Is my understanding of the answers given correct?

[wittgenstein]

OK I typed too fast. I should have said, " Will a simpler explanation suffice. "

For example, Suppose there is a dark room that I cannot see into. I send basketballs into it. They ricochet out of the room. I will not be able to tell both the position and momentum of the objects that they ricocheted off of. That seems analogous to me firing particles in the 2-slit experiment. There is nothing mysterious going on. I do not have to propose multiple universes etc. Why is any extraordinary explanation needed?

 

[wittgenstein]

Ok, other than the popular books, which QM textbook have you tried to study?

OK so I am too stupid to be allowed to ask a question. You obviously have no answer to my question, " Why are extraordinary explanations necessary?" I think the idea of many worlds is very extraordinary, Anyway, you are obviously upset and making this personal. BYE

 

[hutchphd]

My basic question is, is QM actually almost classical except that our influence on the results of an experiment is unavoidable.

No.
Asked and answered.
Next Question Please

 

[fresh_42]

I cannot see that we can come forward here.

• The requested level "A" of an answer contradicts the possible content.
• We do not discuss scientific viewpoints outside our current best knowledge.
• Yes, everybody is allowed to question things. This is how we usually learn: why is formula xyz correct? It makes no sense to question an entire physical branch in order to learn.
• I got the impression that the word classical is misinterpreted as simple in this case.
• My favorite quotation of @phinds kicks in: "To think outside the box, you must know what's in the box."
• The question has basically been answered.
• The question has basically been answered, $1900 \sim 1925$.

This thread is closed.