Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:00:48 UTC No. 16446256

>>16446231
>this is what passes as "bait" nowadays
/sci/ is truly a dead board.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:57:18 UTC No. 16446354

>>16446231
I long for the day 4chan stops posting anything Sam Hyde related

Stop guessing start learning at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:00:40 UTC No. 16446361

>>16446231
Bro here we go with the schizo rambling you just reposted this from another thread.

You also have no idea what your talking about

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:04:20 UTC No. 16446367

>>16446256
>>16446354
>>16446361
JIDF DETECTED

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:05:24 UTC No. 16446369

>>16446361
>You also have no idea what your talking about
Enlighten me then. So far your only criticism has been “akshuaylly humans can’t travel this far”. For real? It can be opposite corners of a room if you want.

Stop guessing start learning at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:29:29 UTC No. 16446389

>>16446369
Qm is a probability measurement used in economics. If you ever notice all qm majors go straight to Wallstreet. For the casino.

For something to be considered physics it must have physical laws.

A+b=c every single time. Not 50% not 60% but 100% of the time

truth is anon non deterministic measurements are useless in physics because the nature of uncertainty.

Hence the uncertainty principle. The only thing certain is uncertainty.

Or schrodinger cat which was a thought expirement to prove the absurdity of QM.

Stop babbling off about Christianity when Christians are behind most scientific advancements we use today

Faraday? Electromagnetic induction and electrochemistry. Christian

Newton. The telescope, calculus, the laws of motion, principa mathematica philosophea.

His equations are used to calculate the exit Velocity of a rocket. Using his opposing forces philosophy. Overcoming the force of gravity. F=MA

again you don't know what your saying.

Seek treatment

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:37:07 UTC No. 16446394

>>16446389
>you don’t know what you’re saying
>proceeds to spout pop sci shit
>thinks probabilistic laws can’t exist
You’re funny. Please, continue.

Stop guessing start learning at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:45:57 UTC No. 16446400

>>16446394
There is no such thing as a probability laws.

They are only used for predictive modeling.

Pop sci? How is this realat3d to Pop sci?

You just feel dumb you were wrong.

This is what happens when you don't actually study and learn and just assume shit

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:48:53 UTC No. 16446406

>>16446400
>There is no such thing as a probability laws.
Not subtle enough, troll anon.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:58:57 UTC No. 16446480

>>16446231
>HOLY FUCKING SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE! ISN’T REALITY WEIRD?!
Physicists don't actually claim entanglement is action at a distance. Your OP is basically the same thing as the example of "Bertlmann's socks" introduced by John Bell himself before you were born. It works exactly as you say if both Alice and Bob measure "do I have a 100 dollar bill?" But what you are missing is that there are non-commuting measurements in quantum mechanics, Alice and Bob can measure the spin of a particle in non-collinear directions, and the Bell experiment is about these situations.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:00:22 UTC No. 16446483

>>16446480
>But what you are missing is that there are non-commuting measurements in quantum mechanics, Alice and Bob can measure the spin of a particle in non-collinear directions, and the Bell experiment is about these situations.
You have schizophasia

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:00:53 UTC No. 16446484

>>16446483
No you are just ignorant

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:04:47 UTC No. 16446489

>>16446484
No, you are ignorant.
There are no such thing as "non commuting measurements". There are non-commuting operators, you just throw words around to sound smart but you are an imbecile

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:07:31 UTC No. 16446493

>>16446489
If you know what a non-commuting operator is, but still do not understand my post, you are worse than ignorant, you are just stupid.

For everyone else, the point is that everything interesting about entanglement happens when Alice and Bob measure the spin about different axes not the same axis.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:08:52 UTC No. 16446495

>>16446493
Your post simply makes no sense, you are just posting soundbites that you think make you sound smart. Kill yourself nigger

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:37:24 UTC No. 16446512

>>16446231
It's just a trivial solution to spacelike interactions. That's it.

