🧵 Quantum nonsense
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:57:30 UTC No. 16291308
Scientists themselves are the ones who have popularized mystical misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
This is not only a form of disinformation, but also gatekeeping. Because it means it becomes much harder to learn the fundamentals of QM without actually digging deep into the papers.
Take for example this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9t
His explanation is deeply wrong on two accounts:
- You CAN actually observe the path taken with up to 98% certainty before losing the interference pattern (https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/BF00734
- "Unplugging the detector" can still cause the pattern to collapse, depending what you mean by that. Whether it collapses or not has nothing to do with whether humans are observing it. If you simply unplug the screen that the scientist is looking at, the interference pattern will stay absent. (Heisenberg 1958, Physics and Philosophy)
Then there is nonsense like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfo
Why are PhDs engaging in this nonsense? Do they actually not understand QM, is it wishful thinking combined with sunk cost fallacy, or are they doing it simply for the money? I think the first video might be a case of doing it for the money, while Penrose is doing it because of wishful thinking that humans are special, and now he's too deep in it to backpedal without looking like a fool.
Is there any physicist who actually believes the conscious observer nonsense in current year and is not bending the truth for their own personal gain? I'd like to know.
Why isn't this kind of behavior called out more frequently by respectable scientists? Is it because of fear?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 20:04:32 UTC No. 16291329
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5F
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:04:59 UTC No. 16291627
>>16291308
It also makes the classic error of showing the one-slit patterns as two sharp peaks that are largely separate from each other.
I don't know why they peddle nonsense like this. They really should know better. I imagine them justifying it to themselves by something like "yes, this is full of errors, but it's simpler to explain to people, and lots of other people have explained it the same way, so it must work pedagogically." Which is pretty stupid; misinforming people isn't effective teaching. But perhaps they don't care enough about informing the masses to think this through.
This is a common phenomenon in education, where teachers repeat the explanation of better teachers, or just other teachers that came before them, and through a telephone-game effect, the explanation degenerates a bit each time it's repeated. In this case the better teacher who has been badly repeated is Richard Feynman. Here's an old video of him explaining the same topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0E
He also gives more or less the same explanation in the famous Feynman Lectures on Physics.
Some notable differences:
1. He's using a lot more time than his parrots. Most likely a lot of the errors in the poor explanations originated due to trying to rush the presentation.
2. He isn't afraid of using basic math.
3. He provides a physical model of observing the electrons, namely a light shining on the electrons as they pass through the holes. This enables him to explain why the interference pattern is being destroyed without any woo-woo; the light is simply deflecting the electrons a bit. He also talks about what happens when you weaken the light. In the video, this last part got cut a bit short (time constraints!) compared to the version in the Feynman Lectures.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:14:48 UTC No. 16291638
>>16291627
Online version of the relevant chapter of the Feynman Lectures:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:29:17 UTC No. 16291658
>>16291627
Can you tell us more about experiment in the pinned picture? I’ve been hearing about this “observer effect” everywhere for a long time and it always seemed strange to me, so what’s wrong here?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:36:28 UTC No. 16291669
>>16291308
observation is simply collision basically pinching a wave so it is restricted to one single location it's not magic
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:57:52 UTC No. 16291693
>>16291658
Well we should start by distinguishing between what's a real experiment and what's a thought experiment designed to illustrate the principles of physics as we understand them. If you send light through a double slit, you do get an interference pattern, showing that light is a wave. You can do this yourself with a laser pointer. Showing that light comes in photons is harder, but that's also been done. People have done experiments where the light intensity is low enough that there should be only one photon at a time passing through the slits, and they still get an interference pattern. It was also found that electrons form interference patterns due to scattering off the atoms in a crystal, similar to the interference patterns light forms due to a diffraction grating. All this was well before Feynman gave his lectures. The first experiment showing electrons forming a true two-slit interference pattern happened around the time Feynman was lecturing.
What you're probably interested in is the idea of disturbing the interference pattern by seeing which slit the electrons go through. This part of Feynman's lecture was a thought experiment. Feynman proposed to do this with a light shining on the electrons; this light would scatter off the electrons, causing a flash you could see showing which hole the electron went through. By applying the known laws of physics, Feynman could show that if the light was of a small enough wavelength to resolve which slit the electron went through, it would also disturb the electrons enough to destroy the interference pattern. Feynman also considered some other ways of figuring out which hole the electron went through, and showed why they wouldn't work. You can read about this in the text linked here: >>16291638
It's been a long time since the Feynman Lectures, and I'm not sure what the closest real experiment to the thought experiment part of Feynman's lecture is. But I do know of some similar things that have been tried. (cont.)
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:39:37 UTC No. 16291716
>>16291627
That one is indeed much better (I had to find the original one since I can't stand the "noise reduced" audio).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja0
Because it doesn't talk about "observation" and "detectors", it actually describes the original apparatus without vague references to unexplained "detectors", and highlights how the interesting aspect of the original experiment is that if we modeled the electron as a particle, it means that the electron somehow knows whether there was another slit available to it or not at the time it was boiled off from the source. So the experiment shows quantum weirdness even before trying to figure out which way any particular electron is going through, it's just enough to block the electrons that aren't going through one of the slits to demonstrate this effect.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 02:06:41 UTC No. 16291724
>>16291308
what books do you recommend for learning QM? can i just go about classical mechanics and then jump to QM?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 02:07:12 UTC No. 16291725
>>16291693
Here's one famous experiment called the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment.
