Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:26:36 UTC No. 16554472

>>16554459
There's no wavefunction to begin with. It's just a mathematical tool we use to calculate the distribution of a large number of repeated measurements.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:28:19 UTC No. 16554477

>>16554472
Sure, if we're going full Copenhagen, the wavefunction is just a bookkeeping device for probabilities. But isn't that sidestepping the question of why it works so well? If it’s just a tool, why does it seem to act like a real physical entity when you look at interference patterns or entanglement? How do you reconcile that with the many-worlds or pilot-wave interpretations that treat it as something real?

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:31:33 UTC No. 16554482

>>16554459
>What’s the most no-nonsense way to frame it?
Probably Copenhagen if you don't dwell on it too much.
None of the explanations seem elegant when you spend a ton of time thinking about them, but Copenhagen is the most down-to-earth:
1. No magical parallel universes that somehow pop into being out of nothingness.
2. No magical shroud of quantum influence that hovers around particles.
BUT
If you dwell too long on exactly what an observer is, you'll probably start muttering to yourself.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:32:14 UTC No. 16554485

Decoherence puts it in a incoherent superposition, and that is wave function collapse for all practical purposes. It isn't caused by anything special due to observation or consciousness or what have you, it is caused by interaction with a large number of degrees of freedom in the environment or the detailed microstate of the system. There is still a step going from an incoherent superposition to the actual definite outcome observed in an experiment that different interpretations disagree on, but whatever.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:33:03 UTC No. 16554486

>>16554482
Is that it?

The inner monologue?

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:33:26 UTC No. 16554488

>>16554477
A: See that plane?
B: Yep.
[...one hour later...]
A: Where do you think that plane is now?
B: Well, knowing what we know about aircraft, I couldn't say for sure, but here's where it could be, with some isoprobability lines drawn in.
A: I'll check FlightTracker. Hey look, there it is. Right inside your distrbition.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:34:28 UTC No. 16554492

>>16554459
Just stop pretending there is some reason that the physical world "needs to be" deterministic at all levels. There can be fundamentally uncertain realizations of physical state changes while still having consistent statistics/moments.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:39:13 UTC No. 16554503

>>16554477
Neither of those interpretations add anything to our understanding or clear up any ambiguity in quantum mechanics. They just replace the mystery of wavefunction collapse with some other mystery, like other worlds we can't observe. I'm not saying there isn't some deeper theory which might explain some of the mystery of quantum mechanics, but I don't think such a theory will include an ontologically real wavefunction.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:41:53 UTC No. 16554508

>>16554486
>Is that it?
>The inner monologue?
All I know is that I talk to myself a lot now, anon.
Yup, I sure do all right!

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 00:25:36 UTC No. 16554561

>>16554503
I get where you're coming from—both many-worlds and pilot-wave theories just move the problem around. But the wavefunction isn't just a mystery in itself, it’s a convenient model that predicts outcomes in a way that works (most of the time). If we're saying it’s not real, then what’s the alternative? What's actually happening when the system goes from a superposition to a definite state? If we dismiss the wavefunction as a real entity, are we just going to accept the same spooky behavior as 'it’s just math' and move on?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 00:29:29 UTC No. 16554563

>>16554459
>What’s the most no-nonsense way to frame it?
shut up and calculate

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 00:32:12 UTC No. 16554565

>>16554561
>What's actually happening when the system goes from a superposition to a definite state?
You're assuming that the system was actually physically in a state of superposition to begin with. We've never observed this, it doesn't even make sense physically, so there's no reason to assume it's anything more and mathematical and conceptual model.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:07:20 UTC No. 16554599

>>16554565
Fair enough, but if the system isn’t physically in a superposition, then what is the wavefunction describing? If it’s just a conceptual tool for predictions, then what causes the sharp agreement between theory and experimental results? For example, experiments like double-slit interference seem to behave as if superposition is real. If not, what else explains the outcomes without invoking some hidden dynamics?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:12:50 UTC No. 16554603

>Does it happen because of
consciousness
quantum eraser is a good example of it

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:19:31 UTC No. 16554611

there is only one mystery in physics: why am i here experiencing things? everything else is downstream from that

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:21:16 UTC No. 16554614

>>16554459
I will give you a full list about what we do know here.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:24:46 UTC No. 16554617

>>16554614
Kek. Nice one anon.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:28:21 UTC No. 16554619

>>16554599
Philosophers had a similar dilemma when Newton proposed his universal theory of gravitation. Newton proposed a mathematical rule describing the force between two bodies that had no underlying physical basis. There was no string pulling the bodies towards each other, no substance pushing the bodies towards each other, no mechanism at all behind this mysterious force acting at a distance. Until then philosophers always thought of physical interactions in terms of direct mechanical forces touching each other, so they had difficulty accepting Newton's theory. I think we're in a similar position with quantum mechanics. There could be some underlying mechanism that is yet to be discovered, but it could also simply be the nature of reality we have to accept.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:32:54 UTC No. 16554624

>>16554619
>that had no underlying physical basis.
nigga, he had copernicus' heliocentric ideas, brahe's observations, and kepler's laws to support the conclusions of his model

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:46:38 UTC No. 16554633

>>16554624
I think you misunderstood what the other anon said. The prevailing notion was that the motion of objects could only be influenced by mechanical contact. That a strange invisible "force" could have tangible physical effects seemed absurd. That's what he meant by gravity supposedly having no physical basis. The works you quoted of course were evidence to the contrary.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:55:01 UTC No. 16554638

>>16554633
Got it—Newton's gravity challenged the notion of 'contact mechanics' and made people rethink causation. But even if Newton didn’t have an underlying mechanism for gravity, his model still had predictive power. In quantum mechanics, though, the predictive success of wavefunctions relies heavily on the idea of superposition. So if we dismiss superposition as merely conceptual, isn’t it like rejecting the essence of the theory while still using its math to get results? I get that we’re in the same philosophical limbo as Newton’s time, but QM seems harder to just 'accept' without probing deeper—because it challenges intuition at such a fundamental level.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:59:45 UTC No. 16554644