Stop guessing start learning at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:10:29 UTC No. 16446542

>>16446495
Lol anon just wants to come here and argue

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:57:46 UTC No. 16446719

>>16446231
>I could shuffle the boxes perfectly without Alice and Bob knowing which one’s which. And we see this in nature with experimental confirmation of Bell’s inequalities.
Shuffling boxes is a problem of classical probability which quantum mechanics says is the completely wrong approach to fundamental physics. Quantum mechanics just violates Bell's inequalities and this is what is actually observed when you do the experiment in the lab to pass the undergrad intro to QM course (which you obviously didn't)

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Bell%27s+inequality#quantum_mechanical_violations

>But christcucks (and yhwhcucks) won’t let their dogma get in the way of empirical facts
Forcing your fantasies and preconceptions onto nature, mislabeling them as empirical facts, and falsely asserting anyone disagreeing with you believes in a sky daddy. Talk about dogma.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJjuAAAAMAAJ
>However, all the opponents of quantum mechanics do agree on one point. It would, in their view, be desirable to return to the reality concept of classical physics or, to use a more general philosophic term, to the ontology of materialism. They would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them. This, however, is impossible or at least not entirely possible because of the nature of the atomic phenomena, as has been discussed in some of the earlier chapters. It cannot be our task to formulate wishes as to how the atomic phenomena should be; our task can only be to understand them.

https://publicism.info/science/cosmos/14.html
>We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be. The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:50:22 UTC No. 16446892

Hidden Variable sisters...
They're laughing at us again

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:51:12 UTC No. 16446911

>>16446480
>But what you are missing is that there are non-commuting measurements in quantum mechanics, Alice and Bob can measure the spin of a particle in non-collinear directions, and the Bell experiment is about these situations.
And? How does this change my initial point?
>>16446719
>le citations
use your own words

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:49:14 UTC No. 16447148

>>16446911
>use your own words
Why would I waste my time with that when there's prior art with identical semantic content? This isn't kindergarten composition homework.

That poster is attempting to show you that boxes, socks, and all the other childish caricatures aren't isomorphic to any Bell-like setup, despite Bell's persistent delusions that they would be. Apples and oranges. The only commonality is grade school level probability theory which possesses zero pedagogical value for anyone learning quantum mechanics since it's an obvious prerequisite and fails to outline the novelties which students actually trip over. Intuiting about microphysical laws and concepts with macroscopic objects is also just as retarded and circular as explaining electromagnetism with idle wheels and rubber bands.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:17:08 UTC No. 16447167

>>16447148
>The only commonality is grade school level probability theory which possesses zero pedagogical value
Kill yourself

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:30:21 UTC No. 16447185

>>16447148
>Why would I waste my time with that
because appeal to authority is not an argument

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:38:40 UTC No. 16447198

>>16447167
Are you trying to teach quantum mechanics to children under six? If they're over that age and still haven't grasped such trivialities you should scan their ear tags and return them to their tard wranglers because what you're doing is pissing in the wind.

>>16447185
Your inability to read anything that isn't directly posted on an anonymous meme forum is not an appeal to authority. Perhaps you should look up what that term means in a dictionary. Oh, wait...

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:41:13 UTC No. 16447202

>>16447198
Your whole argument boils down to “yeah, that’s not how we measure Bell’s inequality”. So? Does this change anything I’ve said. The world is intrinsically probabilistic. People who have a problem with that expose their christian mindset with notions of consciousness and objective reality. Just move the fuck on.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:55:37 UTC No. 16447232

>>16447202
I'm only providing constructive criticism. Your proposition is true, the proof is junk. You can't expect to convince a die hard of the former with the latter.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:01:35 UTC No. 16447243

>>16447232
Fair point. But we already have experimental proof. This is more of an analogy rather than a proof. I just don’t get the deal when people get spooked about it.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:31:24 UTC No. 16447555

