augeri@raynal.DEC (Mike Augeri) (06/21/85)
With regard to my comments on intuition and aesthetics in physics Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA> says: > Intuition and aesthetics give rise to hypotheses and agreement with experiment > is the bottom line. No agreement, no sale; revise intuition and aesthetic > sense. I never said that we should accept theories that are in conflict with experiment in order to satisfy our intuition or aesthetic sense. What I said is that a good a theory will agree completely with experiment as well as, hopefully, appeal to both our intuition and aesthetic sense. I also think that without either, you probably wouldn't have any theories at all. Therefore, in my opinion, intuition and aesthetics are crucial to physics. Now I'll step out on a limb. It is my opinion that one of the reasons that quantum theory is resisted by so many people (not necessarily physicists, but many of them also resist) is that it does not appeal to our intuition. In fact, some of the ideas are so far removed from our everyday experience that they seem to belong more in the realm of religion, philosophy or mysticism than physics. A case in point is the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. I am not trying to say that quantum physics is wrong. What I am saying is that we need someone that can formulate a quantum theory that agrees completely with experiment and also appeals to our sense of intuition. Now it is quite possible that we may have to somehow modify our intuition, but I have no idea how you would do that. Does anyone have any idea how our sense of intuition is developed? It must start with our earliest learning experiences, if not sooner. The last is not meant to be a joke. My idea here is that our intuitive ability might be tied in to our evolution. If so, it could be a long time before most of humanity understands quantum theory. Mike Augeri (DEC, Maynard, MA, USA)
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (06/22/85)
> I am not trying to say that quantum physics is wrong. What I am saying is > that we need someone that can formulate a quantum theory that agrees > completely with experiment and also appeals to our sense of intuition. > Now it is quite possible that we may have to somehow modify our intuition, > but I have no idea how you would do that. Does anyone have any idea how > our sense of intuition is developed? It must start with our earliest > learning experiences, if not sooner. The last is not meant to be a joke. The development of intuition does indeed start with your earliest learning experiences. To say that it starts earlier is going a little too far out on that limb. Unfortunately we live in an everyday world that corresponds to the classical limit of QM. If our eyes were just a little more sensitive the average person would be able to see some consequences of QM every night. It is interesting to consider what this would have done for the development of QM. Just as the development of intuition for classical physics requires a past experience of living in a world that is adequately described by classical mechanics the development of intuition for QM requires living in a world that requires QM for a correct description. The average person simply never gets this experience. The physicist working in an area of modern physics does, and develops the required intuition. We don't need to develop a formulation of quantum theory that agrees to a classical sense of intuition. The person who wants to understand QM needs to live in the QM world for a while to develop the required intuition for that world.
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (06/27/85)
Mike Augeri notes: > I am not trying to say that quantum physics is wrong. What I am saying is > that we need someone that can formulate a quantum theory that agrees > completely with experiment and also appeals to our sense of intuition. I.e., the problem with QM is PR? -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary