Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:04:04 UTC No. 16500213

>>16500204
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.10778

?

"
Its also interesting to note that the recent explicitly non-Markovian stochastic formulation of quantum theory by Barandes (subject of a post some time ago) explains non-local entanglement through the ability of the non-Markovian transition matrix to remember correlations from local interactions in the past (and implying that a Markovian counterpart could not do this). This explanation actually seems quite reminiscent of the idea that a phase shift is set at source and maintained or remembered over time until measured / decohered.

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/local-mechanism-for-nonlocal-anticorrelations-inside-spin-theory.1066463/#post-7127463"

fuck knows if this is related.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:05:18 UTC No. 16500214

>>16500213
that pdf is by said Barandes.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:07:41 UTC No. 16500215

>>16500213
Barandes is the interviewee. Also, there is very little documentation on this subject, being bleeding edge. This is pointed out in the interview and you probably observed this already with google.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:27:12 UTC No. 16500280

How many layers of guessing are we on?

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:31:10 UTC No. 16500281

>>16500213
>implying that a Markovian counterpart could not do this
How is that an implication? That's explicitly in the definition of a Markov process. Its memoryless.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:32:26 UTC No. 16500284

What I always hate about this "new frameworks" is that they never just show it being used. Like how does he handle a Hydrogen atom in this framework? Does it give the right spectral lines?

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:54:12 UTC No. 16500300

>>16500204
>>16500213
schizophasia

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:59:09 UTC No. 16500305

Has he figured out how to calculate P(A|B & C) instead of just P(A|B) yet?

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:15:07 UTC No. 16500326

>>16500284
It doesn’t produce new results as far as I know and it’s mathematically equivalent to wave mechanics, it’s kind of a mapping from a coherent/self-consistent QM formulation to wave mechanics as normally taught and used. The innovative thing about it is it merges classical and quantum mechanics in very “natural” ways. You end up working with classical probabilities (ie. a real number between 0 and 1) and it does so while avoiding the QM voodoo like muh dead and alive cat, wave function collapse and other black magic. This is not to say the common way of doing QM is bad, it’s probably easier to work with wave mechanics, but when needed, one can map back to this new way of formulating QM and vice versa. This is what I got from the video.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:23:01 UTC No. 16500346

>>16500326
I know it may not produce new results, but these guys never show it being used to get old results. They will present some hobbled together "proof" it is mathematically equivalent, but never show them actually using it to predict the band gap of some semiconductor material, or bond energies of benzene.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:24:07 UTC No. 16500349

>>16500281
>F. Division Events and the Markov Approximation
>Why do discrete-time Markov chains (13) provide such a good approximation to so many stochastic processes in the real world? One intuitively reasonable explanation is
that when a system is not isolated from a noisy and intrusive environment, delicate correlations from one time to another ‘wash out’ over short time scales as those correlations leak out into the environment.
>Deriving this intuitive picture from first principles in a more precise way might appear to be a difficult task. Indeed, such a derivation would seem to require finding a more general framework for describing a non-Markovian
process, and then showing that such a process becomes approximately Markovian in the appropriate physical circumstances. Fortunately, this paper provides just such a
framework.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.10778

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:26:41 UTC No. 16500353

>>16500204
Don't collapse wave function makes sense

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:27:13 UTC No. 16500532

>>16500204
That's so boring. Next they'll find out that space doesn't actually curve. Fuck this lame ass universe

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:34:55 UTC No. 16500541

>>16500204
That was a pretty interesting video, gotta say.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:13:19 UTC No. 16500612

>>16500204
>classical probabilities
Yes, the classical probabilistic mechanics we loved and learn as children. No more probabilistic calculations, now results are probabilistic (classically speaking)

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:47:13 UTC No. 16500628

>>16500532
There was never any reason to believe that space does curve. Curved space is just an interpretation of general relativity. General relativity itself is just math. It just tells how you how matter moves around. All the shit about space-time being curved and such is the intuitive explanation given to the math.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:53:05 UTC No. 16500636

>>16500628
>and such is the intuitive explanation given to the math.
Not true, its meant to be literal curvature, in the strict mathematical sense. Intrinsic curvature which you can measure by measuring the angles of a triangle.
Get 3 points in space and shoot lazors from one to the next, making a triangle. Measure the angles, they will not be 180 degrees.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:37:05 UTC No. 16500770

>>16500636
Then you didn't draw a flat triangle. You drew a curved triangle. Your laser just moves in curved beams rather than straight beams.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:48:06 UTC No. 16500912

>>16500346
These people don't care about physics. They're ideology-driven philosophers and all the actual details just surely have to work somehow, they believe. Find the right "emergeables" or whatever crap in an infinite sea of random variables, just like you'd find a proof of the Riemann hypothesis in πfs.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:17:44 UTC No. 16500946

>>16500204
This is actually very crazy. Like, the dude did the math, this seems fucking revolutionary. Maybe the only reason why everyone isn't talking about this is because it so far, it's math is completely knew and nobody knows the full extent of this insight, but this reminds me of how Feynman discovered that you can do Lagrangian mechanics instead of a Hamiltonian and it spat out the Schrodinger equation.
Rederiving the basic axioms from another way of thinking is a crazy af thing, and it seems theres little reason to disagree with the math, since it's math

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:45:11 UTC No. 16500988

>>16500284
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-024-00752-y

I think they do the hydrogen atom in another paper.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:24:16 UTC No. 16501028

>>16500946
Physishits have dozens of ways to ignore results derived from "da mafs".

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:24:31 UTC No. 16501029

>>16500636
>Get 3 points in space and shoot lazors from one to the next, making a triangle. Measure the angles, they will not be 180 degrees.
Prove it

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:48:40 UTC No. 16501520

>>16501029
>Prove it
Prove what, as a theoretical prediction or as an experimental fact?

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 22:13:59 UTC No. 16501536

>>16500770
>Then you didn't draw a flat triangle. You drew a curved triangle
Its just the path that light takes, no one is forcing it to follow a curved path.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:20:52 UTC No. 16501734

>>16501520
The latter. I assume.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:22:05 UTC No. 16501736

>>16500204
>Even the QM magic like coherence, interference, etc. is gone as it becomes an artifact of having used the wrong language to describe quantum processes.
That's the claim. Where's the proof?

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:51:22 UTC No. 16501789

>>16501736
On his arxiv papers

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 05:39:48 UTC No. 16501873

>>16501736
https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10778 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.03085 https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.16935

yw

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 08:00:06 UTC No. 16501905

So can you actually simulate the path of the electron in the hydrogen atom with this model?

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:22:40 UTC No. 16501980

>>16501734
It was proven by eddington during that eclipse

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:49:27 UTC No. 16502133

>>16500204
>Hilbert spaces aren't real
Yeah they're complex. Lmao

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:02:52 UTC No. 16502145

>>16501905
you can see a depiction in this paper

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=14260860180761160032&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

this is not barandes theory. it is a clisely related theory called nelsonian stochastic mechanics that has been around since 1966 but is not very well known at all.

they are basically two different perspectives on the same stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics. barandes has taken a kinda sleeker shortcut route which is more general

the Nelsonian route is significantly more involved, complicated but also more fully formed abd fitted to regular qm. Nelsonian simulations exist also of double slit, stern gerlach and bell violations. one problem with Nelsonian one is it makes a Markov assumption which is probably an artificial assumption thaf isnt true, albeit it still reproduces all predictions of qm. barandes' formulation is explicitly non-Markovian.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:43:16 UTC No. 16502285

>>16502133
click bait title that has nothing to do with the contents
>>16502145
Do you see this replacing the current curriculum (eg. wave mechanics)? I understand the sophistication of the math involved could be a barrier to this. Maybe with some modifications to the probability side of the curriculum, this formulation or Barandes' could replace the defunct wave formulation?

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:59:09 UTC No. 16502327

>>16502285
>Do you see this replacing the current curriculum (eg. wave mechanics)?
NTA but I don't see it. Maybe as a side note to motivate the axioms of QM.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 18:25:30 UTC No. 16502393

>>16502285
>this formulation or Barandes' could replace the defunct wave formulation?

I doubt it. maybe it would give interesting insights in some areas but generally no. If you look at Barandes perspective, it suggests that the conventional quantum formalism is explicitly a way of making the description of the underlying stochastic system easier.

The underlying stochastic system has a property of indivisibity which makes it impossible to construct certain kinds of probabilities out of other kinds with regard to composing and decomposing trajectories a system takes in space.

When you convert the stochast8c syste. into the conventional quantum formalism and replace probabilities with amplitudes, the amplitudes are divisible, which allows you to do the construction process with amplitudes that you could not possibly do with the underlying probabilities.