>>16446911
>How does this change my initial point?
Your initial point is that quantum entanglement is trivial because it is like your example with the $1 and $100 bill. My point is that your example is like the Bell experiment when both Alice and Bob are restricted to measure the spin along the same axis, but to see something different in quantum entanglement compared to classical correlations you need to consider measuring spins about different axes.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:38:02 UTC No. 16447570

>>16447555
>but to see something different in quantum entanglement compared to classical correlations you need to consider measuring spins about different axes.
Sure. Bell’s inequality just provide a rigorous means of testing for hidden variables. I never claimed that the box example is supposed to demonstrate Bell’s inequality in the OP. Bell’s inequality was the supporting argument to my claim that the world isn’t deterministic and one needs to accept that instead of coming up with bullshit excuses.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:38:23 UTC No. 16447656

>>16447148
If Science can absolutely prove with certainty (how could they do this) that there exist (or thee) actual fundamental physical units that don't obey the laws of logic (eternal apriori physical logic)(if you make the knee-jerk illthought oft parroted dog yip of the universe not having to obey humans understanding of logic, you don't know or understand what logic is) then this is another piece of evidence in the pile for Scientific Proof of God.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:44:09 UTC No. 16447670

>>16447656
>If Science can absolutely prove with certainty (how could they do this)
I say how could they do this, because well the originators of quantum theory might have been somewhat cautious of claims of knowledge, understanding, certainty, the recent trends of pop sci mysticism births skepticism. The quicknesses at which certain understanding is claimed to be absolutely known due to this or that Rube Goldberg experiment is alarming.

Using fundamental materials not fully understand, interacting in aparatus not fully understood, resulting in results claimed to be fully understood, or not fully understood, then claiming therfore the universe does not fully understand itself, it is deranged, dishonest, nonsensical, illogical fundamentally of itself

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:51:06 UTC No. 16447677

>>16447243
>Fair point. But we already have experimental proof.
What is the EM field?
What is light?
What is the physical most minimum quanta of light?
What is entanglement?
How can the minima fundamenta be split?

Okay I now see that maybe if it is split or whatever and then captured in tubes maybe there is something to this, as the light wants to travel on its merry way outward, as the Earth continuously travels in reference to the external EM field,
And so there is this weird glitchyness that goes on where it is meant to be traveling away, but was split and captured, and dragged along with earth's reference frame, so when they are finally reunited or 1 is touched, this again sends no no no this is all just craziness and how could sense be made of something like this if the universe were real

A beautiful brilliant hopefully not too difficult effort would be for someone to theorize a way in which spooky action entanglement could be a real thing and occurring in a real reality

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:18:33 UTC No. 16447863

>>16447677
based schizo

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:25:56 UTC No. 16447983

>>16446493
In simple terms what does quantum spin mean, and how many different axis do quantum particles have?

And what interesting happens when spin is measured?

And what does splitting a photon into a pair mean?

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:30:55 UTC No. 16447991

>>16447202
>The world is intrinsically probabilistic.
The controversy and skepticism is this:

I have a 6 sided die

I do not know what side it will land on.

I throw the die in the air, turn around and run into the next room before it lands.

From the room over I take out a piece of paper and plan to geuss what number it landed on.

On my piece of paper I write down the following:

The die sitting on the floor in the other room from my single throw has landed on 1 2 3 4 5 and 6.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:37:44 UTC No. 16448001

>>16447677
>Okay I now see that maybe if it is split or whatever and then captured in tubes maybe there is something to this, as the light wants to travel on its merry way outward, as the Earth continuously travels in reference to the external EM field,
>And so there is this weird glitchyness that goes on where it is meant to be traveling away, but was split and captured, and dragged along with earth's reference frame, so when they are finally reunited or 1 is touched, this again sends
No there might be something to that.

Light is split and trapped in tubes. It is cut off from its external field, and the Earth moves at its frame rate while this light is trapped and cut off.