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903
In this experiment, a strong laser was sent through a double slit, and then passed through a crystal that converted photons from the laser beam into two photons of a lower frequency. The two photons were polarized at right angles to each other, allowing the experimenters to separate them. For one of the photons, the experimenters measured the position distribution using a detector with adjustable position.
The second photon can be thought of as the measurement apparatus. The experiment was set up so that depending on how the second photon bounced off or passed through a series of beam splitters, the experimenters were able to determine by which detector the second photon arrived at either
(a) which slit the original photon had passed through
or
(b) how splitting the photon in two had disturbed the interference pattern.
All this happened after the first photon had been detected.
When they had the disturbance information, they were able to look at what the first photon's position was in the cases where the second photon went to a particular detector. In this position distribution, there were alternating bands where the first photon showed up more and showed up less. It should be emphasized that without the disturbance information from the second photon, there were no such alternating bands detectable. That's because the places the first photon struck more in the cases where the second photon went to one detector were struck less by the first photon in the cases where the second photon went to the other detector.
In the cases where the detector that the second photon arrived at instead revealed which slit the original photon went through, they were not able to reconstruct any alternating pattern.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 02:23:05 UTC No. 16291732
>>16291724
I don't know. I haven't studied it myself.
I just know a little bit from casual googling every now and then.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 02:43:03 UTC No. 16291740
>>16291725
Here's something I don't understand.
If we had the two slit experiment, and we covered one of the slits after the electron had passed the slits but before it had impacted the screen, would we see an in interference pattern or not?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 03:00:17 UTC No. 16291749
>>16291740
If you performed that repeatedly, you would see an interference pattern. Changing the slits after the electron has already passed won't make a difference.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 03:03:04 UTC No. 16291750
>>16291724
The Feynman Lectures >>16291638 could be a fun way to get your feet wet. The first two volumes are about classical mechanics and are worth reading as well. Then read Griffiths and/or Sakurai when you get serious.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 03:33:28 UTC No. 16291761
>>16291749
Suppose I wanted to simulate what would happen if instead of two open slits or one slit open and one covered, I had any two arbitrary shapes between firing each electron. What equation describes that?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 03:42:47 UTC No. 16291770
>>16291761
A simple approach would be to treat each place where the particles could pass as a point source of waves, and perform a sum or integral to add up their contributions to the wave that reaches a particular point on the screen.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 04:35:05 UTC No. 16291784
>>16291770
I see. So we wouldn't have to care about quantum mechanics at all. Since the interference pattern is the probability distribution, we would just have to compute the interference pattern for wave-like behavior and then just assign particles randomly according to the distribution pattern.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 04:41:15 UTC No. 16291786
>>16291784
I mean, that's more or less what quantum mechanics says (at least when applied to a single particle). You have a partial differential equation (the Schrodinger equation) describing how the wave behaves, and taking the square of the amplitude of the wave gives you the probability distribution for finding the particle.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:14:50 UTC No. 16292141
>>16291308
You cannot predict where particles will land, even when you create scenarios where it should be 50/50 even knowing all possible variables you are unable to really predict it, nature is just fundamentally random/indeterministic
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:21:00 UTC No. 16292147
>>16291308
>Sources are all YouTube
Wtf is your problem?
🗑️ B4RK0N at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:23:19 UTC No. 16292149
>>16291308
1. You're wrong about everything.
2. You think I'm doing bad but I'm doing good. This post was more the mistake of my matter, though very insignificant.
3. The story you know is a distraction.
4. There are images in that message media too. Try MANAGE on the rowing part.
5. I've done loads. I'm doing the best. I'm the reason the wave is there which you profit from this pain.
6. We have won in the end, and if it goes wrong we will get out quick, because of me.
7. We can sort this now if you get the images in the media.
🗑️ B4RK0N at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:25:45 UTC No. 16292151
>>16292149
I would win this for us now if you weren't interacting with me in the wrong way and blocking me.
You've got it all wrong trust me. Use your instincts here.
🗑️ B4RK0N at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:28:27 UTC No. 16292153
>>16292152
Mouf. Or
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:35:00 UTC No. 16292164
>>16291693
>it would also disturb the electrons enough to destroy the interference pattern.
This is repeatedly said without justification. How precisely is the electron disturbed and why does that destroy the interference pattern?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:19:52 UTC No. 16292274
>>16291740
depends if youre letting it go through both slits or only one
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:34:18 UTC No. 16292433
>>16292164
When the light bounces off the electron, it changes the electron's momentum.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:37:39 UTC No. 16292642
>>16292433
Why does that destroy the interference pattern? The electrons are already hitting the slots with randomized momentum.