So there is very good reason for conventional quantum mechanics to be the preferable formalism in general

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 18:30:34 UTC No. 16502409

On the double slit experiment
>According to the approach laid out in this paper, the particle really does go through a specific slit in each run of the experiment. The final interference pattern on the detection screen is due to the generic indivisibility of time evolution for quantum systems.

daaaamn. Lot of other stuff he said, yall should look at the papers

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 18:37:42 UTC No. 16502423

>>16502409
this is why this approach needs to somehow be embedded into standard curriculum. if i hear again that the particle goes through both slits i will lose my marbles

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 18:43:01 UTC No. 16502435

>>16501980
Behold, curved space.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:33:20 UTC No. 16502520

>>16502409
>generic indivisibility of time evolution
ah, that. now it's clear.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:35:52 UTC No. 16502525

>>16502409
>yall should look at the papers
I'm not wasting my time on lunatics. get someone who wants to popularize this thingy understand it thoroughly and then come here and take questions. so far I've only seen negatives ('not this', 'not that') and schizobabble ('generic indivisibility of time evolution for quantum processes').

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 00:34:40 UTC No. 16502987

>>16502525
>>16502520
it literally says here what is meant by divisible process at eq. 13: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.10778v2

and at eq. 15 and eq. 16 you are given two examples. are you illiterate?

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 04:45:37 UTC No. 16503229

>>16500912

You just described materialist and naturalist to a T.

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:58:45 UTC No. 16503385

>>16503229
This is easily debunked since things you do not experience happen

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 09:13:59 UTC No. 16503389

TLDR
How does it explain double split experiment and entanglement?

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 09:20:42 UTC No. 16503390

>>16502987
>are you illiterate
says the retard right after I said I will not waste time reading shit some lunatic put together. explain what happens when the photon seems to go through both slits. just in case you haven't noticed, a good theory does not make up new mechanisms, it reduces what we observe to known ones.

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 09:35:29 UTC No. 16503394

>>16503389

But the same empirical pattern of landing sites also follows from treating the whole system as an indivisible stochastic process, without wave functions or collapses, as I show in the papers.

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 09:41:54 UTC No. 16503400

>>16503389
there you have it >>16503394 it's an 'indivisible stochastic process', duh.
also, a slip:
>"as I show in the papers"
>"I"
we have the schizo himself among us.

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 15:18:40 UTC No. 16503604

>>16503389
The particle only goes through one slit at a time

indivisible means the system has memory

so entanglement is when local interactions between systems cause correlations that are remembered by the systems even when they are separated in space

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 15:39:54 UTC No. 16503615

>>16503604
>The particle only goes through one slit at a time
this could work because photons can interact and create interference patterns with photons from the past and future

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 16:15:27 UTC No. 16503651

>>16503615
NO

no weird interference with past and future photons that dont exist

NO

infact. think it this way.
interference is a bad, inaccuratr word.

nothing is actually interfering

all that happens is that when one slit is open the photons travel in a different pattern compared to when two slits are open

nothing more.

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 17:16:49 UTC No. 16503718

>>16502435
No physishit will dare touch this.

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 21:58:09 UTC No. 16504258

>>16502435
Its not empty space tho

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 08:00:18 UTC No. 16504635

>>16501789
>>16501873
Interesting. I read the section on the double slit experiment. However, I notice that it fails to address the actual measurement problem involved in that experiment, which is the crux of the matter and the only thing that I or anyone who discusses it is interested in. He's got nothing.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 08:01:52 UTC No. 16504636

>>16501736
No. Show us your laser experiment, why don't you?

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 08:04:19 UTC No. 16504638

>>16503651
You don't understand the double slit experiment.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 08:39:48 UTC No. 16504644

someone can remind me how the double slit experiment behaves with a monophotonic emitter?

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 08:40:15 UTC No. 16504645

>>16504635
In that view the photons or whatever would interact with the measuring device at the slits which would cause the measuring device to evolve stochastically to one outcome. But that interaction also kills off the interference effects like decoherence.
And because the system has a classical configuration we don't need to collapse after a measurement. The system was in a definite state all along.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 08:44:53 UTC No. 16504647

for a system to have a memory but the memory is not related to a physical process isn't that just to say that the system evolves for example in the double slit experiment just because it does while offering no physical explanation? it's a correlation with no underlying process, it just happened to correlate in a way mimicking interference, seems like a non-explanation

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 09:01:12 UTC No. 16504652

>>16504647
He doesn't even explicitly add anything like memory. Everything just emerges if you use a very general stochastic dynamic. There are no extra assumptions. That's kinda crazy

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 12:52:44 UTC No. 16504746

state your mathematical framework
explain the 8nterference mechanism using that framework
until then you are a schizo.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 13:46:54 UTC No. 16504781

>>16504258
It's mostly empty space. Atoms are mostly empty space.
Anyway, no space is truly empty. The interplanetary medium? Not empty. Interstellar medium? Not empty. Intergalactic medium? Not empty.
When does light bend? Near matter = in space which is not empty.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 13:49:32 UTC No. 16504782

