|
|
|
|
|
by tbrownaw
349 days ago
|
|
... So it's about not being able to observe short-lived particles directly, and having to work backwards from longer lived interaction or decay products? Or about how those intermediate particles they have to calculate through also have empirically-determined properties? |
|
Entanglement is just a statistical effect in our measurements — we can’t say what is happening or why that occurs. We can calculate that effect because we’ve fitted models, but that’s it.
Similarly, to predict proton collisions, you need to add a bunch of corrective epicycles (“virtual quarks”) to get what we measure out of the basic theory. But adding such corrections is just curve fitting via adding terms in a basis to match measurement. Again, we can’t say what is happening or why that occurs.
We have great approximators that produce accurate and precise results — but we don’t have a model of what and why, hence we don’t understand QM.