A single electron doesn't make a pattern so presumably the detector is interrupting all the electrons in the experiment.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:38:20 UTC No. 16292645
>>16291308
>Do they actually not understand QM
That's it. That's the answer. They're making it more complicated and mysterious than it is.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 06:21:27 UTC No. 16293122
>>16292642
It's the momentum after leaving the slits that's important. In order to go from the slits to a given place on the screen, it has to have momentum in that direction.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 08:02:08 UTC No. 16293185
>>16292642
>Why does that destroy the interference patter
because it's colliding with it duh if i ram into you you and i will both have altered momentum
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 08:28:12 UTC No. 16293198
>>16291308
gatekeeping nuclear energy / bombs
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:16:45 UTC No. 16293531
https://youtu.be/IBP1oxHxnpk?si=nhK
interference just comes from particles moving randomly
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:11:23 UTC No. 16294467
>>16293531
Interesting talk, but I don't think it solves anything. A model of the type he proposes can predict "given the initial conditions of the universe, what's the probability I put my hand in a fire?" and "given the initial conditions of the universe, what's the probability I get burnt?", but it can't answer "given the initial conditions of the universe and given that I stick my hand in the fire, what's the probability I get burnt?" That's a critical flaw.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 13:51:19 UTC No. 16294684
>>16294467
what the fuck are you talking about?
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:46:21 UTC No. 16294892
>>16291716
>describes
Where do he SHOW it, where is the replicable paper?
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:08:21 UTC No. 16294973
>>16294684
The models he proposes compute probability of states at time t given what the state was at the initial time t0. You can't use them to compute any sort of joint or conditional probability involving 3 or more times.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 19:55:35 UTC No. 16295128
>>16294684
>what the fuck are you talking about?
FogBot
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:15:55 UTC No. 16295318
>>16294973
well you cant do that in quantum mechanics either..
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 05:12:19 UTC No. 16295653
>>16295318
In Copenhagen you can do the following. Start with a system in a given state at time t1. Represent its state by a vector in a Hilbert space. Apply a unitary transform to model how the system evolves between t1 and t2. At t2, you learn something. Copenhagen says the state vector depends not just on the reality of the system, but also on your knowledge of the system. So you update the state vector by applying a projection operator (you "collapse the wavefunction"). You do another unitary transform to model how the system evolves between t2 and t3. Finally you use that vector to calculate the probability of outcomes at t3.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:12:49 UTC No. 16296067
>>16295653
you can do the same in the video
the point of video is
indivisible stochastic process = divisible quantum evolution
the point is that since its a stochastic process you dont need woo woo observer bollocks to explain quantum theory. its just particles that are always in one position at any time, moving randomly along trajectories and they naturally produce the phenomena of quantum mechanics.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:41:03 UTC No. 16296085
>>16293185
Okay it alters by trajectory but that doesn't explain why the interference pattern gets destroyed instead of distorted or shifted in a systematic way. In fact, the interference pattern of a single slit actually remains whereas the dots from double slit vanish. So on the one hand the dots get destroyed but the single slit interference which overlays the double slit interference is unperturbed? I don't buy it.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:51:59 UTC No. 16296100
>>16296067
>you can do the same in the video
No. You can't. The very concept of a conditional probability involving 3 times isn't in his model. The closest thing he shows is that a calculation of a probability involving 2 times can be approximated by assuming an intermediate collapse. That's missing the point.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 18:00:06 UTC No. 16296248
>>16296100
no. you can
because the video states that an indivisible stochastic process is the same as divisible quantum mechanics so you can just translate the probabilistic stochastic representation into the complex quantum representation where it becomes divisible
conversely a divisible quantum system can be translated to a stochastic representation which would be indivisible
the quantum and stochastic systems have the same properties because they are the same. if you translate the stochastic system into the quantum representation it becomes divisible. if you translate the quantum one back into the stochastic one it becomes indivisible again. nothing new is gained empirically from the translation because its just changing the description of the same system
the advantage is then that if you can show all quantum behavior comes from a stochastic process there is no reason to resort tofucking ridiculous ludicris airy fairy bullshit interprwtations like qbism, copenhagen and many worlds
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 18:01:22 UTC No. 16296249
>>16296100
and again the conditional probabilities of multi-times are not in quantum mechanics either.
you can divide the AMPLITUDES but you cannot divide the PROBABILITIES
different things.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:37:47 UTC No. 16296787
>>16296248
Translating to the complex quantum representation is just a mathematical technique, so it can't give you answers the original model doesn't give you.
>>16296249
>and again the conditional probabilities of multi-times are not in quantum mechanics either.
I showed how to compute them right here: >>16295653
You may not like it, but this is what quantum mechanics looks like.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:41:17 UTC No. 16296792
yet another schizo narcissistic grandiose delusions quantum thread full of losers with emotional disorders regurgitating their memorized soiyence catchphrases and buzzwords
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:10:45 UTC No. 16296859
>>16296787
>>16296787
>I showed how to compute them right here
umm the conditional probabilities are still indivisible in quantum mechanics. if the probabilities were not indivisible there would literally be no interference between paths. by using unitary transformations you are cheating. like i said in orevious posts, the quantum system is just the stochastic system given a divisible form via complex representation. but the probabilities are no less indivisible than before. if they were not indivisible there would be no interference. you cannot sum up probabilities for different paths or along the intermediate parts of the trajectories and get the correct answers. its as indivisible in the quantum representation as in the stochastic one - |a + b|^2 =/= |a|^2 + |b|^2
|a + b|^2 = |a|^2 + |b|^2 + interference
that is indivisibility of the stochastic form made explicit in the quantum system which ofcourse os just the stochastic system dressed up in a tarted up complex representation
>Translating to the complex quantum representation is just a mathematical technique, so it can't give you answers the original model doesn't give you.