When the light is untraped, a snap back into local place reaction occurs

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:02:35 UTC No. 16448026

>>16447983
>how many different axis do quantum particles have?
Just like in classical physics you can measure angular momentum about any axis in 3D space (which can be specified by two angles, latitude and longitude). But what is unusual about spin 1/2 particles is that no matter which axis you pick to measure there will only be two possible measurement results. The angular momentum will come out to either plus or minus hbar/2. Which result you get is probabilistic, and the probabilities vary depending on the measurement axis. There is always one particular direction where you are certain to get plus hbar/2 rather than minus, and that is called the direction where the spin is pointing up.

Now say you have two spin 1/2 particles which are entangled (in the "singlet state" for those who know what I'm talking about). If Alice first measures her spin about any direction, she has a 50-50 chance of getting plus or minus. If Bob then picks the exact same direction to measure, he is certain to get the exact opposite sign of whatever Alice got (like in OP's example), but if he picks some other axis he has some non-zero probability of getting the same sign as Alice. So the correlation of Alice and Bob's results depends on the angle between the two axes they measure, and the point of Bell's theorem is that it is impossible for a hidden variable theory to get this correlation as a function of angle right.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:37:36 UTC No. 16448620

>>16448026

What is the method of measuring spin?

Where is bobs particle what is doing in the mean time waiting for Alice's measurement?

How are two 1/2 spin entangled particles generated?

Alice can measure on any axis, but 50% of the side of 1 axis results in state A
50% of the side of the other axis results in state B?

What is the differing effects of the 2 states?

Can entangled particles be split in more than 2 or only pairs can be made?

How is it assured in experiment only exactly 2 solitary particles are produced?

When Alice makes her measurment, are there many types of detectors surrounding her location attempting to see if anything odd is detected, that could signal away to bobs particle?

You already mentioned there's many axis for bob to measure, but with such small items being dealt with, surely there is some limitation, but I geuss it's like if a marble was shot toward you and you had a toothpick in your hand, in 1,000 successive trials you could change the angle of the toothpick like around the clock, and then even angle it differently toward z axis and then again try different locations around the clock.

Alice measures hers, bob measures his at the same angle, his results in opposite spin, what does opposite spin effectively mean, result in?

But if he slightly alters the angle of his toothpick, the particle never results in the same spin as hers, or sometimes it does(?) and sometimes it doesn't result in the opposite either? (Doesn't seem right if there's only 2 possible states I must have missed something)

What are the various methods of detecting the particle at all, and furthermore the spin?

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:46:02 UTC No. 16449306

>>16446231
The spookiness isn't the indeterminacy per se. Everyone who isn't a crank already knows genuine randomness exists in the world from studying other phenomena like radioactive decay or the rdrand instruction on their computer. It's that the indeterminacy isn't generated in advance by your shuffling but only when Alice or Bob open their box and collapse their wavefunction. In other words it's not just stochastic randomness. This is what the Conway-Kochen theorem shows and it really needs first person subjective perception, consciousness or whatever you want to call it to work.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:57:40 UTC No. 16449334

>>16449306
>when i open my wallet i either have $1 o $100, this is spooky

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:09:24 UTC No. 16449355

>>16449334
My wallet's not a triple experiment though and I know how much money I put in it already

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:34:18 UTC No. 16449400

>>16446354
Yes. He betrayed the oldheads and Don Jolly.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:42:44 UTC No. 16449408

>>16449306
It is generated when the states are entangled ie when I shuffle the boxes.

As for le conciousness, you can “collapse” (decohere) a wavefunction via external interactions. Collapse is usually understood as some idealized measurement. For instance, a position measurement can be understood as an infinite potential everywhere outside a specified point. Obviously we can’t do this irl. Irl we only localize a wavefunction via external measurements to some region defined by the intrinsic imprecision of the apparatus.

