Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:10:30 UTC No. 16435996

Quantum science is all bullshit.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:43:10 UTC No. 16436012

Either you decide you don't need any picture, you just write equations and everything is okay. If you want a picture the only picture you can build comes from your usual world and then when you want use this picture for the atomic world then there is always something strange in the picture.
Alain Aspect

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 12:10:54 UTC No. 16436147

>>16435931
>BUT WHAT DOES IT MEEEEEEEEEEAAAAN???

The philosophy department is that way

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:24:31 UTC No. 16436444

>>16436147
Philosophy is for tiding you over until actual science finds the answer.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:51:21 UTC No. 16436540

>>16435931
>it works in my imagination!!!
trust the soiyence chud

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:57:57 UTC No. 16436548

>>16435931
QM is the means that scientific materialists have come up with for trying to bury God. They can't acknowledge that the universe operates on a set of deterministic rules because that would require a separate metaphysical plane of existence in order to explain consciousness and free will. So, they claim that the universe is intrinsically indeterminate on the smallest scales and this allows them to deny the existence of God.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:54:47 UTC No. 16436947

It really is schizophrenia delusion nonsense. Oddly, all experimentalists seem to observe that delusion when they do the experiments.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:21:21 UTC No. 16436982

>>16435931
Debrogiiles thesis wasn't even taken seriously. Schrodinger abandoned QM because of its absurdity. His work on the hydrogen atom won a Nobel prize.

QM is a branch of thereotical physics. The measurements must of defined parameters to work. Which is why is mostly used in measuring economic systems.

It can be only used to make non deterministic predictions hence the uncertainty principle. The only thing certain is uncertainty.

It is not used to mesure physical process.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:21:28 UTC No. 16436983

the Copenhagen interpretation is idealist nonsense. it makes "measurement" special, which ultimately requires a human observer for quantum phenomena to "happen". hence idealism
Bohmian mechanics (pilot wave theory) explains observed phenomena without resorting to probability. bourgeois physicists don't like Bohmian mechanics though, because it doesn't leave any room for idealism. same goes for many worlds

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:01:08 UTC No. 16437172

>>16436983
>it makes "measurement" special
how is it not special? the only way to measure something is to interact with it in such a way that it causes a disturbance in it that must propagate through the system until the point where the data is recorded.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 02:11:07 UTC No. 16437350

>>16436444
eh, no. more like convincing scientists that an object or component can be studied one way or the other with arguments and reasoning, and finally scientists get the balls/funding (latter is harder) to test things out. the birth, development and current trends in every science can be traced back to philosophical precursors in every step, which inspired scientists to think and study the world in novel ways, and continues to do so

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 02:16:28 UTC No. 16437358

>>16436983
Bohmian mechanics is particularly interesting, but I haven't been able to get any good resources on it. Do you know of any? I'm tired of shitty copenhagen crap and "shut up and calculate" bs

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 02:58:31 UTC No. 16437378

>>16437350
Cute, enjoy your philosophy degree friend!

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 03:56:47 UTC No. 16437411

>>16435931
>If there is no definition position what did you measure?
It doesn't have a position before you measure it. It's still in the nonlocal information layer.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 05:34:16 UTC No. 16437467

>>16435931
>no definition of position
Have you considered reading a quantum mechanics textbook before mouthing off?

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 06:24:32 UTC No. 16437492

It is a probability cloud. After you measure it you found it

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 06:33:17 UTC No. 16437501

>>16437378
Someone should tell you what the Ph in PhD means.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:01:15 UTC No. 16437595

>>16437172
of course you have to measure things. I should have said "observation" rather than "measurement". the problem is there's spooky subjectivism involved. ask a Copenhagenfag to actually explain what an "observation" is. at least quantum Bayesianists (QBists) are upfront about the need for a human observer. both are Machist. Einstein was very much opposed to this notion, since it is equivalent to stating that the Moon doesn't exist until you look at it
this belief that human brains have some spooky effect on experiments shows up in the most unexpected places. I saw a video on a neutrino observatory where the scientists there forbid themselves from looking at the data as it's coming in, for fear of affecting the experiment
>>16437358
Making Sense of Quantum Mechanism by Jean Bricmont
The Quantum Theory of Motion by Peter R. Holland
this video by Paul Cockshott puts the conflict in a wider context: https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=cOe-7GH83Us
the popularity of the Copenhagen intepretation is a result of the Cold War. McCarthyism is directly to blame for Bohmian mechanics' minority role today, even though it has lead to fruitful result like Bell's theorem
another possibility is many worlds

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:08:08 UTC No. 16437599

>>16436947
So, if anything, QM is proof that God, if he exists, is schizophrenic delusional?

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:11:18 UTC No. 16437604

>>16437467
You moron ask yourself what constant real number has this property?

Find k such that the improper integral of f(x)=k from -inf to inf = 1

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:01:09 UTC No. 16437695

>>16437599
Sounds about right

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:30:48 UTC No. 16437711

>>16437595
funny how you claim that the copenhagen interpretation has the problem of spooky subjectivity when your counter argument is that the state of a system can be objectively known despite there being no knowledge of it, isn't that much more spooky? Isn't that the same logic that we use to justify the existence of deities that we cannot see but must be there in order to explain the cognitive dissonance of not knowing for sure?

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:42:46 UTC No. 16437728

>>16437711
knowledge is socially constructed. there is no such thing as "objectively" knowing something. the issue is that the behavior of the wavefunction supposedly depends on macroscopic humans observing instruments, rather than say nonlinear detector effects, or nonlocal effects. the nonlinearity in particular is something I've pointed out to a laser physicist friend of mine

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:00:47 UTC No. 16437910

>>16437728
Uhm that's wrong though. I objectively did your mom last night.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 16:36:06 UTC No. 16439934

>>16435931
yeah

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 21:15:25 UTC No. 16440332

>>16437599
Also God if he exists is plain retarded
>nooooo you cannot see what I'm doing, cus you just can't okay?
>oh you tried to look what I'm doing anyway? Here, let me destroy all evidence of what was happening.

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 06:49:33 UTC No. 16440872

>>16436548
There is zero evidence for consciousness, and free will is logically impossible.

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 07:06:43 UTC No. 16440885

>>16437604
>filtered by distributions

6 at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 09:41:32 UTC No. 16440961

>>16440872
Schizophrenia spotted

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:28:58 UTC No. 16441955

>>16435996
night of the vehicle soon glowie

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:40:07 UTC No. 16441963

>>16435931
I'm going to throw a rock into a pond okay, what will it's trajectory be and where will it land?

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:41:14 UTC No. 16441966

>>16441963
And with what force will it hit the water

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:56:53 UTC No. 16441980

>>16435931
where's the observational evidence that position is definite?

why should i value common sense which is just a bunch of demonstrably unreliable animal instincts and emotions over logic and the scientific method?

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 03:35:40 UTC No. 16442111

>>16435931
>If there is no definition position what did you measure?
Your perception of the object as well as its perception of you in a given moment.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:12:11 UTC No. 16443467

>>16441980
>where's the observational evidence that position is definite?
I threw a basketball in a hoop and it deffinitly went in.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:35:41 UTC No. 16443487

>>16443467
>n of 1 trial with no tests for scale invariance
wow much rigor the soience is settled

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:54:40 UTC No. 16443673

>>16443487
You are placed in a blindfold.
I am going to throw a basketball at the hoop, ready. Okay I just threw it.
t1 (hurry provide the basketballs cordonates) t2 (hurry provide the basketballs cordonates) t3 (hurry provide the basketballs cordonates) t4 (hurry provide the basketballs cordonates) t5 (hurry provide the basketballs cordonates) t6 (hurry provide the basketballs cordonates) t8 (hurry provide the basketballs cordonates) t9 (hurry provide the basketballs cordonates).

Did the ball go in the hoop?
How accurate were your coordinate providals?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:57:49 UTC No. 16443678

>>16443487

You are placed in a blindfold.
I am going to throw a basketball at the hoop, ready. Okay I just threw it.
t1 (hurry provide the basketballs coordinates) t2 (hurry provide the basketballs coordinates) t3 (hurry provide the basketballs coordinates) t4 (hurry provide the basketballs coordinates) t5 (hurry provide the basketballs coordinates) t6 (hurry provide the basketballs coordinates) t8 (hurry provide the basketballs coordinates) t9 (hurry provide the basketballs coordinates).

Did the ball go in the hoop?
How accurate were your coordinate providals?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:17:25 UTC No. 16443749

>>16443678
i don't know, cleetus, you're the one claiming position is always definite, so the burden of proof rests on you. go ahead and write down the algorithm that determines the coordinates for the basketball, your hand, muscle fibers, neurotransmitters in your brain cells and every other object in the universe at infinite precision. given your thought experiment it apparently doesn't even depend on any initial conditions so it should be easy.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:58:47 UTC No. 16444196

>>16443749
Okay, so you admit, it is difficult to accurately determine the location of something while you are not detecting it.

So now it comes down to gambling odds (ratio, ratio-nality) and belief.

When I throw the basketball in the air, with you being unable to see it, would you bet that the ball occupies a location over the course of time and space in question, or would you bet that the basketball at every t, exists in many locations?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:08:57 UTC No. 16444734

>>16444196
i would bet on the intermediate state of whatever theory makes correct quantitative predictions of all the phenomena i've actually detected in the past, the entire experimental repertoire so to speak. no "belief" is necessary - this is a science board not a religion board - just an increased certainty that this theory is correct.

the only class of quantitative theories i'm aware of that unconditionally assign a definite location to the ball are classical theories, all of which were experimentally falsified in the 1920s. i'm not aware of any quantitative theory compatible with the existing experimental facts that would assign a logical conjunction of many locations either. so, to me, your loaded question is evidently a false dilemma.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:01:34 UTC No. 16444801

>>16444734
no no, you don't know where the ball is at any given time, I'm not asking you to geuss or bet on where it is, I'm asking you to geuss and bet on whether it is more likely the ball occupies an exact spatial coordinate at every t, or if at every t, the ball actually physically exists at multiple coordinates at any given t

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:23:29 UTC No. 16444920

>>16444801
as i already clarified, your question is a false dilemma. it's like asking me whether i think it's more likely that tomorrow 5 dollars plus 5 dollars will equal 7 dollars or 13 dollars. i consider both cases absurd and equally unlikely.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:35:42 UTC No. 16444948

>>16444734
You don't understand knowledge or belief. A scientific paper is merely testimony.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:06:02 UTC No. 16445012

>>16444948
>You don't understand knowledge or belief
feel free to enlighten me.

>A scientific paper is merely testimony.
i don't recall authorities and testimonies being a part of the scientific method.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:12:32 UTC No. 16445096

>>16435931
qm is just statistics autists trying to make physics laws

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 01:13:44 UTC No. 16445098

>>16436548
but existence of quantum fluctuations would imply god uses them to change universe, since theyre not "predictable"

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 04:20:56 UTC No. 16445293

>>16444920
>i consider both cases absurd and equally unlikely.

Have you ever seen anyone play basketball?

You think that just before someone shoots, if you close your eyes, it is equally unlikely that for every given time, the ball is at a definite location in the air, or the ball is at multiple locations in the air at every single given time.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 04:21:56 UTC No. 16445297

>>16445012
>>16444920
Brilliant trolling

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 04:25:25 UTC No. 16445305

>>16435931
I seriously don't understand why this makes people shid and fard so hard.
It's not comparable to classical mechanics, so what?

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 04:28:09 UTC No. 16445308

>>16444801
A scoop of jello equals 1 scoop of jello.

It exists at precisely the location it exists at, 1 scoop of jello at an exact location.

I smoosh the scoop of jello, and now that same exact scoop of jello (note I did not tear it or break it apart it's still all connected) is existing in more locations at the same time than previously.

Thus, therefore quantum particles must be like jello

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 04:32:53 UTC No. 16445312

>>16444920
Okay now I have entered a frame of mind in which I am on your side as I have escalated to a new level of understanding, something I've considered before, but got so carried away in the notion of 'particle' that I forgot a possible excusing explanation. Something like this:
>>16445308

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:51:37 UTC No. 16446473

>>16440332
KEK

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:35:07 UTC No. 16446508

>>16445308
This must be the case right?