yeah and getting the same answers is exactly what we want it to do. we want to show that the stochastic version is the same as the quantum one because then it says by occams razor that all quantum mechanics is is a stochastic process where particles are always in a definite position at any time but move about randomly. gets rid of all the nonsense woo, nonsense superposition bullshit, nonsense measurement problem, nonsense many worlds, nonsense classical limit bullshit
the world becomes sensible again if you can show that quantum mechanics is just a stochastic process
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:16:34 UTC No. 16296862
i don't understand how we can be confident that there aren't hidden variables underneath. like, how are you sure that a process is truly random?
how can you go "yep there's definitely nothing that determined how this ended up".
like, a coin flip is "random" in a human sense. you are unable to predict what it will come up and the outcome is probabilistic. but the flipping of the coin comes from the motion of the hand, and the influence of the air and so on. if you had enough data you could predict the outcome.
how can we be sure that there's not something we're unaware of behind the scenes with quantum effects?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:22:35 UTC No. 16296867
>>16296859
>by using unitary transformations you are cheating.
Do you mean projection operators? I understand this guy doesn't like it, nobody really likes it, but that is a part of quantum mechanics, at least the standard version of it. You can't just throw it out (without adding something to replace it) or else you end up saying stupid things like "quantum mechanics doesn't allow you to compute conditional probabilities involving three times" which would leave you with a useless theory.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:24:17 UTC No. 16296870
>>16296862
>i don't understand how we can be confident that there aren't hidden variables underneath.
We can't. You will find many people who are mistaken on this point, but they are wrong.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:46:31 UTC No. 16296897
>>16296867
again. you can compute conditional probabilities but they are not divisible. this is the same as in the stochastic representation
here is the crux
complex representatoon = divisible
transition probabilities in either representation = indivisible
by swapping the indivisible representation for a divisible representation you are making everything much easier but they behave in the same way because they are describing the same system but ultimately it all reduces to the behavior of the stochastic system. the complex representation isnt even a unique way of representing the stochastic behavior. its just a useful tool.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:49:55 UTC No. 16296900
>>16296862
there are hidden variables underneath its just they are randomly moving particles so they are random
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:52:54 UTC No. 16296902
>>16296862
and how can we be sureits random?
its parsimony
there are random stochastic processes that reproduce quantum mechanics in virtue of being random
why do you need anything else? why do you need an underlying explanation. the randomness is the explanation.
ofcourse it doesnt mean there cannot be an underlying underlying deterministic cause... but this determinism must produce random behavior... like how in brownian motion, we can conceive of a dust moving randomly in a glass of water but the random motion could be caused by deterministic interactions between the dust particle and water molecules
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:59:45 UTC No. 16296910
>>16296897
>you can compute conditional probabilities but they are not divisible
Did you forget what we are talking about again? You can't compute P(event at t3 | initial state at t1, observation at t2) in his model; you can in quantum mechanics. This means I can use quantum mechanics to make predictions about real life, which I can't do with his model. I do not care whether his condition on expressions of the form P(state at t2|state at t1) holds.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:03:29 UTC No. 16297058
>>16291329
lol yeah i was just thinking if posting that exact video
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:56:43 UTC No. 16297081
>>16291308
Like I only have grade school, but I know it's not collapsed by observer, but definately some sort of meta particle is harvested by sensor, which makes it not have wavelike nature, but really when I tried doubleslit, it was always interference, so I don't know what collapse of wavefunction is, maybe my sensors didn't crashed metaparticle.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:06:15 UTC No. 16297386
>>16296910
>You can't compute P(event at t3 | initial state at t1, observation at t2) in his model
umm the exact thing that cannot be done is this computation
p(s1 | s3) = sum p(s1 | s2)p(s2 | s3)
and you can't do that in quantum mechanics either
its notthat conditional probabilities dont exist. you just cannot compute them using marginalization
yeah you can compute it more easily with quantum mechanics and that is precisely the point of quantum mechanics when we look at it retroactively - the complex representation is more convenient than the stochastic one
putting forward this model is not meant to replace the complex representation
it is mrant to show that quantum mechanics is nothing more than a stochastic process.. so you can continue using the orthodox formalism with the understanding you are talking about a stochastic process
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:08:24 UTC No. 16297392
>>16297386
Waves.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:55:25 UTC No. 16298111
>>16296862
Bells Theorem guarantees there can be no local hidden variables.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 02:44:01 UTC No. 16298315
>>16291308
>Is there any physicist who actually believes the conscious observer nonsense in current year and is not bending the truth for their own personal gain? I'd like to know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aow
>>16291658
>I’ve been hearing about this “observer effect” everywhere for a long time and it always seemed strange to me, so what’s wrong here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm9
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:01:29 UTC No. 16298336
>>16297392
heres the fing
its pretty obvious now that waves are just a special case of stochastic behavior
why some of this quantum bullshid turns up in macroscopic light
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:02:28 UTC No. 16298380
>>16298111
i don't understand how bell's theorem proves that.
i don't understand what bell's theorem is demonstrating.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 05:25:34 UTC No. 16298497
>>16297386
Like a broken record, you keep ignoring the actual objection and going on about other stuff that anyone who watched the video would have seen already. Show how to compute conditional probabilities involving three times with his model or be silent.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 07:05:05 UTC No. 16298593
>>16296862
We don't know that. The only argument for no hidden variables is that because of Bell's theorem, you would need to have FTL distribution of randomness information.
