(December 8, 2018 at 6:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Nono, I'm not trying to say QM is wrong or champion classic physics explanations or anything. Qm entanglement gives me a hard-on, especially the stuff they did with larger atoms.
I find QM's descriptions of the observer effect, QM entanglement, the quantum eraser and so-on compelling. I was just agreeing with Cherub to the degree that we may not ever have access to that layer of observation which would explain WHY any of that stuff is the way it is. As I said, we can describe it, but we may never really get to look under the hood.
Friends?
That's making an assumption that there even is an "under the hood." I think his point is that you're trying to force a classical paradigm onto quantum phenomena, and it's just inappropriate.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)