>>16504781
Nerd club called, it wants it's member of the year back. GO. TO NERD CLUB. NOW

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:16:45 UTC No. 16504848

>>16504638
no this is literally the interpretation of the double slit experiment in the paper

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:19:28 UTC No. 16504850

>>16504652
memory follows from the indivisibility assumption. this is explicitly talked about in sections on entanglement... "transition matrix cumulatively encodes statistical information". because an indivisible system is non-markovian which literally means it has memory of the past

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:32:05 UTC No. 16504867

>>16504647
i actually agree with this. barandes offers no mechanism of how to get indivisibility

the next passage is ained at you too

>>16504652
its true that he presents the indivisible system as a generalization of other stochastic systems. and this may infact be true. he then says in a recent video interview that perhaps the generality of these systems is why quantum mechanics behaves this way... maybe it makes sense that fundamental physics starts with the most generalized systems (i think ultimately he is agnostic and this is just a loose speculation on his part rather than like an official part of his theory)

i am not convinced of this that it makes sense for physics to start off like this. and i think many different things can be construed as being general without necessarily being foundational or fundamental. a generalization of something just means it can reproduce the behavior of that thing in addition to other stuff. i see no reason for that kind of thing to be foundational.

barandes distances himself from another complete formulation of quantum mechanics as a stochastic system (the fact that multiple formulations of quantum mechanics now exist that interpret it in exactly the same way should ring alarm bells imo). this actually gives a much more specific mechanism for how quantum mechanics arises....

particles are interacting with a background field in a way which conserves energy. you can compare it to a dust particle sitting in a glass of water. it moves randomly because it interacts with the water molecules. but this brownian process is dissipative and energy isnt conserved on average in the interactions. dust particle energy leaks away into the water glass due to friction.

in the quantum version, the system is non-dissipative so energy doesnt leak out and is constantly returned to the particle it is conserved on average.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:43:12 UTC No. 16504874

continue last post

>>16504652
>>16504647

what is interesting is that there are classical models that loosely replicate this phenomena. things called "hydrodynamic pilot-wave models", a leading author being i think he is called john bush.

oil droplets surf an oil bath by bouncing on it, exchanging energy to cause its motion like the dust does with the glass of water. the oil bath is dissipative like the water but if you vibrate the bath in a way that counteracts dissipation, the droplet starts showing weird effects that look like quantum behavior and seemingly non-local behavior. very similar to the mechanism proposed in the other stochastic mechanics formulation.

what is happening in the hydrodynamic fluid bath model is that by countering dissipation, waves or ripples caused by events that interact with the bath are remembered and resonate throughout the whole bath. if you change the environment (like a slit or pillar), it affects the bath because the bath molecules are obviously bouncing off it while the droplets are also adding information into the bath by bouncing on it. all this information is remembered in the bath and subsequently affects the behavior of the particle bouncing on it. if you change the slit or pillar then it changes what is going on in the bath so the particle acts differently evem if it is distant from that slit.

the authors explicitly identify this mechanism as non-markovian due to the memory reasons... like the Barandes model.The Barandes non-markovianity and the energy conservation mechanism of the other formulation seem to coincide in these hydrodynamic bath models. obviously these bath models are very very different to stochastic models of quantun mechanics but they seem to be showing these very very basic mechanisms. obviously it doesnt prove anything. it could be way off. but its an interesting coincidence these baths produce quantum-like behavior by superficially similar mechanisms.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:45:35 UTC No. 16504879

>>16504652
>>16504647
continue 3

obviously this means quantum particles would be sitting in a background field which has energy that interacts with the particle...

but this doesnt seem so farfetched because quantum field theory tells us there is energy in empty space and vacuum fluctuations. if im not wrong there have even been recent experiments where they measyre how vacuum fluctuations disturb the movement of large macroscopic objects like mirrors.

so even without specifying what is going on, it doesnt seem something that is incompatible or outrageous compared to what we already know in quantum field theory. things like aharanov-bohm affect too, casimir affect.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:57:16 UTC No. 16504892

>>16504652
>>16504647
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=16295625758829094935&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

nice example of the fluid baths displaying quantum behavior due to non-markovianity from a bath

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:58:52 UTC No. 16504893

>>16504892
and another article of the same phenomena but explicitly talks about it as anaolgue of infamous quantum.bomb test

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=6431569487301716280&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 02:44:13 UTC No. 16505423

>>16504645
It's just saying the same thing using different language. Could be useful down the line for descriptove purposes. But at the moment it tells us nothing new and offers no explanations. Debunked.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 02:46:47 UTC No. 16505426

