I hear you. Unfortunately, I can’t put as much work into this as I did for the intuitive explanation of Bayes’s Theorem, plus the subject matter is inherently more complicated.
Feynman’s QED uses little arrows in 2D space instead of complex numbers (the two are equivalent). And if I had the time and space, I’d draw different visual diagrams for each configuration, and show the amplitude flowing from one to another...
But QM is also inherently more complicated than Bayes’s Theorem, and takes more effort; plus I’m trying to explain it in less time… I’m not figuring that all readers will be able to follow, I’m afraid, just hoping that some of them will be.
If the problem is not that QM is confusing but that you can’t follow what is being said at all, you probably want to be reading Richard Feynman’s QED instead.
Dan, Emmett,
I hear you. Unfortunately, I can’t put as much work into this as I did for the intuitive explanation of Bayes’s Theorem, plus the subject matter is inherently more complicated.
Feynman’s QED uses little arrows in 2D space instead of complex numbers (the two are equivalent). And if I had the time and space, I’d draw different visual diagrams for each configuration, and show the amplitude flowing from one to another...
But QM is also inherently more complicated than Bayes’s Theorem, and takes more effort; plus I’m trying to explain it in less time… I’m not figuring that all readers will be able to follow, I’m afraid, just hoping that some of them will be.
If the problem is not that QM is confusing but that you can’t follow what is being said at all, you probably want to be reading Richard Feynman’s QED instead.