Since heuristically, if you wanted to parallelize computation, you would want to limit the bandwidth between different parts of the universe (like in Second Life, each parcel runs on a different server), then a priori it might seem more likely that the universe would generate true randomness rather than having each neighborhood connected with each other to share some of that randomness.
But then again there is the fact that a logical procedure by itself can not generate randomness, so maybe it makes sense that every neighborhood of the universe feeds from a central RNG.
>>16298380
Have you read the paper? What did you not understand about it?
https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/f
>>16298315
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 07:53:01 UTC No. 16298621
>>16298315
>>16298593
Yeah, I remember watching this guy like 2 years ago. You or someone else must've recommended it to me back then.
I don't remember what I concluded about his dimensional analysis argument (not feeling like going into it right now), but the main flaw in his argument is that either photons are waves or photons and electrons are waves, so:
1. if photons are waves and electrons are particles, then why do electrons interfere with each other in a double slit experiment?
2. if both photons and electrons are waves, then how the hell do photomultipliers manage to produce discrete clicks when exposed to weak sources of light?
QM, no matter how problematic it might be, at least manages to predict both behaviors.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 08:07:25 UTC No. 16298637
>>16291308
Fundamentals of QM are literally just a couple of posulates combined with linear algebra. QM at a basic level is extremely accessible. It's not really gatekept, the public has overall a pretty intuitive understanding of QM nowadays.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 08:37:02 UTC No. 16298651
>>16298637
I feel like there are pretty fundamental disagreements between scientists and it's all shoved into "interpretations" as if wildly different models were somehow equivalent just because they give roughly similar predictions.
For example, as a layman I've never heard explanations for the following:
When do the particles stop behaving like waves and start behaving like particles? When it interacts with enough other particles that the system becomes "macroscopic"? What does that mean, when is it too many? Is it a gradual thing or a discrete thing? How does quantum coherence play into this?
In the dual slit experiment, why does the electron's field interacting with the particles that make up the slits, not start behaving like a particle immediately? How does nature know that we cannot reverse engineer the slit that the particle went through by detecting minute forces induced in those other particles? I realize those other particles will behave probabilistically as well, but you will be able to narrow down the chances that it went through one or the other slit. So it must be a gradual thing. But how is this expressed mathematically?
Also I've had a thought experiment in mind.
In a dipole antenna, photons are emitted in a linear pattern. The photons will be emitted first from the middle, then from one side of the dipole, then from the middle again, then from the other side, etc. So when they get to a receiving dipole, if both antennas are cross-polarized, then presumably at any one time the receiving dipole will only actually catch a fraction of the photons (at most) that it would if they were polarized correctly. Actually, I don't see why it would induce any signal at all, but they do in practice, so my model must be wrong in some way. But anyways, the photons themselves have a polarization too, right? So would it be possible to emit a wave in which the pattern of the photons is polarized one way, but the photons themselves another? I guess not, but not sure.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 08:38:51 UTC No. 16298654
>>16298651
>not start behaving like a particle immediately?
*not cause it to start behaving like a particle immediately (talking about the electron in the double slit experiment with electrons, not about the field itself becoming a particle).
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 09:04:23 UTC No. 16298669
>>16298651
You're not wrong. That guy you replied to is completely delusional if he thinks that anyone, let alone a layperson, has an intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 09:09:07 UTC No. 16298671
This thread is super interesting. There seems to be a good PRX review on indivisible stochastic processes making up quantum mechanics where they derive measurement phenomena, uncertainty relations, interference, etc. specifically they say that interference is the quantitative failure of the indivisible process to be approximated by the divisible one (i.e. you can’t just sum up the probabilities of each possible path, since they interfere.)
It’s quite satisfying to me because I am mainly focused on stochastic processes/Focker Planck equation, so quantum mechanics being just another stochastic process would fit how I think of the rest of the world anyway.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 09:16:43 UTC No. 16298676
>>16298671
Although I do suppose that it’s not much easier to think of quantum mechanics as an indivisible process. What would such a process even look like intuitively? It’s something where we can’t think of particles taking paths through time by making many little “divisible” steps. Much like QM it would say that only discrete samples at discrete times make sense for the random paths that particles take. I think this just shifts the same stresses of unintuitive quantum axioms from the interpretation of the wavefunction to the indivisible process.
At least the heat equations sample paths are markov, divisible, stationary, continuous etc. it still wins out in terms of simple interpretability to the stochastic processes apparently making up the Schrödinger equation.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 10:32:34 UTC No. 16298734
>>16298380
I could explain it to you but I don't put effort into my 4chan posts anymore. You'll have to figure it out for yourself. It's not that hard.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 11:25:42 UTC No. 16298777
>>16298734
I'll spare you the effort. It doesn't prove anything like that and it can't prove anything like that
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 13:03:55 UTC No. 16298854
>>16298777
Because you don't understand Bell's Theorem.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 13:07:43 UTC No. 16298858
>>16298854
Or I understand it better than you
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 13:08:30 UTC No. 16298860
>>16298858
How do you recover Local Hidden Variables then?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 13:11:59 UTC No. 16298864
>>16298860
By refusing to accept any of the various spurious assumptions involved in Bell's theorem. Such as for example the assumption that the theory must produce a random variable for every possible directions of the spins of the particles.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 13:14:37 UTC No. 16298867
>>16298864
The particles can't have predefined variables no matter how they are produced. There is literally no way to assign values to the particles which produce the values predicted by QM.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 13:17:47 UTC No. 16298870
>>16298867
I don't care about producing the values predicted by QM. I care about predicting the actual values
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 13:20:24 UTC No. 16298875
>>16298870
You cannot assign values to the particles before they are measured.
