Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 05:05:53 UTC No. 16276920

>>16276877
yeah this is called a "hidden variable theory" and it's not a new idea sorry

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:09:29 UTC No. 16276967

>>16276877
quantum mechanics is not random

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:23:34 UTC No. 16276974

>>16276967
how so
wave functions only predict probability

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:28:34 UTC No. 16276978

>>16276920
But couldn't you perform experiments to suss out the nature of the pseudorandomness?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:10:45 UTC No. 16277015

>>16276978
in theory
we would need to run enormous amount of perfectly identicall experiments over an indeterminate time and look for patterns in distribution of results

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:13:25 UTC No. 16277016

>>16276877
I know, me and Eve

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:49:48 UTC No. 16277081

>>16276877
what if the structure is immediately obvious when the hypervisor hits a NOP sled?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:06:36 UTC No. 16277094

>>16276877
>What if
It is: the wave function is deterministic.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:07:22 UTC No. 16277097

>>16277015
Seems doable considering the scale and expense of other attempts to look for new physics (LHC). It could probably even be done at tabletop energies, making it cheap. Who do I email to tell them to get to it?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:34:48 UTC No. 16277174

>>16276877
There was a guy at Columbia named Frederick Kantor that believed this. He wrote a book Information Theory that outlines it.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:59:20 UTC No. 16277855

>>16277174
Why has it never gained more traction if it's more easily testable than the current leading theories?

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:02:14 UTC No. 16278766

>>16276974
what is cummulative probability

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:29:44 UTC No. 16279011

>>16278766
what is its derivative

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:35:05 UTC No. 16279019

>>16277081
Anthracite is quite shiny sometimes, bituminous would be a better analogy.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:25:10 UTC No. 16280033

>>16279011
What about it? Look at the CDF for a little bit and realize what you see. What it implies about the PDF at any individual point of the distribution as more "time" passes. This is physics, not mathematics, there are boundary conditions everywhere.

On another note that might help you, consider oscillator systems. If you can only measure the extension of the spring at random intervals and you interpolate a function of its movement based on those measurements, is the extension of the spring "random"? Of course not, it is simply described by your model.
Physics is incomprehensible from a purely mathematical perspective, because you need to establish boundary conditions and and determine the meaning of what you are interested in.

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:33:25 UTC No. 16280040

>>16276877
>>16277081
>>16279019

What if Sleepy Joe only pretends to be old and retarded, but he's really a genius who discovered an anti-aging elixir and wears a silicone mask to troll everyone Keyser Söze style?