On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.

Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.

--

Rick