No, just abelian groups, or, more precisely, a field distributed over an abelian group.
Which deal with symmetries......
I'd say both of us understand it much less than the experts, which is not at all.....
Quantum mechanics - Wikiquote
Even the quantum engineers know the truth about it....
"I hesitated to think it might be wrong, but I knew that it was rotten. That is to say, one has to find some decent way of expressing whatever truth there is in it.
- John S. Bell, quoted in Jeremy Bernstein, Quantum Profiles (1991), John Stewart Bell: Quantum Engineer
The entire universe must, on a very accurate level, be regarded as a single indivisible unit in which separate parts appear as idealisations permissible only on a classical level of accuracy of description. This means that the view of the world being analogous to a huge machine, the predominant view from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, is now shown to be only approximately correct. The underlying structure of matter, however, is not mechanical. This means that the term "quantum mechanics" is very much a misnomer. It should, perhaps, be called "quantum nonmechanics".
- David Bohm, Quantum Theory (1951)
But then if you accept it as truth, then you must give up your belief that we can predict a unique past event, therefore surrender your fabled Big Bang.
Quantum mechanics is clearly superior to classical mechanics for the description of microscopic phenomena, and in principle works equally well for macroscopic phenomena. Hence it is at least plausible that the mathematical and logical structure of quantum mechanics better reflect physical reality than do their classical counter parts. If this reasoning is accepted, quantum theory requires various changes in our view of physical reality relative to what was widely accepted before the quantum era, among them the following:
1. Physical objects never possess a completely precise position or momentum.
2. The fundamental dynamical laws of physics are stochastic and not deterministic, so
from the present state of the world one cannot infer a unique future (
or past) course of events.
3. The principle of unicity does not hold: there is not a unique exhaustive description of a physical system or a physical process. Instead, reality is such that it can be described in various alternative, incompatible ways, using descriptions which cannot be combined or compared.
So for every description you use, an alternative incompatible way is just as valid....
So let us discuss your views of quantum mechanics and what you believe to be reality..... this should be an entertaining pastime as you attempt to uphold your views which can not be upheld as no single deterministic viewpoint (future or past) is valid....