>>16504848
Then both you and the author of said paper don't understand what is needed to resolve the DSE.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 02:52:14 UTC No. 16505431

>>16504258
There's no such thing as empty space

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 03:18:33 UTC No. 16505453

>>16505423
The parallels is because both are just blackbox analysis. QM is as debunked as it.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 08:51:10 UTC No. 16505622

>>16505423
Well, it describes how measurements work instead of the usual "just collapse the wave function if you feel like it bro"

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 09:43:15 UTC No. 16505647

>>16504879
>new quantum theory drops
>Barandes-style non-Markovian indivisible stochastics
>look inside
>it's just fucking aether

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 09:43:51 UTC No. 16505648

Stochastic schizo thinks light travelling billions of light years to a cosmic interferometer is indivisible lmao

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 09:50:58 UTC No. 16505651

Quantum magic schizo thinks light travelling billions of light years to a cosmic interferometer doesn't decohere lmao

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 10:30:55 UTC No. 16505667

https://inspirehep.net/literature/2792417
5000 km?! Freeze the clock, Homura!

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 10:39:58 UTC No. 16505669

>>16505647
It's a development on Nelson's stochastic interpretation, which he got from assuming particles were affected by Brownian motion in a perfect fluid, what did you expect?

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 10:46:33 UTC No. 16505673

>>16505669
Something with hidden variables maybe.
Or some 127th dimension shit.
Can't schizos come up with something other than aether?

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 11:09:12 UTC No. 16505693

>>16505673
Even the 127 dimensions shit they come up with is aether. String theory is just Kelvin's vortex atoms + mental illness.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 11:11:18 UTC No. 16505694

I still don't understand what people don't understand about Aether, it's just medium EM and Photons propagate in.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 15:48:06 UTC No. 16505857

>>16505673
its not aether! its no more aether than quantum field theory involves aether in empty space

dont fully understand but paper here

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=18314655600428072956&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

seems to suggest in section 2.2 a relation or at least an analogy between quantum potential and mass renormalization in quantum field theory

quantum potential is just the energy related to the osmotic velocity

the paper is about feynmann path integral trajectories but these are the same as the trajectories in stochastic mechanics and the way they calculate the average momentum explicitly makes use of concepts in stochastic mechanics

the fact that the trajectories of particles in stochastic mechanics actually do show up in conventional quantum mechanics in the path integral formulation is also another argument imo. its an interesting coincidence.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 19:23:01 UTC No. 16506041

But what is it good for? I assume it doesn't predict anything new. Does it even give any new ways to numerically simulate quantum systems?

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 22:17:33 UTC No. 16506192

>>16502393
>this formulation or Barandes' could replace the defunct wave formulation?
>I doubt it. maybe it would give interesting insights in some areas but generally no. If you look at Barandes perspective, it suggests that the conventional quantum formalism is explicitly a way of making the description of the underlying stochastic system easier.
>The underlying stochastic system has a property of indivisibity which makes it impossible to construct certain kinds of probabilities out of other kinds with regard to composing and decomposing trajectories a system takes in space.
>When you convert the stochast8c syste. into the conventional quantum formalism and replace probabilities with amplitudes, the amplitudes are divisible, which allows you to do the construction process with amplitudes that you could not possibly do with the underlying probabilities.
>So there is very good reason for conventional quantum mechanics to be the preferable formalism in general
interesting
>>16502409
>On the double slit experiment
>>According to the approach laid out in this paper, the particle really does go through a specific slit in each run of the experiment. The final interference pattern on the detection screen is due to the generic indivisibility of time evolution for quantum systems.
oh
>the generic indivisibility of time evolution for quantum systems
but of course

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 22:20:43 UTC No. 16506193

>>16504874
>oil droplets surf an oil bath by bouncing on it, exchanging energy to cause its motion like the dust does with the glass of water. the oil bath is dissipative like the water but if you vibrate the bath in a way that counteracts dissipation, the droplet starts showing weird effects that look like quantum behavior and seemingly non-local behavior. very similar to the mechanism proposed in the other stochastic mechanics formulation.
interesting I remember this oil experiment
>what is interesting is that there are classical models that loosely replicate this phenomena. things called "hydrodynamic pilot-wave models", a leading author being i think he is called john bush
so that's what it is called

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Dec 2024 22:23:15 UTC No. 16506195

>>16505647
>hating aether
But why? Even Einstein didn't hate it. He just said that because You cannot work with it You can ignore it

Anonymous at Sun, 8 Dec 2024 00:12:24 UTC No. 16506283

>>16506041
apparently stochastic mechanics gives a nicer picturw of quantum tunnelling but i dont actually know anything about this

just what i hear / read