The only way for some 1 thing to exist at multiple places at once is if it is stretchy right?

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:44:43 UTC No. 16447434

You just know QM is bullshit due the complex aritmetic involved. Totally inorganic.
Similarly magnetism is bullshit. Due cross product/curl involved. Many advanced EM books can derive magetism as result of Coulomb force and relativity.

In depth, everything is just wave of Coulomb electric force that travels with speed c.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 22:14:18 UTC No. 16447918

>>16447434
>complex aritmetic involved. Totally inorganic.
>Similarly magnetism is bullshit. Due cross product/curl involved.

Think of all the different sizes, shapes, and strengths of magnets. Does it really seem like describing all their potential interactions would be clean and simple?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:54:35 UTC No. 16450265

>>16435931
yeah it is

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:53:19 UTC No. 16450435

>>16440872
>zero evidence for consciousness (my own subjective experience I'm using to communicate with you), but dark matter is DEFINITELY real brosky!

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:00:08 UTC No. 16450445

>>16435931
it just werks and no other theory has come close to explaining the measurements and data collected

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 22:01:55 UTC No. 16451292

>>16450445
>it just werks and no other theory has come close to explaining the measurements and data collected
QM is not 1 single thing or equation.
What you say is true for much of it, but there are still admitted ignorances regarding aspects of the most micro reality.

Probability theory for dice works, but you can't land a dice on 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 in one throw

Just make sure you aren't conflating a probability theory with ignorance of a future outcome, with an outcome of reality being ignorance itself.

The whole probability of QM that people argue about, isn't simply the claim that before you throw a quantum dice it is in a state of 1 2 3 4 5 and 6, is it? Are superposition of those states

The dice hitting the floor is it's wave function collapsed.

I geuss a bit extra crux, is that we can see a dice with our eye and analyze it's 6 sides. The thing is when a particle is generated the claim is we don't know if it has 5 or 2 or 7 or 9 sides? Or it is thought it is known by now, when made in air without our detecting it has this or that charge this or that spin definitely,
Or just in the air we can't be sure of its spin, because in it's journey blind to us, it could be bumping into all sorts of fields and vibrations

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 22:15:03 UTC No. 16451310

>>16445012
>authorities and testimonies
Kek, I guess academic and governmental authorities and presentations at conferences don't count and are somehow transcendent.

There is next to no difference between the two. And there is also no "scientific method" outside of mere perception (either by yourself or by instruments that extend your perception, which is called "observation" in jargon), and inference (aka "analysis" in jargon, the statistical analysis and inference you perform. Both perception and inference are hardly objective in any sense of the word, it's just that it's the best tool we have when combined with collaboration, review and replication (intersubjectivity) for studying nature.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:32:58 UTC No. 16451569

>>16451310
They really do. Publishing and conferences are social activities that scientists sometimes do, they are not science. That's like saying going to the bathroom is science, because every great scientist had to take a shit at some point. The scientific method can of course be used to examine data and statements presented in publications and at conferences, the contents of toilet bowls, and the testimony of being abducted by aliens that the schizophrenic woman living a few doors down from me made, but none are science in and of themselves.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 15:23:43 UTC No. 16452270

When QM is saying a particle is in a superposition of states before wave function collapse, is this saying:

A thrown dice in the air is in a super position of states 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 before it hits the ground?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 15:25:42 UTC No. 16452275

>>16452270
No, but if you were to shake it around in a box then it would be. Up in the air, there is no measurement activity.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 15:36:02 UTC No. 16452290

>>16452275
>Up in the air, there is no measurement activity.
There is no measurement of a quantum particles before it is measured. Hence uncertainty. Hence superposition of multiple states prior to measurement.