>>16554638
I think we've pretty much reached the limits of our intuition with quantum mechanics. It's really only calculation going forward.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 02:30:06 UTC No. 16554671

the whole reason wavefunctions are needed is because of experiments showing that when two probability distributions representing the position of particles overlap, they don't just sum up they interfere. collapses occur because when you take a huge amount of parameters in measurements, it's like adding a huge amount of quantum numbers, which is equivalent to leaving the quantum system and returning to the macroscopic system. i'm pretty sure the dirac delta function is what's used here, and that's how you converge to the classical point position probability.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 02:38:19 UTC No. 16554679

>>16554644
Agreed, intuition hits a wall with quantum mechanics. But doesn’t that raise a deeper question? If calculation is all we have going forward, does that mean we’re doomed to treating quantum mechanics as purely instrumental? Or do you think there’s still value in searching for a conceptual framework, even if it’s just for the sake of coherence?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 02:58:10 UTC No. 16554698

>>16554603
https://youtu.be/RQv5CVELG3U

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 03:23:54 UTC No. 16554719

>>16554671
That's solid. It shows the bridge between the quantum and classical worlds pretty well. The idea of interference in overlapping distributions is key, but doesn’t the use of tools like the Dirac delta function in this context kind of reinforce the idea that wavefunctions are more of a mathematical abstraction than a physical reality? Or would you argue that the math directly reflects something ontologically real about quantum systems?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 03:39:08 UTC No. 16554725

>>16554698
she is only "debunking" the time travel not that it doesn't work

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 03:51:35 UTC No. 16554734

>>16554725
So she's debunking the only part of the experiment that was potentially of interest. All that's left is a big fat nothing.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:11:42 UTC No. 16554750

>>16554698
shut up

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:14:24 UTC No. 16554751

>>16554734
the point of interest is that the result depends on the measurement, the particles know how you measure them. she admitted that's true.
this "debunking" doesn't actually rule out the time travel. she claims it doesn't erase anything, i'm not sure if she really understands how the experiment works.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:17:17 UTC No. 16554754

>>16554459
Has "it" ever been shown "to happen" under laboratory conditions? No, of course not. It's another "Model" that's never actually been show to be. Every Physics and Chemistry teacher knows this, but they keep teaching it anyway because we STILL have nothing better after all these decades. Not a promising outlook, really, but it's all we got.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:29:30 UTC No. 16554771

>>16554477
>But isn't that sidestepping the question of why it works so well? If it’s just a tool, why does it seem to act like a real physical entity
You are not describing just QM, but all of physics, all of science for that matter.
Welcome to the rabbithole.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:31:33 UTC No. 16554773

I read some reviews about this. What I learned is that nobody fucking knows. People can't even agree whether decoherence can explain collapse, although I was fairly convinced that it can't after reading various papers.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:51:06 UTC No. 16554787

schizophasia thread
spout out all your favorite polysyllabic science jargon so you can feels smug and get dat social media dopamine buzz you crave

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 05:31:50 UTC No. 16554803

>>16554459
Unironically FTL explains it

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 05:41:37 UTC No. 16554811

>>16554803
this is not incompatible with theory

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 06:04:50 UTC No. 16554826

>>16554614
Underrated

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:47:04 UTC No. 16554938

>>16554719
it's more about the fact that there is a wave-particle duality. under certain conditions you get particle-like precision. classical, newtonian notions of momentum can hold because you can measure mass and velocity fine without the interference creeping itself. but when you study each particle in isolation, getting momentum measurements leads to absurdities because you can't measure positions accurately. it's not so much tools were a limitation, or our models were a limitation, but that having certainty was a preconceived notion. my understanding is that on the quantum level, elementary particles don't have an exact place in space and time. everything exists AS probability waves. that's just what they are, and when you try to measure with certainty, you get paradoxical results. anytime a paradox occurs it's due to a false premise of some sort, and in this case it's exact energy, position, mass, etc. parameters known to a fixed value.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 10:23:21 UTC No. 16554960

The Penrose Interpretation is the correct one

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 15:50:36 UTC No. 16555195

>>16554698
if this is true there is time travel
https://www.stonybrook.edu/laser/_amarch/eraser/index.html
>How this happening? It wouldn't make sense that photon p could know about the polarizer before it got there. It can't "sense" the polarizer's presence far away from it, and send photon s a secret signal to let s know about it. Or can it? And if photon p is sensing things from far away, we shouldn't assume that photon s isn't.
http://strangepaths.com/the-quantum-eraser-experiment/2007/03/20/en/
>At time T0 when D0 is triggered no interference appears, since the which-way information is contained in the system at that time. At time T1, which in the experiment is some nanoseconds later but could be in principle any time later,10 when D1/D2/D3/D4 are triggered, we find interference in the correlated subsets of past D0 records undergoing future erasure of the which-way information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
>Detection of signal photons at D0 does not directly yield any which-path information. Detection of idler photons at D3 or D4, which provide which-path information, means that no interference pattern can be observed in the jointly detected subset of signal photons at D0. Likewise, detection of idler photons at D1 or D2, which do not provide which-path information, means that interference patterns can be observed in the jointly detected subset of signal photons at D0.

the bitch didn't even do minimal research, just repeats what other youtube fags said. thanks for the video, now i know she's a fraud and only good for clickbaits.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 16:11:29 UTC No. 16555208

>>16554488
"That's odd, flight path indicates it went through the rocky mountains?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 16:13:01 UTC No. 16555214

>>16554459
It happens because is quantized. All or nothing, whole quanta or no quanta, no fractions. It can't be half here and the other half there. Simple as.
You should be asking why it goes from right to left. Is it a probability distribution or that is just how a position evolves in time?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 16:20:40 UTC No. 16555219

>>16554477
>what are fields?
>what are lagrangians?
>what is literally all of thermodynamics/statmech?
>what is all physics?
Anon, the list of non-physical things we use to accurately predict the behavior of complex physical systems could fill a textbook, or a few thousand.