It is not possible
You don't understand bell's theorem. Go read bell's theorem, understand it, then come back. Until you understand bell's theorem you can't talk about QM. I'm leaving this thread. Go read Bell's Theorem
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 13:23:05 UTC No. 16298876
>>16298875
I already understand it better than you. I suggest you go through bell's theorem critically and question every assumption involved in it rather than repeating folk tales repeated by unthinking physicists. Then you would have a chance of understanding my objections to it.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 13:54:59 UTC No. 16298901
>>16298497
bo youre the broken record because you keep ignoring the fact that the point of the model is that quantum mechanicsis equivalent to stochastic systems
literally no one cares about your objection
its completely irrelevant
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:01:42 UTC No. 16298910
>>16298497
>Show how to compute conditional probabilities involving three times with his model or be silent.
and if the conditional probability exists in the quantum version then it must exist in the stochastic one because they are the same thing
if you took the quantum model where you compute conditional probabilities easily then convert it to a stochastic formalism
then that fucking obviously implies that the stochastic model has dynamical laws which will end up giving you the correct conditional probabilities
your objection is a strawman because its based on the fact you are familiar with the quantum formalism and how to compute the shidd. that doesnt imply that there isnt a stochastic description where you can do similiar just in a less convenient way. the fact you can convert the quantum formalism to a stochastic one implies the conditional probabilities will show up in the dynamic behavior of the system. they will be computable. just harder than the quantum one.
the fact i cant tell you how to do is incidental. doesnt mean it doesnt exist. the only reason you are asking that question is because you are familiar with the quantum version. quantum mechanics has had a 100 year head start, this model has existed for less than a year
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:07:28 UTC No. 16298922
>>16298875
Citing your Bible ad nauseum like the good little fundamentalist you are.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:17:40 UTC No. 16298933
>>16298910
>laughs in being able to actually compute workable numbers with the quantum mechanical model while some retard claims that stochastic model is better but can’t compute anything
Ever heard of le old Occam’s razor anon? If it be complex, and if simpler math model produce same result, then simpler math model accept, le complex model reject
Literally the same reason why nobody with a working braincell takes string theory/m-theory garbage seriously anymore, we’re tired of models more complex than the current one claiming they have answers, and that they must be better somehow cuz elegance or whatever
>I need the numbers anon, if you can’t give me that then it’s useless as QM gives me the numbers easily
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:30:22 UTC No. 16298948
>>16298676
>What would such a process even look like intuitively? It’s something where we can’t think of particles taking paths through time by making many little “divisible” steps. Much like QM it would say that only discrete samples at discrete times make sense for the random paths that particles take.
I don't think this is true. The conditional probabilities in its trajectories are not divisible, but it has unique marginal probabilities at every time and the idea of a stochastic process implies that a single particle occupies a definite outcome at every single point in time. So every particle will take a path that looks like a regular path you would expect of a divisible markov process.
However, if you repeat an experiment a million times and observe a million trajectories, you will not be able to get unique conditional probabilities out of the empirical behavior.
So the particle has intuitive normal paths. But the statistics are just not intuitive. In the double slit experiment every particle will take a continuous path that goes through one slit or the other.
My intution is that the interpretation of indivisibility is simply that the particle probabilities are context-dependent. They probabilities change depending on the path the particle takes. Hence why the system is non-Markovian i.e. history-dependent. Probabilities depend on history, probabilties depend on outcomes. For the same stochastic system, particles go on different trajectories and there will be different probabilities for different trajectories and they cannot all be reconciled onto single probability space for the system. Hence they interference. Because interference is just mathematically identical to the discrepancy between the statistics of different contexts (and different trajectories constitute different contexts)
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:41:37 UTC No. 16298964
>>16298676
Here is interesting hint from anudda classical model of incompatible observables.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citati
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
They get interference terms from exact same way as Barandes but this for incompatible observables.(e.g. x, y is position, momentum). I dont wanna make it out as if identical but seems same mechanism... violation total probability... in barandes indivisibilility it total probability for trajectories in form of chapman kolmogorov equation that violated. for khrennikov it total probability for joint conjugate measurements.
barandes?
p(s1 | s3) - sum p(s1 | s2)p(s2 | s3) = interference
khrennikov
p(y) - sum p(x)p(y | x) = interference
=
sum p(y)p(x | y) - sum p(x)p(y | x) = interference
implies
p(y)p(x | y) =/= p(x)p(y|x)
obviously in classical probability this should be equal, denoting a single joint probability distribution
but when not (and we treat these as talking about measurement) then obviously it means the joint statistics differ if we measure x and condition y on x compared to measuring y and condition x on it. (obviously if you perform the first measurement again, the statistics will have therefore change i.e. non-commutativity)
when statistics depend on the measurement they violate total probability and the discrepancy is interference.
so im sayin the khrennilov model attributes interference to context dependent statistics and it seems to do same fing as barandes model
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:43:54 UTC No. 16298966
>>16298910
>and if the conditional probability exists in the quantum version then it must exist in the stochastic one because they are the same thing
They are not the same thing. They give the same result for one particular calculation.