As for that theorem, it doesn’t show any necessity of consciousness, subjective perception or whatever you want to call it. It is literally the assumption instead. And the contrapositive to that theorem can actually support my original post: if free particles don’t have free will, then so doesn’t the observer. Obviously, particles don’t have free will. The fact that the observer doesn’t have free will as a result is again a completely normal thing if you free yourself from this Judeo-Christian idea of the transcendental soul or God observing the Universe “from the above”. We are simply parts of that universe and obey the same laws.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:46:21 UTC No. 16449417

>>16449408
>you free yourself from this Judeo-Christian
a shekel has been deposited into your good goy account

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:48:43 UTC No. 16449422

>>16449417
>/sci/ reading comprehension

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:14:49 UTC No. 16449448

>>16449408
>It is generated when the states are entangled ie when I shuffle the boxes.
Then how do quantum erasers and other unitary transformations on a box after shuffling work? All the off-diagonal elements/coherences are gone.
>As for le conciousness, you can “collapse” (decohere) a wavefunction via external interactions.
How? Zeh is the dude who discovered decoherence and he believes in the many-minds interpretation. Zurek is the other big decoherence figurehead and says the state vector is relative to the observer and consciousness is needed to perceive a single outcome. Yet you seem to be advocating for an objective collapse interpretation. What are the exact objective conditions for collapse?
>Obviously, particles don’t have free will.
Proof? I don't see how free will requires God. A "super-observer" like God would falsify the state vector being relative in any case.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:52:43 UTC No. 16449480

>>16449448
I don’t care what the other guys believe. I seem to advocate for no collapse but simply an instantaneous change in the Hamiltonian at the instance of “measurement” ie presence of external potentials. The wavefunction “adapts” to such changes regardless if they are observed by a conscious agent, whatever that means.

Consider the following. Say Alice passes through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus on her way to the destination. That apparatus, unbeknownst to her, had decohered the state to, say, spin up. When she arrives at her destination and does her Stern-Gerlach experiment, she measures the spin to be up. Was it really her consciousness that caused the collapse? How does her lack of omniscience factor into this? Can she even make informed decisions on that account given her own lack of knowledge?

The usual interpretations always have these presuppositions about observers that stem from cultural biases. An observer is always this idealized subject observing the object “from the above” while being aware of everything around them. I argue that such presuppositions in our Abrahamic view of the world. If QM were to be discovered in Thailand, no one would bat an eye. All that randomness is yet another aspect of samsara, yet another maya.
>proof?
Particles aren’t conscious. They obey prescribed laws, even if they are probabilistic. A particle cannot just decide to stop following Schrödinger time evolution.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:54:07 UTC No. 16449481

>>16449480
*such presupposition have the root in our Abrahamic view of the world

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:22:14 UTC No. 16449606

>>16449480
>I seem to advocate for no collapse but simply an instantaneous change in the Hamiltonian at the instance of “measurement” ie presence of external potentials. The wavefunction “adapts” to such changes regardless if they are observed by a conscious agent, whatever that means.
By definition it can't really be a called a Hamiltonian anymore if it changes with time, can it? At least in a non-effective theory. Much like whatever you're calling decoherence isn't really decoherence. You're just going to get called a crank until you formalize this stuff and show it quantitatively agrees with experiments.
>Consider the following
What you're proposing seems to be flavor of stochastic hidden variable theory like Nelson or GRW but more vacuous. It isn't mathematically equivalent to the postulates of quantum mechanics so it'll be up to you to show that it's right.
Nit: Decoherence minimizes relative complex phases. It doesn't reduce a state to an eigenstate. Please at least invent some other word--the whole foundation of language rests on communication.
>The usual interpretations always have these presuppositions about observers that stem from cultural biases.
When Bohr, Heisenberg and pals formalized QM they had all had very strong bias towards an objective observer-independent reality and were only able to make progress by abandoning this unjustified assumption. You say you don't care about what other people believe yet invent revisionist history of their beliefs which is quite the double standard.
>An observer is always this idealized subject observing the object “from the above” while being aware of everything around them.
An observer can't ever be aware of everything because of non-commuting observables and the uncertainty principle. The arbitrariness of the Heisenberg cut makes observers just as arbitrary as coordinate charts in GR, so hardly idealized either.
>Particles aren’t conscious
Why not? Why would consciousness have to be unlawful?