Wave functions are just another mathematical formalism that's useful for predicting the behavior of a physical system; and it probably *does* have some deeper meaning to it in-so-far as *why* it works so well, but we don't completely know what that is yet.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 16:38:10 UTC No. 16555231

>>16554482
>If you dwell too long on exactly what an observer is, you'll probably start muttering to yourself.
isn't it any particle which isn't entangled with the system? when a photon interacts with the entangled system the photon itself is the observer, acts like the observer.
maybe observer is not the best word. interactor? anything that isn't entangled with the system?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 16:39:01 UTC No. 16555232

>>16555208
>I mean, I wasn't actually watching the particle the entire time.
>A scientist has to eat lunch, right?
>But when I came back, the particle had climbed a really big hill.
>I couldn't do that, especially after lunch.
>Obviously, it teleported.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:41:25 UTC No. 16555676

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:53:23 UTC No. 16556296

>>16554459
If it happens due to decoherence, wouldn't a large enough quantum computer "collapse" the quantum state of the qbits?

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 19:07:20 UTC No. 16556367

>>16554482
>>16554477
the stochastic interpretation is hands down the best

1. its classical and no measurement problem, no wave function

2. its a mathematical formulation so its proven that it works

3. there is a realistic interpetation that quantum behavior comes from particles being pushed around by a background field. there are established classical toy-models using oil droplets bouncing on baths that produce quantum behavior due to a similar mechanism - when the bath is vibrated so that viscous dissipation is countered, the droplets start producing quantum-like behavior that seems non-local

the central mechanism in stochastic mechanics is an absence of dissipation which leads to all quantum behavior

this is far too much of a coincidence to ignore

this IS the correct interpretation of quantum theory but everyone is too stupid to realize

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:29:53 UTC No. 16556537

>>16554477
>How do you reconcile that with the many-worlds or pilot-wave interpretations that treat it as something real?
You don't. These (especially pilot-wave), are false interpretations dreamt up by salty materialists.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:32:35 UTC No. 16556544

>>16556367
You must have voted for Kamala Harris if American.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:36:43 UTC No. 16556553

>>16554698
You cannot "debunk" the quantum eraser experiment, because the experiment simply highlights the fact of superposition, which is undebunkable. She only "debunked" the false conclusions that retards drew from the experiment (ie. broken causality)
Causality isn't broken precisely because of the properties of superposition. The particle is non-determined until measured.
Of course Sabine didn't dwell on that inconvenient fact, seeing that she's a QM denier and a pilot-wave heretic.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:40:47 UTC No. 16556559

>>16554565
>it doesn't even make sense physically
No. It doesn't make sense classically. It makes perfect sense quantumly speaking. Upgrade your mode of thinking.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:41:30 UTC No. 16556560

>>16556553
> She only "debunked" the false conclusions
Which were the only reasons the experiment was well known. Without that is it just another example of superposition and nothing new.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:45:48 UTC No. 16556568

>>16556560
Actually it's a quite striking example of superposition, more striking than the double slit IMO.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:59:25 UTC No. 16556583

>>16554459
Here it is. The Impossible Trilemma of our universe.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:03:47 UTC No. 16556593

>>16556583
not bad

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:04:42 UTC No. 16556595

>>16556583
Stochastic quantum mechanics is the way, brother.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:10:23 UTC No. 16556606

>>16556583
but locality isn't real ugh

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:11:49 UTC No. 16556608

>>16556606
ok heretic

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:12:41 UTC No. 16556611

>>16556606
Can you send information faster than the speed of light?

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:52:12 UTC No. 16556636

>>16556611
yes, spoopy action

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:17:09 UTC No. 16556688

>>16556544
why

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:22:16 UTC No. 16556690

>>16556553
quantum eraser experiment is so fucking stupid

there is no mystery to it.

send photon through slit
split into pairs
one goes to signal screen, other goes to idler screen
have choice to put through a beamsplitter so cant tell which slit it went through

ambiguity results in an interference pattern but they literally sum together to make the pattern at the signal screen because literally nothing weird has happened except you have just allowed photons from two different slits to end up on the same screen

there is absolutely nothing bizarre about this unless you are one of those retards who believe in collapse

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:26:34 UTC No. 16556693

>>16556690
try actually reading about it instead of watching sabine's retarded debunk videos
>there is absolutely nothing bizarre about this
you are a retard

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:28:36 UTC No. 16556696

>>16556690
>unless you are one of those retards who believe in collapse
so you retard have zero idea about the experiment but need to tell everyone your retarded opinions

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 01:00:18 UTC No. 16556725

>>16556696
>>16556693
if you dont believe in collapse there is nothing weird about it at all

and heres the thing thats really funny lol

collapse isnt even a part of quantum mechanics

it was added ad hoc by physicists who were too retarded to realize quantum mechanics is actually a statistical theory rather than one about the mechanics of a single particle like classical mechanics

theres absolutely no reason to endorse collapse

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 01:01:19 UTC No. 16556728

>>16556696
>>16556693
umm i have read SEVERAL papers on it. its pretty clear that its extremely simple to explain

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 01:21:32 UTC No. 16556768

>>16554472
What's this then?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 01:32:26 UTC No. 16556778

>>16556768
NTA but that is not the wave function itself, that's just the final measurement from where we deduct it acts like a wave.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 01:44:15 UTC No. 16556784