>>16298933
The problem is the other way around; the model is too simple. >>16298910 seems to think there's some complicated way to calculate conditional probabilities involving three times from the model but that he doesn't know how to do it because he's not good at math. There isn't. The obvious way to see that there isn't is the fact that there are multiple more-complete models consistent with the model. The most obvious answers are:
(a) what happens from one instant to the next is completely fucking independent; the universe jumps randomly jumps between unrelated MWI-style worlds
(b) a pilot-wave interpretation
But you could make up many others.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:45:55 UTC No. 16298969
>>16298933
>If it be complex, and if simpler math model produce same result, then simpler math model accept, le complex model reject
umm they describing identical thing tho and the complex representation isnt unqiue. it is only a concenient facade to help computation which implies the underlying stochastic description is the real one
and again i said this isnt meant to replace quantum mechanics. just show that quantum mechanics is actually just stochastic process underneath
its an underlying explanation of quantum mechanics not a new theory to replace it
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:52:36 UTC No. 16298977
>>16298969
Anon, I’m reading what seems to be the wiki (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St
Is this it? If so, it’s a damn good interesting theory, and feels like a natural extension of the path integral formulation.
However, the theory basically says that quantum (and light) waves don’t exist by modeling quantum objects as particles that obey a stochastic process that happens to produce wavelike distributions. Is this true?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:53:31 UTC No. 16298981
>>16298966
>seems to think there's some complicated way to calculate conditional probabilities involving three times from the model but that he doesn't know how to do it because he's not good at math. There isn't
you will be able to do it in similar way tp how you described in copenhagen representation
nuffink in model stops you doin dat
what the shidd is acshually saying is
you can do
p(t2 | t1) and p(t3| t2)
but p(t3 | t1) =/= sum p(t3 | t2)p(t2 | t1)
and diss is same in both quantum and stochastic representation
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:00:32 UTC No. 16298990
>>16298966
>They are not the same thing. They give the same result for one particular calculation.
the stochastic and quantum are same thing. thats point of the video / papers
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:06:26 UTC No. 16298995
>>16298981
The problem arises from the fact that you say there’s an inequality without a why, meanwhile in QM you can calculate the interference terms explicitly and give experimentally testable predictions based on it. Saying it’s an underlying stochastic mechanism gets us nowhere as we can’t get the term from that model, we can only get it the quantum model, and thus can experimentally verify the quantum model. Without experimental support, the theory is bust. Path integral formulation was only accepted because it was able to make predictions that not only agreed with wave and matrix mechanics, but also for more complex interactions where the latter couldn’t give answers easily. The stochastic formalism would have to give explicit quantifiable predictions that can be verified by experiment before it can be accepted in any breath
>again, I need the numbers anon, the NUMBERS
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:18:24 UTC No. 16299008
>>16298977
it is and it isnt
barandes's formulation is not identical as stochastic mechanics
but they both interpret quantum mechanic stochastically and ideally they would be equivalent in final forms
stochastic mechanics has had a couple problems which only seem to be have solved by the most recent formulation by kuipers which i believe is the basis of the wikipedia article
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
stochastic mechanics traditionally start from assumptions of stochastic process and tries to construct quantum mechanics by hand from classical assumptions
barandes indivisible aim to prove directly that any indivisible stochastic is the same as a unitary quantum one, skipping the complications of actually trying to rebuild quantum mechanics from the ground up by hand
some of the major problems of stochastic mechanics seem to come from the fact that traditionally authors have always assumed the process is markovian. when you drop markovian assumption then the problems disappear. recent formulation by kuipers these problems all disappear. barandes indivisible formulation is explicitly non-markovian too.
here anudda interesting paper showing stochastic mechanics can produce perfect correlation and bell violation for spin (ironically this is using the faulty versions of stochastic mechanics)
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
and yes stochastic mechanics is only formulation that gives a good explanation of path integral paths rather than treating them as a weird computational tool... there are paths in path integral formulation because paths really exist but because of indivisibility, one must sum the amplitudes of paths. one cannot sum probabilities because of interference.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:20:31 UTC No. 16299009
>>16298977
and yes stochastic particle behavior produce wave like behavior. particle go through slit one at time and eventual pattern looks like a wave. its because the particle path moves randomly explains how it is able to do this. not deterministic.
and irony is that stochastic mechanics doesnt even feature on quantum intepretations wikipedia page despite the fact it has been around forever. unfairly obscure despite being better than bohmian mechanics which is the closest out of the well known interpretations
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:34:39 UTC No. 16299017
>>16298995
>>16298995
>meanwhile in QM you can calculate the interference terms explicitly and give experimentally testable predictions based on it.
the video says the calculation of interference in stochastic representation is identical to the quantum one. like the quantum interference terms are identical to the classical inequalities in my last post. you can get the interference term from the classical process. they are exactly as i described above.
i dont know why you talking about predictions.
the central point of the video, papers, formulation
is a formal proof
that every unitary quantum system is equivalent to an indivisible stochastic one
they are empirically identical.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:34:53 UTC No. 16299018
>>16299009
A book and a springer paper? This is 4chan, we pirate shit here for the freedom of science
That being said, what do you think about the relation this has to hidden variable theory? It seems that the stochastic random motion is produced by a background effect that is universal and present across all spacetime (as it’s the explanation for all quantum phenomena being probabilistic). I haven’t read the stuff you posted yet, but I am familiar with stochastic processes in the context of Brownian motion. Do you think that, just as how there’s smaller atoms and molecules pushing the larger observable particle in Brownian motion (hence it really only being a good approximation to the hidden variables of the velocities of individual atoms), there’s small pushes and pulls created by the universe acting on the observable quantum particles?
