2026-03-05 08:57 UTC
@lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place @TheBreadmonkey@beige.party
That doesn't sound wrong.
I'm irritated: irritated that despite that Feynman could state it so easily in 1966 (and Bell showed that it (Copenhagen) had to be right with Bell's inequality), much of the "popular" intros to QM get all tangled up in silliness.
And the silliness is because (a) we can't see the wave function, (b) the wave function is infinite in extent, and (c) the wave function collapses to a discrete event _instantly_.
And physicists don't like that.
Replies (1)
-
@lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place 2026-03-05 08:57
@djl@mastodon.mit.edu @TheBreadmonkey@beige.party how do you like TIQM? as a programmer, it made the most sense to me