- #1
- 10,802
- 3,672
Feynman once said something along the lines of that when scientists talk about the history of science its a version handed down to them by their science teachers or from science textbooks. This may not be the same as what a professional historian of science says. As an example of this see the following paper:
https://www3.nd.edu/~dhoward1/Copenhagen Myth A.pdf
I have never understood complimentary personally. But if it's as suggested in the paper actually entanglement, and its just Bohr's well known obscurity that 'hides' his true intent, then I am with Bohr in that I think entanglement is the central, issue, mystery, whatever you want you call it of QM. Its a very common misconception that Einstein did not believe in QM, hated its probabilistic nature, you know all the stuff you read in popular accounts. This of course is false, his views changed over time, and another example of the popular account of the History Of Science being wrong. Fortunately Wikipedia gives a much better account:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr–Einstein_debates
We see here that during Einsteins 4th stage he too had reached the conclusion that what really worries him was what entanglement suggested - realism in the common-sense version does not hold, and because of that QM must be incomplete. I have written before I think all our current best theories eg the Standard Model are incomplete being only valid to about the Plank Scale so is incomplete. Maybe Bohr and Einstein were closer in their views than some think. Bohr wasn't particularly worried about the implications of entanglement, in fact he thought it the central feature of QM. Einstein eventually came around to thinking entanglement was also the central feature - but its implications worried him deeply.
I have a certain mathematical bent in my view of things - for entanglement, even though I have posted it before, I find the following interesting:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0695. It is my personal view on the issue - it's what separates classical from quantum physics. And I do acknowledge some of the very knowledgeable posters on this forum think this information view of QM needs care in understanding it correctly.
Thanks
Bill
https://www3.nd.edu/~dhoward1/Copenhagen Myth A.pdf
I have never understood complimentary personally. But if it's as suggested in the paper actually entanglement, and its just Bohr's well known obscurity that 'hides' his true intent, then I am with Bohr in that I think entanglement is the central, issue, mystery, whatever you want you call it of QM. Its a very common misconception that Einstein did not believe in QM, hated its probabilistic nature, you know all the stuff you read in popular accounts. This of course is false, his views changed over time, and another example of the popular account of the History Of Science being wrong. Fortunately Wikipedia gives a much better account:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr–Einstein_debates
We see here that during Einsteins 4th stage he too had reached the conclusion that what really worries him was what entanglement suggested - realism in the common-sense version does not hold, and because of that QM must be incomplete. I have written before I think all our current best theories eg the Standard Model are incomplete being only valid to about the Plank Scale so is incomplete. Maybe Bohr and Einstein were closer in their views than some think. Bohr wasn't particularly worried about the implications of entanglement, in fact he thought it the central feature of QM. Einstein eventually came around to thinking entanglement was also the central feature - but its implications worried him deeply.
I have a certain mathematical bent in my view of things - for entanglement, even though I have posted it before, I find the following interesting:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0695. It is my personal view on the issue - it's what separates classical from quantum physics. And I do acknowledge some of the very knowledgeable posters on this forum think this information view of QM needs care in understanding it correctly.
Thanks
Bill
Last edited: