Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jeroen Belleman Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Quantum mystics Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:10:29 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <66664233$0$3738373$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:08:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f74b2c313d93f30388b5e90f23423bd"; logging-data="541343"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+D+msb23dh/Ud6jys7Wmon" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:ASK2KYxXB9jf85Y03UO5nCg0Ui0= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <66664233$0$3738373$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> Bytes: 2828 On 6/10/24 02:00, bitrex wrote: > On 6/9/2024 5:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote: > >>> That's hardly usual, or a reason to call him wrong. He won the Nobel >>> Prize just to get free plane tickets. >> >> I'm not quite sure what he has said that annoyed JB - usually any >> popular science programme for a general audience dumbs down quantum >> mechanics to a point where it is completely unrecognisable to >> professional physicists. > > The general public tends to be exceptionally mathematics-averse. Even > many people with advanced degrees in fields outside the hard sciences > tend to be pretty math-averse. I'm not all that math-averse, but a formula is a shorthand notation of some relation, and often it will take some time to parse. If it contains unfamiliar symbols, there is little hope of making sense of it. If someone throws a formula at me that is more than a little involved, I tend to skip over it in the hope that the accompanying text will give me enough context. Formulas are often enlightening. For a long time, I was puzzled by "forces that drop off faster than 1/r^2". How could that be? It turns out the reason is that whatever transmits the influence *decays*. The formula had an extra factor exp(-t/tau) in it. I'd never heard anyone explain it that way. Only the formula made it clear. You'd get the same kind of expression to describe the number of soap bubbles hitting a remote target. If done right, it would even be quantized. But that's not how it's explained. You always hear this mystic "drop off faster than..." phrase. [...] Jeroen Belleman