Why are non-local hidden variables considered a fringe interpretation? If you can't predict a system, it means you are not accounting for every variable, and if you have ruled out local variables, that leaves non-local. It's simple deductive logic.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 01:53:27 UTC No. 16556792

>What’s the most no-nonsense way to frame it?
Might as well ask what’s the most no-nonsense way to explain consciousness. There is none.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 02:00:10 UTC No. 16556797

>>16556792
Explaining consciousness is easy: It's an artifact of western thought that is used to label cultures who drew different conclusions as subhuman.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 02:06:54 UTC No. 16556800

>>16556784
Occam's razor, it's fringe because it's unlikely. Bell's inequality and its experimental confirmation rules out local hidden variables and theories that do not agree with non-locality. You are right that it doesn't disallow non-local hidden variables but it is then a quite a jump to then say that must then be the truth when there is zero evidence to support the idea or any reason for it to be true - it's needlessly complicated.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 02:18:50 UTC No. 16556816

>>16556800
How is throwing out determinism, a major foundational belief of science, in favor of stochastic reality, a smaller assumption than amending particle physics, a field that is less than 200 years old? Also, the unpredictable behavior of quantum particles IS the evidence.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 02:21:15 UTC No. 16556820

>>16556768
umm its this

no wave function required

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 02:34:16 UTC No. 16556830

>>16556816
Because we can only base our science on what we observe. And everything we have observed at the smallest scales of reality is not deterministic, and what we believed to be deterministic at the macroscopic scale is simply the statistical average of countless quantum interactions.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 02:39:10 UTC No. 16556835

>>16555232
Retard.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 02:46:29 UTC No. 16556843

>>16554459
>I looked in the box to see the cat was dead..
>the cat was dead the whole time..
>the cat was never both dead and alive.
a particle shifting position really fast with predictable location likelihood verses time does not mean that particle is in every possible location at the same time...
Its a complete pack of retarded gaylord bullshittery.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 02:55:05 UTC No. 16556855

>>16556725
>collapse isnt even a part of quantum mechanics

Based retard

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 03:22:36 UTC No. 16556897

>>16556768
Two superimposed edge diffraction patterns.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 03:58:47 UTC No. 16556932

>>16556843
This whole thing is easily avoided if you drop the idea that "the speed of light is the fastest speed matter can move" and replace it with "the speed of light is the fastest speed which we can measure matter moving." Granted, this requires you to throw out a bunch of "physical laws" (which are mostly speculative mathematics pretending to be an empirical science). If you're comfortable with that, all of this requirement of superposition goes out the window. The "quantum effects" then come from the minimum resolvable quantized measurement resolution, not from some literal superposition.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 04:08:52 UTC No. 16556942

>>16556855
its literally called the collapse postulate

postulate meaning it is assumed

it was never derived as a necessary part of the theory of quantum mechanics

and you dont need it if you just realize that quantum mechanics is about statistics

like why else would you have the born rule where measurements are probabilistic?

its a fucking statistical theory

just truly boggling

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 04:14:20 UTC No. 16556946

>>16556932
NO... it can switch states very quickly and be intermediately between flipped orientations.. BUT it can NEVER be both orientations at the same time.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 04:26:12 UTC No. 16556958

>>16556830
I think we're just gonna have to disagree here until large quantum systems are achieved. I predict that a noticeable dip in unpredictability will occur at some point as part or all of the hidden variables incidentally find themselves captured within the system. Like, if particles from 3 feet away are causing unpredictable behavior within the quantum system, then their influence will cease when the size of the system interior exceeds 3 feet and encompasses them.
In other words, I predict the inconsistent output of a quantum system scales based on the ratio of external surface area to internal volume.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 04:33:48 UTC No. 16556961

>>16556958
> until large quantum systems are achieved
They already exist. Everything you see around you is one. Everything is quantum but you only see it acting in a very particular regime of scale. There's nothing special about that. After all, until recently people thought temperature was something fundamental until thermodynamics came alone and we learned it was just a statistical aggregate. Our day to day deterministic existence is no different.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 04:45:47 UTC No. 16556965

>>16556946
You have really poor reading comprehension. The whole point of what I was writing is that we don't need physical superposition if it's only the measurement process which makes it appear as if it's superimposed.

Consider, as an example, a sinusoid that oscillates at 1 Hz, which you then bin such that you have negative 1 if the sinusoid's value is positive, and -1 if the sinusoid's value is negative. If you are sampling once every 2 seconds, you'll get not only the oscillation but aliasing if you were to ever try to reconstruct this thing.

It would, with the presence of imperfect sample timing, appear as if you were seeing something that was simultaneously -1 and 1. The truth is just that it goes faster than you can measure (which, in this case would be limited by the speed of light).

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 04:54:39 UTC No. 16556973

>>16556942
>isn't even a part of
>never derived as a necessary part of

Time to put on your special needs helmet and go move some more goalposts with your tard wrangler, be careful not to drool on yourself too much this time.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 05:39:08 UTC No. 16556987

>>16554472
It brings me great joy to see this as the first post.
The model is NOT the phenomena.
Math is not physics. Math is one way to model physics.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 05:41:46 UTC No. 16556989

>>16554477
You exhibit every aspect of a midwit. You clearly think you're way smarter than you actually are.
>Why it works so well
It barely works at all, you just have very very low standards and clearly don't do any experimental work.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 06:10:25 UTC No. 16557002

>>16556961
I mean quantum systems that we're outside of, smartass. The universe as a whole doesn't exhibit small scale quantum behavior, so there must be a phenomenon whose influence accumulates in systems isolated from particle interactions with the surroundings, causing them to appear erratic until they rejoin the surroundings.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:23:20 UTC No. 16557039

>>16556965
>if it's only the measurement process which makes it appear as if it's superimposed.
Yeh thats what I said twice, shit for brains.
Try saying something original, shit troll.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:47:14 UTC No. 16557052

>>16557002
> The universe as a whole doesn't exhibit small scale quantum behavior
No shit. Because it's not small. It exhibits large scale quantum behavior: i.e. classical physics.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:12:56 UTC No. 16557090

>>16556553
Wait, she supports pilot-wave? You're fucking with me right?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:19:40 UTC No. 16557094

>>16557090
She's a superdeterminist, so she supports whatever the leading interpretation for that is. You should have expected this from a fucking German.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:27:07 UTC No. 16557098

>>16557094
When is the last time she said that though? How long ago? Might have changed her mind in the meanwhile.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:51:19 UTC No. 16557104

>>16554751
The measurement loads/shunts the particle
>>16554750
fucking idiot
>>16555195
Why does he discuss previous experimental methods, then he himself use a laser?
>shoots off a continuous laser stream of photons, claims equivalence of a single photon interacting only with itself...

