Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re:  Quantum Mechanics
Message-ID: <8@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 00:19:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8
Posted: Fri Jul 19 00:19:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 17:33:47 EDT
References: <399@sri-arpa.ARPA> <705@lll-crg.ARPA>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 23

> > I agree that quantum probability and/or logic clashes with
> > the classical versions.  I hope to have the time to figure
> > out how to resolve this.  Maybe someone could save us some
> > work and explain it?
> 
> The explanation is easy, the classical versions are WRONG!

No, they aren't.  Classical probability theory can for example
be based on counting.  It is defined on a Boolean lattice and
works remarkably well in its domain.  Why is QM a different
case?  (I admit that it's different; I want to know what is
behind the difference!)

> If we started teaching Quantum Field Theory as the first topic
> in physics curricula we could derive all else from "last principles"
> but then no one would be able to learn physics.

Gee, I sure am glad that QFT explains everything.  The books
and papers I read on it did not give me that impression.

No one is trying to stop you working physicists from doing
your thing.  We just want to understand what is going on,
not to memorize what the current theory in vogue is.