Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
2 Correct typo
source | link

Possibly this is just a different way of making the same points Nathaniel alluded to in his comment.

A physical theory is just a mathematical model. When constructing the theory we devise some mathematical model, compare it with experiment, and if our model predicts the correct results we announce it to the world. If our model fails to match observations we go back to the blackboard and try a different mathematical model. For example, both general relativity and QM are just mathematical models that describe the world well enough to have earned the status of theories.

However some mathematical models feel more natural than others. General relativity is an often quoted example because the assumptions at its core seem to be minimal and elegant. By constrast the mathematical model that is quantum mechanics feels somewhat contrived and unnatural.

People respond to this in different ways. Most of us don't care as long as it works (wchichwhich it does!). Some regard the apparent unnaturalness of QM as a failure on our part and a naive attempt to impose our limited understanding on the world. However some believe that a more natural mathematical model to describe QM must exist and that we will one day discover it. This is the motivation for regarding QM as an effective theory.

Possibly this is just a different way of making the same points Nathaniel alluded to in his comment.

A physical theory is just a mathematical model. When constructing the theory we devise some mathematical model, compare it with experiment, and if our model predicts the correct results we announce it to the world. If our model fails to match observations we go back to the blackboard and try a different mathematical model. For example, both general relativity and QM are just mathematical models that describe the world well enough to have earned the status of theories.

However some mathematical models feel more natural than others. General relativity is an often quoted example because the assumptions at its core seem to be minimal and elegant. By constrast the mathematical model that is quantum mechanics feels somewhat contrived and unnatural.

People respond to this in different ways. Most of us don't care as long as it works (wchich it does!). Some regard the apparent unnaturalness of QM as a failure on our part and a naive attempt to impose our limited understanding on the world. However some believe that a more natural mathematical model to describe QM must exist and that we will one day discover it. This is the motivation for regarding QM as an effective theory.

Possibly this is just a different way of making the same points Nathaniel alluded to in his comment.

A physical theory is just a mathematical model. When constructing the theory we devise some mathematical model, compare it with experiment, and if our model predicts the correct results we announce it to the world. If our model fails to match observations we go back to the blackboard and try a different mathematical model. For example, both general relativity and QM are just mathematical models that describe the world well enough to have earned the status of theories.

However some mathematical models feel more natural than others. General relativity is an often quoted example because the assumptions at its core seem to be minimal and elegant. By constrast the mathematical model that is quantum mechanics feels somewhat contrived and unnatural.

People respond to this in different ways. Most of us don't care as long as it works (which it does!). Some regard the apparent unnaturalness of QM as a failure on our part and a naive attempt to impose our limited understanding on the world. However some believe that a more natural mathematical model to describe QM must exist and that we will one day discover it. This is the motivation for regarding QM as an effective theory.

1
source | link

Possibly this is just a different way of making the same points Nathaniel alluded to in his comment.

A physical theory is just a mathematical model. When constructing the theory we devise some mathematical model, compare it with experiment, and if our model predicts the correct results we announce it to the world. If our model fails to match observations we go back to the blackboard and try a different mathematical model. For example, both general relativity and QM are just mathematical models that describe the world well enough to have earned the status of theories.

However some mathematical models feel more natural than others. General relativity is an often quoted example because the assumptions at its core seem to be minimal and elegant. By constrast the mathematical model that is quantum mechanics feels somewhat contrived and unnatural.

People respond to this in different ways. Most of us don't care as long as it works (wchich it does!). Some regard the apparent unnaturalness of QM as a failure on our part and a naive attempt to impose our limited understanding on the world. However some believe that a more natural mathematical model to describe QM must exist and that we will one day discover it. This is the motivation for regarding QM as an effective theory.