[beloch]

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

--Richard Feynman

You're far from alone. Quantum physics is tricky because it frequently doesn't agree with our physical intuition. Humans are used to dealing with macroscopic objects. They surround us for our whole lives. Matter behaves in surprisingly different ways at the level of single quanta. Seemingly impossible things flop out of the math and then clever experiments show that reality is consistent with the math, but we struggle to reach the point where that reality feels correct. When we try to translate the math into human language, we often wind up overloading words and concepts in a way that can be misleading or even false.

Perhaps we just haven't reached the point where things are sufficiently well explained and simplified, but it may be be that quantum physics will always seem strange and counter-intuitive.

[sampo]

> Quantum physics is tricky because it frequently doesn't agree with our physical intuition.

Quantum physics tricky for two separate reasons.

(i) The mathematical theory (Schrödinger equation, wave function, operators, probabilities) is solid and well-defined, but may feel unintuitive, as you say.

(ii) But quantum mechanics is also an incomplete theory. Even if you learn to be at peace with the unintuitive aspects of the mathematical theory, the measurement problem remains an unsolved problem.

"The Schrödinger equation describes quantum systems but does not describe their measurement."

"Quantum theory offers no dynamical description of the "collapse" of the wave function"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse#The_mea...

[tbrownaw]

> is solid and well-defined, but may feel unintuitive

I'm thinking that the nature of intuition is about training your neurons to approximate stuff without needing to detour through conscious calculation.

And QM is in too high of a complexity class for this to be a thing.

[itemize123]

it's not complexity but lack of training data right

[blueprint]

Feynman, a famous man from an older era who tried to inspire, remind, and spur people...

> macroscopic objects

It's not about scale at all though. It's just that small systems tend to be observed with this other, specific property that we associate with causing "quantum" like effects. Not only do those effects happen at mesoscopic scale but aside from gravity, quantum theory already can be and is used to describe things on large scales too. Classical computers and desks are still "quantum" systems. Recently theory and experiments have developed to connect with gravity in many ways. I'm more confused when people say something is mysterious. They're usually referring to apparent randomness but I think even that is explained already with partitions or even just wave math (complementarity).

[dwd]

I like that quote.

I always fell back on "Spooky action at a distance"; If Einstein found it weird, I shouldn't feel that bad if I can't quite make sense of it.