Does anyone ACTUALLY understand quantum mechanics?

does anyone have the image macro of Feynman saying that you don't understand quantum mechanics, and that he understands quantum mechanics (and everyone who says otherwise is a fucking liar)?

...

>meme erasers
separation fallacy spreaders fuaaark offfff

thanks fampai

No, and if you think you do it only shows that you don't.
:^)

Kek

State vectors exist in a configuration space that isn't physical. In that sense, you can't really understand it in the same way you can understand classical mechanics.

my BBC does

its in and out of yo girl all at the same time.

Yes, I alone out of all humans understand QM.
It doesn't make a difference if you do understand it. Everybody thinks you're crazy.
Protip: The future already exists.

>denying solid theory backed by experimental observation

>backed by experimental observation
You're deluded. Classic non retrocausal calculations will give you the exact same experimental result. No need for spoopy backward-travelling causes.
You've been memed on boi.

can't laymen the feynman

I feel bad for you.

You clearly haven't thought hard enough about it lad.
Try to wrap your brain around Ellerman paper and come back.

Can someone explain to me how superposition is not "it already is in a state we just don't know it"?

>it already is in a state we just don't know it"

That is 'hidden variables', you can do it but then you end up on 'non-locality', which doesn't make any more sense classically.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

I actually understand the universe, photons are a 90 degree angled dipole with a positive and negative component spinning along an axis 45 degrees to both other axis (not down the centre), electrons are a photon with one axis rotational speed removed, neutrinos with the other removed, and quarks are photons with a rotational axis between the two posts and negative axis, all matter/antimatter (opposite rotational spin) and dark matter (matter formed from neutrinos and antiquarks) interacting to form the super deterministic universe we live in, sending messages through time is possible and travel through time is possible on the concept of time space between measurements of entangled particles, teleportation also possible,

Currently modelling in C, had success with basic atoms, still working on it, although I believe that this has already been done In the past and the idea of quantum wave functions were deliberately used to obscure the real workings of the universe, I'm expecting someone with time travel capabilities to knock on my door one day and kill me

Can we talk about how much I hate the Bohm-De Broglie interpretation?

>determinist mental gymnastics

Man the cognitive dissonance is real. It would be funny if QM wasn't the most accurate model in science, by a mile. Imagine if all that energy were diverted into furthering the field instead of retarding it by trying to shoehorn it into classical realist mindset.

yes i do op, i wrote a paper on it

Yeah for some reason it's a big warning sign for "I'm a popsci fag who wants to look sophisticated".

Anyone who actually use QM quickly realizes how fucking unwieldy this abomination is.

Casualfag here, did the pilot wave idea lead to anything? Seemed like a sensible alternative to the particle-wave duality.

>did the pilot wave idea lead to anything
Nah
The whole field of interpretation of QM has led to spectacularly nothing so far, not even theoretically, except for some extremely far-out cosmological speculations.

>>did the pilot wave idea lead to anything
>Nah
>The whole field of interpretation of QM has led to spectacularly nothing so far, not even theoretically, except for some extremely far-out cosmological speculations.
Pretty much this. This is why you should always develop the justification for your jiggling of the formulas in tandem instead of just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks for decades.

Does that mean it was shown wrong, or just a meaningless distinction? I liked having something I could almost visualize.

The latter. All the "big contenders" in QM interpretation pretty much fail to do different predictions.

>I liked having something I could almost visualize.
Sure, it's useful, but quite frankly the pilot wave is not a very good visualization tool. It only leads to confusion as soon as you encounter a difficult case.

True visualization of quantum mechanics is better achieved by representing any physical quantum state as a dot on the surface of the Bloch sphere.

See that vid for a picture of what I'm talking about:
youtube.com/watch?v=Tk4MsAfC8vE
Ignore their claims about the interpretation itself, in fact I do find it a bit crackpoty, but the picture is very nice and clear.

your wrong

>it just werks

This is a great way of putting it.

The most important advance in our understanding of quantum mechanics in the last few decades is that it's about [math]\textit{information}[/math]. I conjecture (and I'm not the only one) that understanding QM in terms of information will lead to eventually resolving its interpretation. There have been plenty of results along these lines already.

>results
Name some that Bohr or Heisenberg couldn't have found by gedanken with their knowledge of QM back in the day.

Usually these results take the form of "we can derive QM from these axioms about information, and we at least understand what they *mean* (or most of them mean) if not necessarily why they have to be true." So they aren't experimental results but "intuitive results." Probably the most high-profile attempt is by Hardy: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012. For the most part he sticks to things that are pretty easy to interpret (doing experiments, probabilities, etc.).

Yes, plenty of people do. Some people just have psychological hangups about quantum mechanics and invent things like Bohmian mechanics to try to make quantum mechanics like classical mechanics, or many-worlds theory, or interpret experiments in bizarre ways because they feel uneasy about superposition or whatever.

Also - these axioms are generally for finite-dimensional QM (and same with all the nice categorical frameworks that have cropped up). It's an open question whether that means it's somehow "more real" than infinite-dimensional QM. Scott Aaronson has proposed that it's the "true" version somehow. I don't know enough about infinite-dimensional QM to make a judgment on that.

Bell's theorem.

>Does anyone ACTUALLY understand quantum mechanics?

Yes.

Humans cannot understand anything, we can just see patterns and believe they are repeated.

this

probably like two or three people

Define "understand." Then see if that definition holds up even under your "understanding" of classical mechanics.

In otherwise this whole "hurr u cnt no nuthin qm is so wacky wooooo" is just one big popsci meme

tl;dr