Unless it is referring to an evidenced belief that the physical volume of a quantum particle actually stretches out before detection, like a squid with tentacles unwrapped, but always squeezes into a ball once touched

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:14:04 UTC No. 16452690

>>16452270
I'm answering despite your retarded redditspacing
>A thrown dice in the air is in a super position of states 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 before it hits the ground?
Yes if you don't look at it and if the dice was a quantum particle. That's basically the double slit experiment. Superposition doesn't apply to macroscopic objects.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:46:16 UTC No. 16452748

>>16452690
>Superposition doesn't apply to macroscopic objects.
A quantum particles is a small microscopic object or God's magic

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:56:22 UTC No. 16452764

>>16452690
A quantum particle is a small macroscopic object or God's magic.

I offered the squid example. Either you have enough evidence to believe a single fundamental particle physically spreads its body out over space, only to be minimized when detected, OR, the notion of physical spreading across space before measure is a metaphysical notion of mathematic convenience you mistakenly conflate map and world. Ala my dice example.

While the dice is in air unmeasured all 6 states are true and truly exist as once.

While the QM particle is in vacuum unmeausred, all it's possible quantum states are true and truly exist as once.

When the dice is detected by the floor, 1 state coheres.

When the QM particle is detected, 1 state coheres.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:59:58 UTC No. 16452769

>>16436147
science without philosophy is like believing a map is the same as the territory

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 21:31:46 UTC No. 16452813

>>16452764
Go back to R.eddit
I don't reading all that shit

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 21:50:20 UTC No. 16452838

>>16447918
Of course not, but the in-depth logic differs from the math version teached today.
Hopefully we get more elegant explanation of quantum-electro-wave dynamics. Even if it turns out be mathematically more demanding or even unuseable. But in purely philosophical standpoint, current QM is unacceptable.

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:05:15 UTC No. 16454131

>>16452764
>Either you have enough evidence to believe a single fundamental particle physically spreads its body out over space, only to be minimized when detected, OR, the notion of physical spreading across space before measure is a metaphysical notion of mathematic convenience you mistakenly conflate map and world. Ala my dice example.
>While the dice is in air unmeasured all 6 states are true and truly exist as once.

Though now I must wonder and ask, what are the possible states a particle is claimed to have while unmeausred in transit?

You don't don't if it's spin up or down or 1/2 until it's measured, so it's possibly spin up and spin down while traveling?

You don't know if it's a little to the left or a little to the right before you measure, so it's a little to the left and a little to the right?

You don't know if it's vibrating at 5x frequency or 7x or 10x, so it's vibrating at all them at once, until you detect it and it gives you a new frequency, the frequency of moment of impact with the detector material?

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 02:25:51 UTC No. 16454331

I must ask the smartest physics student on the board this question:

When the smallest single unit of light is emitted from a single source, describe the form of that light as it travels away from the source?

-------------
wvwvwvwvwv

))))))))

**********

>>>>>>>>

••••••••••••••

Or concentric circle like pond ripple

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:41:32 UTC No. 16454729

>>16440872
>source: I felt it in my bones

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:54:34 UTC No. 16454743

>>16454331
Why does it need to have a form reminiscent of something you have seen in everyday life?
>it's a cloud of probability
>it's like a ripple in a pond
>it's like a tiny ball
>it's like a cake with raisins
Why can't it just be accepted as is and for people to recognize that all metaphysical interpretations are useless fluff bordering on sophistry?

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 05:03:19 UTC No. 16455619

>>16454743
>Why can't it just be accepted as is and for people to recognize that all metaphysical interpretations are useless fluff bordering on sophistry?
Because it was only till recently that I saw something like this, and prior it was shown in text books as a double helix kind of thing saying 1 caused the other caused 1 caused the other etc confusing and unclear.

https://youtu.be/aXRTczANuIs?si=sQQg6xb5oHlrFg26

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 05:05:48 UTC No. 16455620

>>16455619
>>16454743
Also I don't think it touches upon then the rest state of the physicality of the em field prior to a charges acceleration.

There are prephotonic essences at every point throughout the universe, sitting there waiting to be disturbed.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 05:30:48 UTC No. 16456679

>>16455620
>prephotonic essences at every point throughout the universe, sitting there waiting to be disturbed.
Called virtual photons. Do they have a rest mass?