Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!brooks
From: brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Re:  Quantum Mechanics
Message-ID: <740@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 22:44:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.740
Posted: Sat Jul 27 22:44:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 00:59:13 EDT
References: <399@sri-arpa.ARPA> <705@lll-crg.ARPA> <8@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 21

> 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!)
What do you mean by "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.
QFT, to the extent which it can be solved, is regarded to give an accurate
description of everything except gravity.  The comment made above is an analog
of the similar farcical comment, "you can understand all of Chemistry and
Biology by knowing the fundamentals of E&M."   Of course, no one takes such
comments seriously, at least I hope no one did.  The fact that one cant "solve?"
problems in QED using anything other that perterbation theory makes the
possibilities of constructing the field operators for a baseball very remote.