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:19:37 UTC No. 16449693

>Alice and Bob
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stop you right there and have you stop talking. Because everything you say after that is going to be so purely ego jerking logic no one will understand what you said. Sure normies may think you are smart, but no, I know you are a full on dumbass for adopting this meme explanation. Do not grace this board with your presences ever again OP.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:33:42 UTC No. 16449707

>>16446231

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 06:22:48 UTC No. 16450119

>>16449606
>By definition it can't really be a called a Hamiltonian anymore if it changes with time, can it?
>t. undergrad
ever heard of time-dependent perturbation theory or the Dyson series?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 08:41:55 UTC No. 16450190

>>16450119
A time-dependent interaction Hamiltonian isn't the same thing as changing the Hamiltonian at different times. That's just a type error. Not sure why you think time-dependent perturbation theory is necessary for time-dependent Hamiltonians, let alone why both wouldn't be covered in undergrad physics, but okay. What perturbative decomposition are you doing that picks a spin eigenstate in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus? And to not dodge the context of the quote what does the full non-effective non-perturbative theory look like?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:01:32 UTC No. 16450207

>>16450190
>A time-dependent interaction Hamiltonian isn't the same thing as changing the Hamiltonian at different times
Ever heard of the Heaviside step function?
>Not sure why you think time-dependent perturbation theory is necessary for time-dependent Hamiltonians
Never said it was. Non-perturbative QM is poorly understood outside of a few extremely symmetric cases where the Staeckel conditions permit full separability. I just used it as examples of handling time-dependent Hamiltonians.
>What perturbative decomposition are you doing that picks a spin eigenstate in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus?
I suppose a semiclassical approximation where the potential is switched on and off. Never went through the calculation, so I can’t elaborate.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:02:40 UTC No. 16450848

>>16450207
>Ever heard of the Heaviside step function?
Sorry, I don't see how you're able to piecewise construct a linear and unitary operator such that states are randomly turned into eigenstates at special times.
>I suppose a semiclassical approximation where the potential is switched on and off. Never went through the calculation, so I can’t elaborate.
You make a bunch of implicit ad hoc assumptions about the choice of observables, inertial frame and what can be considered classical in one extremely narrow scenario, don't even show your work, and conclude the wave function is an objective wave that objectively collapses? Embarrassing.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:21:24 UTC No. 16450876

>>16450848
>Sorry, I don't see how you're able to piecewise construct a linear and unitary operator such that states are randomly turned into eigenstates at special times.
The sudden approximation uses a piecewise operator in time that is unitary and linear. See Sakurai 5.6.

In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the inhomogeneity of the magnetic field spontaneously breaks the rotational symmetry of the free Hamiltonian. The Hilbert space essentially "shrinks down" and the residual degrees of freedom become eigenstates.
>conclude
never did. I explicitly said I didn't do the calculation. It's something that I'm making up on the go.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:29:19 UTC No. 16450895

Now that I think about it, since the field has a preferred direction (conventionally labeled as the z-axis), we break SO(3) down to SO(2). Since U(1) is a double cover of SO(2), the breaking pattern for spin-1/2 particles is SU(2)->U(1). We go from |lm> states down to just invariance up to a complex phase, which is expected of eigenstates.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:39:05 UTC No. 16450912

>>16450876
Thanks for letting me know not to waste my time, I guess.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:39:43 UTC No. 16450913

>>16450912
kek whatever

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 21:21:47 UTC No. 16451253

>>16449448
>Then how do quantum erasers and other unitary transformations on a box after shuffling work? All the off-diagonal elements/coherences are gone.
The EM field is always locally connected to itself, whenever a measurment on the particle is made, more EM radii is generated in accordance with the circum stance of its detection which travels at light speed and then harmonizes bobs particle before he measures it

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 21:31:49 UTC No. 16451265

>>16450848
Shoot a particle inside a black box, and/or a box lined with mirrors