Makes me wonder if these pushes and pulls are vacuum fluctuations, have vacuum fluctuations been studied in the theory?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:51:51 UTC No. 16299038
>>16299018
well yes the idea is that stochastic mechanics implies particles would be being pushed around by background radiation ... vacuum fluctuations ... whatever
so you will want a stochastic quantum field theory as a more fundamental description
quantum field theories have been studied in stochastic mechanics but dont know too much bout them personally. was about to read a paper on it. kuipers book gives links for stochastic quantum field theories. barandes formulation is generic enough that can be applied to a field description too.
this is anudda advantage of stochastic interpretation.
i used to be ensemble interpretation which ia like statistical version of copenhagen.
when i hear about stochastic mechanics my first impression was the idea of particles randombly moving in space is super weird
but fing is that this kinda ontology seems already implued by quantum theory. you dont really need to add amything from outside like you would with many worlds or bohm or other shidd
it already been empirically observed that vacuum fluctuations can move large macroscopic objects
there is actually a formulation of stochastic interpretation called stochastic electrodynamics which explicitly tries to produce description of stochastically moving particles from zero-point energy. im not toooo familiar with it and from what i seen i not too convinced it actually necessarily correct but its the kind of direction to go in
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sto
will continue in a secons post
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:54:26 UTC No. 16299043
>>16299018
ofc there many layers to stochastic theories
arguably the barandes formulation in video is at the top - it is the most generic statement of an identity between quantum systems of any kind and stochastic processes on a formal level. (for instance, hypothetically this could even apply to social science and psychology where quantum models have been introduced within the last 2 decades to describe human behavior)
next rung is stochastic mechanics which tries to describe a more specific stochastic process that accounts for regular nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (obvi there has been attempts at field theory extension as i briefly mentioned too). and there is no unique single way to derive quantum mechanics from stochastic processes. various methods can use which are effectively equivalent... but then there are various kinds of newtonian mechanics are there not? etc
third rung is where stochastic electrodynamics is which tries to produce an even more specific picture of the underlying process of how zero-point fluctuations create stochastic behavior of particle. obviously because of its specificity and attempt to make a physical picture rather than formal one, it is far more speculative, but it is an attempt to talk more specifically about interaction of vacuum fluctuations and particles.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 16:08:51 UTC No. 16299069
>>16299043
Gotta admit that this stuff is far better than “shut up and calculate” or “it’s all many worlds bro” interpretations of QM. As someone with a stat mech background I always found the interpretation that the particle takes all paths in the path integral somewhat hand-wavy, and this is far better. Weird how almost none of the authors that I’ve read on QM ever talk about it and how it could be an interpretation of QM, they mostly go Copenhagen with a sprinkling of many worlds and end things there by saying Einstein failed to find hidden variables so we shouldn’t
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 16:54:00 UTC No. 16299117
>>16299069
yes extremely obscure but undeservedly so
part of advantage is also this view connects quantum mechanics to other fields. for instance the kuipers model describes not just quantum theory but brownian motion and plausibly relativistic brownian motion
we also see uncertainty principle can be derived in other classical stochastic systems, even dealing water...
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
kuipers paper even refer to in outlook part how uncertainty relations found in classical statistical thermodynamics come out in that model
existence of uncertainty relations and non-commutativity in classical systems have also been independently discovered in other fields more interested in math than physics:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 05:37:32 UTC No. 16299975
>>16292141
>nature is just fundamentally random/indeterministic
if that's the case then knowledge is impossible. scientist utterly fail at basic logic so hard its hilarious.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 07:29:56 UTC No. 16300049
>>16298637
>the public has overall a pretty intuitive understanding of QM nowadays.
Yep. When the observer starts to pay attention the object is affected by the observer effect.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:09:18 UTC No. 16301065
>>16300065
The what???!!
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:10:42 UTC No. 16301067
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 02:08:00 UTC No. 16301284
>>16301065
>the spinny electrons being shot in the cleavage between two magnets and getting deflected by the thicness of the field
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 02:46:24 UTC No. 16301314
>>16301284
phwoaar
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:26:29 UTC No. 16301973
>>16291308
Because scientists are shit at explaining things. 2bh, for example, most explanations of bell's theorem go into this long study of particle spins, apparatus orientations, etc.. when really the "Essence" of the theorem is really no more complex than the pigeonhole principle. You could get it across in a couple of sentences
Take 3 cards which are facedown. Each card has one of two values (Up or down)
Pick 2 of the three cards and turn them face up (measurement)
The 2 cards always have opposite values.
This gets it across quite nicely that you cannot assign values to the particles before measurement.