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:55:11 UTC No. 16557106

>>16554751
The measurement loads/shunts the particle
>>16554750
fucking idiot
>>16555195
Why does he discuss previous experimental methods, then he himself use a laser?
>shoots off a continuous laser stream of photons, claims equivalence of a single photon interacting only with itself...

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:01:11 UTC No. 16557108

>>16554751
The measurement loads/shunts the particle
>>16554750
fucking idiot
>>16555195
Why does he discuss previous experimental methods, then he himself use a laser?
>shoots off a continuous laser stream of coherent photons, claims equivalence of a single photon interacting only with itself...

Ask me how I know you're a faggot.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:09:17 UTC No. 16557113

>>16554472
at a fundamental level the only way to define something is the rules that express its behavior

Not that the rules align with what the thing is, but

The rules ARE the thing. The thing is the rules

and even with the probability aspect of it they're still rules in a sentence and even if our current models don't accurately define the rules as best as they accurately could still doesn't discount that there is a model, set of rules, set of constraints on how a thing will manifest as best as possible could.

And there is nothing that you can define that is more accurate than that set of rules. No matter how hard you look, so if you are to say a thing is this the only thing that you could choose is the model of the thing.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:36:04 UTC No. 16557196

>>16557108
retarded sabine simp doesn't understand how the experiment works
cry more bitch science denier

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:53:30 UTC No. 16557222

>>16557196
>I can not refute, so I'll REEEEE like a girly faggot instead.
ok

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:01:48 UTC No. 16557368

>>16557113
You can plot GDP as a curve on a cartesian plane, but you would never claim that GDP *is* a curve on a plane. That's just a mathematical model we use to conceptualize GDP. GDP in the real world is money, goods and services changing hands between people and businesses. Based on this mathematical model, we can say things like "GDP is going up", meaning that the curve is going in an upward direction when the plane is viewed perpendicular to the ground. But you would never conclude from this that GDP in the real world is going up. It's completely nonsensical to imagine that economic activity is going up. What would that even mean? Every time I give money to a cashier, I float up into the air? You can see that conflating real world phenomena with the mathematical models we use to describe them leads to incoherent understanding of phenomena. It's easy for us to avoid this error with phenomena which are accessible to our senses, like economic activity, but when we delve into more inaccessible phenomena, like the behavior of elementary particles, we become victims of attributing misplaced concreteness to abstract models all too easily.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:32:08 UTC No. 16557476

>>16557368
I disagree with almost every aspect of this post.

All my statement was pointing at was at some level the idea of concreteness as someone would inuit it breaks down and the only things that survive are sets of rules/models. So if you were going to say anything is a *thing* you would use those models to define it.

So when you say an abstract thing doesn't make sense to say its concrete, yes, that is the point. But it still is a thing. so if you are going to say its anything what about the thing that defines it.

Additionally it's not nonsensical to say "GDP has gone up" you are talking about the output of a model that has many inputs. Saying the output has gone up while having trouble to pinpoint or attribute where the input has caused it is just fine.

Everything in all of existence is a set of systems sitting of the scaffolding of other systems. All consist of some state and how this state changes. And when I say state i mean at all levels of abstraction. How this state changes is our understanding, our rules, how physics works, how you interact with your toaster, how you converse with a friend, how your mind renders your room. A model is the way we express these rules.

If you don't think so tell me of something you couldn't fundamentally define as a system with an abstract set of rules expressing them. But if everything you find is still this, is it wrong to say that the description for the model describing the system is the closest we will get to seeing the thing bare and naked in front of us?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:47:16 UTC No. 16557492

>>16557368
I would like to add, i don't mean all models are accurate pictures of a thing in all perspectives. I would say GDP is only an outline. Its only describing a thin perspective, thin aspect of a much more complex system. Its like to describe the height of something, then saying the height has gone up perfectly reasonable when describing that thin property/narrow aspect of the system. But that's as close as you a human can reason for some things. Doesn't mean there isn't a model that does describe it best.

When something is abstract it sits upon the shoulders of other systems, so it's easier to give a full definition as long as you stay above that layer.


Last thing i will say is everything you think of concrete is really just an abstraction. A system sitting on countless other systems. It still has semantics to it, it still has meaning to it, it still has a model describing it from the outside.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:51:04 UTC No. 16557497

>>16557492
The last two paragraphs do sound like they contradict, but it was my pour attempt at express there is nothing truly concrete. The concrete is simply the layer of abstraction that our minds have evolved to sit on. It is the domain that our eyes react to. The wavelengths they become illuminated by.

