Plyfischer:
Danny Bloem
Even the probability function is QM have time and space properties in them, so does that not say the opposite?That is exactly the problem I wanted to make clear in this thread.
The main fault the present QM-scientists make, is that they are insisting on probability functions (including time and space; and "points in time" etc.) to explain and teach the QM-theory. In this way they make the QM-phenomenons extremely complicated to describe and calculate them. There are other - much more easier - possibilities do describe them. Probably, there are indeed relatively simple concepts to formulate a so-called TOE (theory of everything) - but it maybe would destroy the present philosophical mainstream, and for this reason -> that which must not, can not be...
I know thet are extremely difficult to calculate them. Even when using symplifications like bra's, kets and einstein conventions, they are long and difficult formulae. (I hated them sometimes)
I really would not know how you could write or formulate them differently, without losing it's implications.
Most QM scientists and students do not have a lot of feeling or time for the philosopical issues surrounding QM. They, in fact, hardly ever think of the reality behind the formula's.
I would like to have some simplifications here. If you have good suggestions, yu can make a lot of students happy.....
Danny