>be Dirac>get btfo>erm it’s actually a undiscoverable negative energy electron foam that only I can see
because QM is perhaps the most successful set of physical theories ever conceived
>>16866934Because it matches experimental data. Anons like you have no idea how science works lol.
>>16866939>most successful set of physical theoriesHow many theories 'QM' entails?
>>16866934>less than half a decade later>undiscoverable negative energy electron foam is discovered
>>16867001NTA>non-relativistic quantum mechanics (Schrödinger/Heisenberg time evolution)>relativistic quantum mechanics aka quantum field theory>btw non-relativistic QM can be derived from QFT via the Wigner-Inonu contraction of the Lorentz group to the Galilean group>various Lagrangians in QFT are colloquially called “theories” by physicists even though they should be more appropriately called models>Yukawa theory, Fermi theory, the Standard Model are examples of such theories
>>16867007ty, good post
>>16866934He was right btw.
OP's knowledge of physics begins and ends with rolling a ball down an incline in elementary.
>>16867763
>>16866934He has an equation named after him that is chiseled into the walls of Westminster Abbey.You're an idiot kike. See the difference?
>>16866934Freeman Dyson described Paul Dirac's great discoveries as "like exquisitely carved marble statues falling out of the sky".Lets see your work OP :)
Not a quantum physicist but I watched Veritassium on this topic, so I consider myself completely competent to ask a bunch of questions.1. There's no charge in the resulting constants for "negative electron". How the fuck they explain that it has different charge and not some other variable? Like, negative mass, dunno. I would agree that a "hole" in semiconductor could be considered as a quaziparticle with negative energy. But with positron it's not obvious at all. They just discovered a particle and used it to plug a hole in the theory.2. Why did Dirac stoppeed with 4x4 matrices? Did anyone tried to find a solution in higher dimensions?3. What's wrong with those batshit interpretations? > Positron with negative energyWTF, dude?!> No, positron has positive energy but moves backwards in time?!?!?Why no one is frustrated and didn't try to come with something more reasonable?> let's allow particle travel back in time, because meh muh formula must be butifull uuuǝǝǝǝǝIf they value beauty in formulas, why wouldn't they continue working to find beauty in the whole theory?
>>16869205>Not a quantum physicist but I watched Veritassium on this topic
The foundational premise that it is all built upon is inaccurate
>>16867001>How many theories 'QM' entails?Least tree-fiddy. Maybe more.
>>16869036>He has an equation named after him that is chiseled into the walls of Westminster Abbey. >>16869039>Freeman Dyson described Paul Dirac's great discoveries as "like exquisitely carved marble statues falling out of the sky". Kek.
>>16869396>so I consider myself completely competent to ask a bunch of questions. He is not wrong, Anon.
>>16869422>i no understandingAnd with a poof, you are not.
>>16866934>Why do people take quantum physicists seriouslydawg you literally used a fucking semiconductor device to make this thread2/10 b8
>>16866934Get a real job sabine
>>16866934the most correct model is an unwieldy and complex one, because that's how reality turns out always. we don't use unwieldy and complex models for other reasons unrelated to truth. this completely flies in the face of this ancient greek pseudo-mysticism mathematics ideology. this is obvious when you do any empiricism that isn't selecting and isolating the result/interpretation you want.
>>16869435physicists have nothing to do with that
>>16870273you cant explain electron behavior in semiconductors to the level necessary to make a cell phone or laptop work without quantum mechanics. fuck right off with your GED, neet.
>>16869431Again, I ask you to share your work.
>>16870405You wouldn't get it. It's ink on paper.
>>16866939Classical mechanics are still by far the most relevant theory for human application.
>>16866934Isn't this just a statement of Occam's Razor?
>>16866934>Dirac>BTFOPick one. LOL!
>>16866934This nigga was so 'tistic even other math autists was like DAAAYUM this nigga is 'tistic.Also, taught at my alma mater where we have a science library named after him to this day. He was a genuinely strange bird, but all accounts, but an amazing mathematician. Most other mathematicians and engineers also follow this same basic sentiment that if a theorem doesn't seem "elegant" or "beautiful", then it's most likely not the best answer. It's the same way a bird of prey just "looks right" for its job, even if you don't know the physics that explain it, per se. Same in music. There are many ways to "play a song", but the Masters find ways to do it that are smoother, slicker and more subtle than the rest.
>>16870407It's so real, it's not real....Very """quantum""" ;>)
>>16866934Reminder that nobody set out to make quantum mechanics "weird", it's just math that describes experimental observation. The "weirdness" comes from critics pointing out that technically the math also predicts shit that appears crazy under some scenarios, and later experiments confirming that said crazy shit does consistently happen no matter how you measure it.