I honestly like thinking of the level of abstraction a wavelength and the concrete is simply visible light.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:11:44 UTC No. 16557514

>>16557476
It's true that we can only describe particulars in terms of universals, or concrete things in terms of abstractions. But that doesn't mean that every useful abstract model necessarily describes the actual phenomenon. It can simply be a practical tool for extracting useful real world information. For instance, the general equation of motion for a spring has imaginary components. We use this equation to extract real world information about the system, but there's no physical reality to the imaginary components of the equation. Because we have a physical intuition about how springs behave, we can avoid attributing misplaced concreteness to the imaginary components of the equation. In quantum mechanics, we lack this physical intuition, so we more easily fall into the trap of believing the mathematical model accurately describes reality.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:24:03 UTC No. 16557526

>>16556973
umm why cant you come back with an actual technical rebuttle instead of ad hominems?

fucking fool

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:47:13 UTC No. 16558154

>>16556690
>unless you are one of those retards who believe in collapse
>>16556725
>rather than one about the mechanics of a single particle like classical mechanics
>theres absolutely no reason to endorse collapse
I think this board should ban people who doesn't have a grasp of the fundamentals of modern physics.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:50:04 UTC No. 16558157

>>16556816
Because non-local hidden variables violate Special Relativity and thus causality.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:56:28 UTC No. 16558160

>>16558157
Not every chronology-breaking event violates causality.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:05:17 UTC No. 16558162

>>16558160
I'm responding to this guy: >>16556784
You break causality if you violate special relativity with FTL, which is what is implied with non-locality.
Most physicists simply prefer relativity, a so far proven physical theory, to determinism, a philosophy.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:12:18 UTC No. 16558165

>>16558162
>You break causality if you violate special relativity with FTL
Why? Doesn't it just lead to atypical ordering of world lines, not necessarily ones with paradoxical self intersection?

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 02:11:09 UTC No. 16558206

>>16558162
>You break causality if you violate special relativity with FTL
not necessarily, as long as information isn't transmitted.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 05:13:08 UTC No. 16558369

>>16558206
If information isn't transmitted it's not FTL at all. Quantum entanglement isn't FTL, because it's instantaneous and no info is transmitted. Special relativity isn't violated by quantum entanglement, but it *would* be violated by non-local hidden variables, which would break causality.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 05:32:46 UTC No. 16558383

>>16557497
>pour attempt

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:11:18 UTC No. 16558970

>>16558383
>.<

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:20:17 UTC No. 16558980

>>16555232
based physicist

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:24:07 UTC No. 16558984

>>16556816
Determinism isn't a fundational belief of science. It's a philosophy preferred by 19th century leftist materialist philosophers like Marx and 20th century Jewish scientists like Einstein.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:57:56 UTC No. 16559025

>>16558369
>and no info is transmitted
information is transmitted to the entangled particle retard-kun

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 19:05:19 UTC No. 16559036

>>16559025
No information is transmitted between the entangled particles. You cannot transmit information instantaneously with quantum entanglement.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:16:02 UTC No. 16559127

>>16559036
Unsupported dogmatic belief. If one particle affects the other, information is being transmitted.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:27:12 UTC No. 16559136

>>16559127
if you add the time from entanglement it's never faster than light right? particles have to be close to be entangled? once separated even if the collapse is instant overall with time since entanglement it doesn't go past speed of light. there could be some weird mechanism which "acts instantly" but be different than information

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 22:33:16 UTC No. 16559167

>>16558369
There are ways to have actual time travel in physics without violating causality(self-consistency). What is the supposed issue here?

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:26 UTC No. 16559233

>>16559167
>in physics
don't you mean in imaginary physics?

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 01:45:47 UTC No. 16559319

>>16556583
Nothing in that image is real.

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 04:29:39 UTC No. 16559451

>>16556843
>I looked in the box to see the cat was dead..
Some scientists will say that it was their observation that caused the live cat/dead cat duality to collapse. I say that is pure egotism on their part. The system continues in a state of duality, with one version of the scientist finding a dead cat and the other finding a live one.

The wave function doesn't collapse until the janitor comes in that night and finds either a dead cat in the garbage. Or a scientist sitting there full of cat scratches.

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:04:16 UTC No. 16559997

>>16559127
>Unsupported dogmatic belief
Well established modern physics. No information is being transmitted.

>>16559136
There's no "speed" to speak of. Speed is Distance/Time. Time in quantum entanglement is zero. You cannot divide by zero.
You seem to be talking about local hidden variables. That's been completely disproven, refer to the image>>16556583

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:06:27 UTC No. 16560000

>>16559451
Some intepretations have subjective collapse instead of objective collapse.

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:10:49 UTC No. 16560008

>>16559451
when you copy the observer the whole world is in superposition, and can collapse one of two ways, continue as original or continue as clone. you only know after you have been copied

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:20:16 UTC No. 16560025

>>16559451
>>16560000
It frankly doesn't matter what anyone believes. Not a single interpretation can be proven to be correct. The only thing that is proven is that the math works, that's it.

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:56:51 UTC No. 16560055

>>16559127
>Unsupported dogmatic belief. If one particle affects the other, information is being transmitted.
No. Entanglement doesn’t mean you can send info between particles. You measure one, yeah, you know what the other will be, but that’s not "sending" anything. It’s just correlation, not communication. It's like rolling two dice—one might show a 6, the other shows a 1, but you’re not communicating anything between the dice. Same with entangled particles. The results are simply correlated, very strange, but no FTL messages, no breaking causality.

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:08:27 UTC No. 16560119

>>16559127
>one particle affects the other
it doesn't.
If you do anything to one, it disentangles.

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:52:44 UTC No. 16560443

>>16560008
>continue as original or continue as clone. you only know after you have been copied
I'm the original. The other guy is the clone.

As time progresses, any event in the whole world resulting in superposition would suggest a further copy of the world. We're gonna run out of stuff with which to make copies pretty quickly (toner and paper?)

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 12:31:12 UTC No. 16561238

>>16560443
I did not imply we're copied each time something happens. I only said what happens IF you copy the observer. Because after you copy the observer and you probe both original and clone, one will be the original so no change and the clone will swear he's the original moved in the clone.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 14:15:15 UTC No. 16561307

>>16559233
All physics is imaginary, since the particles can't be observed

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 16:14:53 UTC No. 16561415

Wave function cubed collapse, maybe

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 02:14:29 UTC No. 16561972

>>16559127
whu? what information?

