s the only tool in the kit for some kinds of science.
And whenever we do have experimental information at those levels, it seems to fit with quantum mechanical models.

@ETpro you make it sound as if objective truth and solipsism were incompatible.

@ninjacolin Yes, I do, don’t I?

I used to think that too but then I realized that objective truth remains the same whether I’m the solipsist or not. For example, you’re still the super smart guy named @ETpro regardless of whether you’re a character in my solipsistic world or a character in some sort of (highly unlikely) non-solipsistic world. I don’t have any more or less objectivity in my observations whether I’m the solipsist or not. My experience remains as subjective as ever and there are in both worlds, apparently, objective-seeming laws and facts beyond my control.

Then Occam’s Razor dictates that you choose the non-solipsistic explanation. If something appears to have a separate reality and behaves in ways that you are unable to predict, why not just assume that it does have a separate reality.

Well, the dictates of Occam’s Razor depend on which answer actually is the simplest. And it is a simple thing, isn’t it, to have just one real story going on in a world where there are no peers available to verify your test results.