|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I feel like this statement is going to get me in trouble.
It is. 
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What I meant is that behavior of particles isn't modeled to the point where we have the types of certainty that we do in other aspects of physics.
You're so right, but for the perfectly wrong reason.
The "other aspects of physics" struggle to get 7 to 10 significant digits (decimal places) in agreement with theoretical values on their best days, in their best labs. QM makes predictions that are accurate to over 35 sig figs. In short the amount of certainty we have that QM is a description of reality is like a million billion billion times more than "other aspects of physics."
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What I'm referring to is the electron probability cloud thing, but I'm aware that there are many other uncertainties in quantum physics as well.
All of which is - amazingly - defined, quantified, and predictable.
Note that you can certainly know the location of any particle to arbitrary precision. However, in so manipulating the wave function (particle), you impart a more and more uncertain amount of momentum to it. Photons are tricksy, with their well-defined momentum, but QM describes the uncertainties in photons, too.
The fact is that uncertainty is the nature of the universe. Or at least, any definitive certainty which underlies the uncertainty manifests as predictable uncertainties, which are equivalent to those described by QM.
This is not in disagreement among physicists.
The misnomer that this kind of uncertainty somehow implies an inability of QM to predict observations is demonstrably false.
***
There are many contested ideas at the cutting edge of physics, but QM uncertainties are not among them.
You'd be better suited to talk about string theorists than QM.
I'd be hard pressed to draw distinctions between the methods and results of string theory vs economics.
|
Reply With Quote