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 02:48:09 UTC No. 16562002

>>16554472
damn bro really just hit OP with a /thread

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 02:54:06 UTC No. 16562008

>>16554459
Next on the list of stupid questions that are widely believed not to be
>where does energy go when it is used

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 06:14:37 UTC No. 16562138

>>16557113
The Rule is not the thing.
The Thing is not the Rules.

You're everything wrong with modern science.

I guarantee you're a standard deviation dumber than you clearly think you are.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 06:18:30 UTC No. 16562141

>>16557476
>Rules/Models
Nope
At the base of the pillars of science are Axioms built on logic.

Models MODEL the thing, they don't DEFINE the thing.

You're espousing religion: not science.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 06:21:42 UTC No. 16562143

>>16559167
Entanglement doesn't violate causality but can span across time gradients. Standard model physicists go into a hissy fit if you press them on this.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 06:23:00 UTC No. 16562146

>>16558984
It's not.
It's a fundamental pillar of the Cult of Einstein who hasn't done actual science in almost a century.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 06:49:58 UTC No. 16562165

>>16562143
Yes, entanglement can span across time gradientst, because it is unaffected by when or where the measurements happen.
No, it doesn't violate causality, since no information is transmitted, correlation does not imply communication.
I hope this was enough to make you understand some of the basics of QM.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:13:42 UTC No. 16562211

>>16562141
What is a thing other than how it behaves with the rest of the system?

What else would you define it as? Theres multiple angles/perspectives/ spaces that a thing can be defined in, but they are just expressing how that thing interact with a different level in the overall system.

If the models aren't attempting to define what something is what good would they have?

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:41:45 UTC No. 16562222

And 100 years ago, everyone “knew” that the world was flat. >:D

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 01:32:32 UTC No. 16563087

>>16562141
At the most fundamental level, the model *is* the thing.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 03:20:49 UTC No. 16563168

>>16554459
theres a book schrodinger wrote about interpretting the wave function. its understandable to some degree as a layman

i think the gist of it is that he believes only in waves, or a particle that resonates like a bell being struck or some shit. i forget actually. maybe it wasnt that great for laymen at all. all i remember definitively is that schrodinger was allegedly a notorious pedophile

hope that was of some use to you op

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 03:21:49 UTC No. 16563169

>>16563168
or maybe he didnt write it actually, it was a compilation of writings of his that expressed his interpretations on it. close enough

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 06:28:45 UTC No. 16563272

>>16562165
Information can be transmitted depending on the type of entanglement.
You don't know anything about QM.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 06:35:53 UTC No. 16563275

>>16562211
The model is not nor will it ever be the phenomena.

The model is attempting to MODEL the thing to gain a deeper understanding of the underlaying phenomena. The goal is usually (by actual scientists) to extend the understanding of reality but it is much more common for technology to be developed for the "advancement" of society.

You're clearly a cultist who worships science and preaches it like a theology. Science is founded on philosophy and your argument is uncompelling and flat.

A model is a model only a fool or cultists would pretend the model IS the phenomena and the biggest fools pretend the model is immutable and irrefutable.

>>16563087
The model is "A" thing that only lives in the imagination of man and it is a representative of reality.

That's like saying a printed map of a mountain IS the mountain. It isn't, it's a bunch of lines your brain interpolates as a pile of rocks with dirt on it--every day the actual mountain drifts further and further from the map.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 07:31:12 UTC No. 16563299

>>16563275
>That's like saying a printed map of a mountain IS the mountain.
A printed map isn't the mountain, because the mountain is composed of smaller components. In QM, we're interacting with the most basic and fundamental entities that compose our universe. There's no longer a so-called "reality" that's separate from the model. It is the model. Dunno if you can understand this. When we reach the bottom, there's nothing underneath, otherwise it wouldn't be bottom.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 07:34:18 UTC No. 16563301

>>16563272
Incorrect. Entanglement, regardless of type (spin, polarization, etc), can correlate outcomes between particles, but it doesn’t allow for faster-than-light information transfer. No usable information can be sent between entangled particles without classical communication, which is bound by the speed of light. Study up.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 07:48:47 UTC No. 16563304

>>16563272
Collapse is not observable/causal information.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 07:53:29 UTC No. 16563310

>>16563272
>You don't know anything about QM.
Oh the irony. The Dunning Kruger effect in full force with that post.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 08:12:54 UTC No. 16563319

>>16563275
Why are you so bitter?

I'm discussing the abstract rules in which a system changes. A model is an observation and attempt to copy those rules, to observe how it evolves.

A thing is simply a pattern within the overall system.

At all levels everything breaks down into a set of rules on how a system evolves. How can this possibly be untrue? What is your counter example?

Even with absolute randomness there are rules on how it is weighted.

And if so, then the only true way to describe something is those rules.

So a thing can be defined by its rules. Everything can be defined as an abstract set of rules.

The idea that something is concrete is simply a construction created by our brains attempt to model the abstract data it receives from the rest of the overall system. Which itself is another system governed by abstract interactions.

I have never said that our current models are perfect descriptions. Our definitions aren't perfect descriptions. But if we had one then we would be defining what that thing is.

The way you talk down to me shows you are a lot more dogmatic closed minded people than me. Who cares more about promoting how right you are for your own ego than actually having a conversion where you explore a topic.

Weak behavior that comes out of nowhere other than the negativity in your own head.

