Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Kluwer Academic Publishers eBooks

Nobody Really Understands Quantum Mechanics

Published Dec 19, 2005• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

'Nobody Really Understands Quantum Mechanics' published in 'The Landscape of Theoretical Physics: A Global View'
DOI
10.1007/0-306-47136-1_12

Related papers

Why Are We Obsessed with "Understanding" Quantum Mechanics?

S. P. Boughn

Richard Feynman famously declared, "I think that I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics." Sean Carroll lamented the persistence of this sentiment in a recent opinion piece entitled, "Even Physicists Don't Understand Quantum Mechanics. Worse, they don't seem to want to understand it." Quantum mechanics is arguably the greatest achievement of modern science and by and large we absolutely understand quantum theory. Rather, the "understanding" to which these two statements evidently refer concerns the ontological status of theoretical constructs. For example, "Do quantum wave functions accurately depict physical reality?" The quantum measurement problems represents a collection of such queries and the conundrums to which they lead. Most physicists are content with foregoing such metaphysical issues, falling back on Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, and then get on with the business of doing physics. I suspect that Carroll would criticize these physicists as being too dismissive of the wonderful mysteries of quantum mechanics by relegating its role to that of an algorithm for making predictions. Quite to the contrary, I maintain that those who still pursue a resolution to the measurement problem are burdened with a classical view of reality and fail to truly embrace the fundamental quantum aspects of nature.

arXiv:1912.08090•Jan 1, 2019•1 citation

Review: (1) Quantum Philosophy: Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science; (2) Understanding Quantum Mechanics

James Ladyman

Metascience•Jan 1, 2001•0 citations

Can We Ever Hope to Understand Quantum Mechanics?

Selçuk Ş. Bayın

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2023•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Psychology: A New Field of Cooperation?

Salvatore Matteo Giacomuzzi

We will try to present critically published works on Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Psychology (perhaps more generally regarding the so called social sciences), partly by ourselves (Giacomuzzi, 2008, 2002), in an overview. It is of course impossible to give a complete summary here, but critical points should be emphasized, which perhaps leave a more differentiated view on the problems of "psychological reality". Nowadays QM is “hip” in scientific literature. But common approaches doesn`t take into consideration that physicists already 80 years ago tried to establish a connection between life sciences and physics. But do neuroscientific findings really validate essential psychological basic assumptions? Do they really open up new, interdisciplinary research perspectives? Physics itself today struggles with its theories and we`ve a big gap between on what we experience and on what we really understand. Maybe this gap of understanding our own reality is much bigger than 120 years ago when QM was born by the work of Max Planck.

Psychological Counseling and Psychotherapy•Jan 1, 2020•1 citation

Is Quantum Mechanics a Complete Theory

Masanori Abe

電子情報通信学会誌•Jun 25, 1992•0 citations

Schrödinger and the development of wave mechanics

Robert Golub, S. K. Lamoreaux

Abstract While, as Feynman said, nobody can really understand the origin of the Schrödinger equation, we investigate several lines of thought leading to such an equation. We show some simple applications of the equation. An important application was Schrödinger’s solution for the hydrogen atom. This provided a theoretical basis for Bohr’s ad hoc model. We conclude with Schrödinger’s demonstration of the equivalence of his wave mechanics with Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics.

•Feb 28, 2023•0 citations
Richard Feynman famously declared, "I think that I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics." Sean Carroll lamented the persistence of this sentiment in a recent opinion piece entitled, "Even Physicists Don't Understand Quantum Mechanics. Worse, they don't seem to want to understand it." Quantum mechanics is arguably the greatest achievement of modern science and by and large we absolutely understand quantum theory. Rather, the "understanding" to which these two statements evidently refer concerns the ontological status of theoretical constructs. For example, "Do quantum wave functions accurately depict physical reality?" The quantum measurement problems represents a collection of such queries and the conundrums to which they lead. Most physicists are content with foregoing such metaphysical issues, falling back on Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, and then get on with the business of doing physics. I suspect that Carroll would criticize these physicists as being too dismissive of the wonderful mysteries of quantum mechanics by relegating its role to that of an algorithm for making predictions. Quite to the contrary, I maintain that those who still pursue a resolution to the measurement problem are burdened with a classical view of reality and fail to truly embrace the fundamental quantum aspects of nature.
We will try to present critically published works on Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Psychology (perhaps more generally regarding the so called social sciences), partly by ourselves (Giacomuzzi, 2008, 2002), in an overview. It is of course impossible to give a complete summary here, but critical points should be emphasized, which perhaps leave a more differentiated view on the problems of "psychological reality". Nowadays QM is “hip” in scientific literature. But common approaches doesn`t take into consideration that physicists already 80 years ago tried to establish a connection between life sciences and physics. But do neuroscientific findings really validate essential psychological basic assumptions? Do they really open up new, interdisciplinary research perspectives? Physics itself today struggles with its theories and we`ve a big gap between on what we experience and on what we really understand. Maybe this gap of understanding our own reality is much bigger than 120 years ago when QM was born by the work of Max Planck.