As I said earlier, much of what passes for current quantum physics and its tedious plethora of particles does no more than cloud the larger picture. The philosophical one. But I realize that it is science's job, by definition, to plod from step to tiny step to qualify, quantify and "prove" by repeatability of result. It won't be too long, though, before science will be compelled to realize by verifiable results that things are very different elsewhere - especially in the realm of causality. Sooner or later they'll get there. And I'll be waiting for them.
Seems to me that in the last 40 years I've seen physics do a fair job of eating philosophies lunch. Personally I think they, the philosophers, are paying the sin of Aristotle’s disdain of empiricism. He thought it was beneath a thinker to get his hands dirty. But I digress.
Fact: Quantum mechanics divides into two parts
….1. Equations derived directly from measurements taken in the real world.
….2. A set of competing interpretations that each use the same set of equations in 1 to describe the “real” world.
The stuff that makes most people think QM is liberal craziness is limited to the second part. As for the equations, they are transforming the world before our eyes. A discussion of the interpretations is beyond … well just beyond.
“An interpretation of quantum mechanics
is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics
informs our understanding
. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic
, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters.
This question is of special interest to philosophers of physics
, as physicists continue to show a strong interest in the subject. They usually consider an interpretation of quantum mechanics as an interpretation of the mathematical formalism
of quantum mechanics, specifying the physical meaning of the mathematical entities of the theory.”
I would also note that string theory tidies up the zoo of subatomic particles. Still the crux of the problem is the assumption that the larger picture will be painted in the language of philosophy rather than the language of mathematical models. Here each can have their own guess, but no more.
I feel as though you misunderstand. I'm not attempting to convince you, much less prove
my hypothesis. As I've said (tediously) before, I'll leave that to the physicists and mathematicians - or not, as they see fit; although I am
grateful for your lucid explanation of scientific method and how physicists interpret quantum mechanics. Philosophy and Physics are simply the two ends of the same stick. It will be found that the stick cannot be explained by only one of its ends. While I won't permit you to eat my lunch, I am happy enough to share it with you.
My universe (or multiverse, if you wish) has 3 simple parts: existons, gravity and proximity. 1 primary part and 2 secondary parts that are the necessary byproduct of the first. An object, a mover and a causer. All possible events or constructs are derived from these. Simplicity itself - and elegant. I can't prove it - but you can't refute it.
Clearly my starting point is the ultimate end
point of physics - the other end of the rainbow, if you will. I'm working backwards. To attempt to explain this viewpoint empirically with the tools currently available to physics is, of course, ludicrous. Those tools don't exist yet (well, they do, but nobody's recognized 'em as yet - too many trees, too much "static" generated by too many side trips, red herrings and dead ends. Can't blame 'em for following each one though, after all, one has to make a career of something -
and at least dead ends, red herrings et al
are eventually found to be just that.
Much of what has been discovered as of today would appear to be the sheerest fantasy to Newton or Leibniz - bullshit cut from whole cloth.
If I could find it or was inclined to post pictures, I'd post that picture of the bunny with a pancake on its head (sans
snarky caption) as a perfect illustration of my viewpoint.