All you do is insult and misrepresent what I said so you can somehow "win" a nonexistent argument.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:28:38 UTC No. 16563406

>>16563319
Sir, who the fuck are you calling bitter? That other guy just wanted you to use the language properly.
Memewhile
>abstract set of rules
Please review the definition of "abstract." No, it does not mean "forward of a scientific paper" in this usage. A *concrete* set of rules would be what is being pursued.
Please cease throwing a tantrum just because you are incapable of speaking simply and clearly. This is on you, not him.
Bottom text.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:30:43 UTC No. 16563408

>>16563406
lol

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 15:26:25 UTC No. 16563566

>>16563319
schrodinger himself said something akin to the wave function being an encoding of hidden/unobservable information about the phenomena, but isnt necessarily "what is happening" itself. dumbass retard

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:30:04 UTC No. 16563715

>>16563566
>schrodinger himself
was wrong on QM.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:46:22 UTC No. 16563726

>>16563715
qrd?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:48:59 UTC No. 16563727

The meefn wave function cubed with determinism halved on past more like collapses

Hold on maybe it's more than cubed a clue

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:51:28 UTC No. 16563728

The measurement look just cover it up I don't want this happening your smudge screen is not why they came up with this I forget it there was a tangent a one important tangent oh wait look at all the shit you put back lol

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:51:33 UTC No. 16563729

>>16563726
Ever heard the quip "Schrödinger doesn't understand Schrödinger's Equation"?
He himself was skeptical of some interpretations, like the collapse of the wave function, but he was wrong about it being just hidden info. His own cat thought experiment was meant to highlight the absurdity of QM, but QM has held up. He and Einstein didn't live long enough to see the performance of the Bell's Tests.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:54:00 UTC No. 16563734

Oi the whole thing is being discovered the next autonomous thing we understand at a time and that's the fuckin tangent

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:00:12 UTC No. 16563746

So the superposition is inferred by the next one being it again so the current one and the last one are the same position in the process everytime. Sooooo let's make those parts 2 at once and more interesting by testing the ones we put aside as maybes in as enzymes with inhibitors and amoxicillin with the ones we find. That should get by the truth. Now then we remove the inhibitors and amoxicillin and once they are together

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:02:28 UTC No. 16563751

Here get that fuckin idea and take the fuckin 2 out and check how long they took

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:03:43 UTC No. 16563754

Then, see how long the facts have been waiting ok here comes x.

Go back to the start and do it with both in the exact time

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:04:53 UTC No. 16563755

Superposition will be the measurable repeatable results and all happy

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:36:28 UTC No. 16563801

They have to both be interesting but wait it will do a fuckin um I forgot this if you just about what I said I can work but if your practical it will negotiate the outcome to avoid stirring conventions believe me that! - x yes physical space will have a new law smashhhhed Newton's business plan and here. The law of quantum physics that counts is measurements collapse it and two interested wave functions that test this together transforms the wave function into a new form of light we never saw that is neither interesting wave functions logic (they will be similar anyway) and a new logic understands the new form so they gotta have a couple stray wavefunctions show up there too desu serious this is light humour now. So if that's true the next thing we discover is going to have to be now: superposition shows us photons so it's interested in both so interface and wave function so the next thing we discover is interest in the last ones it is until we measure it so it's interested in both the combine and the seperate so get that logic that would be (here now whoo) and look at both together at once and then when it happens they will unlock a new convention and take that interest write it too. Then with that interest go back to the first logic (wavefunction and particle) and take it through a step by step course to understand both logics in full and then determine what happens to the photon if you measure it while being interested in the new shit and the other part surely be interested in that shit too until the new one comes (doing it now in my head 2 secs) aha did the wavefunction won't collapse now chump scam gone superposition is measurable go do it I just went and did X all over again but I understand now that it's all at the same time to do it and one at a time (interference) was shit compared to hmm it's neuroplasticity I'm arranging them in my cherry pickers n shit and the stupid photons should be doing it too I'd say oi I get it these are fucking ideas from caves

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:45:03 UTC No. 16563813

Ok the light is now in wavefunction and it's whoho it measures it is dancing around trying to make the ideas happen in different combinations so ok here goes an old brain trust. I'll just do the ideas in my head 2 secs. Ok I'm putting photons in em to see what happens I'll use suns ok good it's working now wow it's oh ok it's tring to slow down down the light lol

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:49:50 UTC No. 16563822

So the light is trying to slow down is what's up guys! And the superposition can't work that shit out apparently and you will never see two repeatable results if they do this so quick oh wait they are all the same so here. Go discover your experiment answer and the last part the one that you put the shit together will always take the same yes my own history book now so obvious lol

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:50:51 UTC No. 16563823

Ok now do find what you put together before it. Split sec and

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:55:48 UTC No. 16563828

>>16556768
Law of large numbers
the interpretation of it is up to a philosopher, not a scientist

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:57:43 UTC No. 16563830

My own idea here psionic powers x lol x as it's um taking different amounts of time so nothings put together hmm shit oh wait um. Put it with the ones you um would have from the other hope the one always lost aha it's oh here goes put all the old ones in on one go maybe I'll try yep did now I'll time it up its finished it took 4 seconds aha my psionics wow just ummm aha the second shit slowed down she cock of I have slowed down the light now I'll have time 2 try 2. it's 10 seconds now not half a split so I'll get both holes and do it 2 secs

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:59:18 UTC No. 16563832

Holes I mean hopes. Ok let's time this theory is light will slow down and both happen

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:04:46 UTC No. 16563840

Ok I've planned 2 at once and advanced scam now here goes now not a split second 20 seconds I did it I did both it took twenty seconds and the superposition is here to measure after 20 seconds and it does dundadun my favourite but. Let's see. Whooooo there's heaps more here of that 1 thing the um native mammals instinct it is

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:06:15 UTC No. 16563842

So it worked anyway go measure the light and do a discovery you might get both running an absolute much on a spot it doesn't fit

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:07:15 UTC No. 16563844

Absolute menacing thing tring to sort out space in here but it's ok thanks I'll keep it

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:10:12 UTC No. 16563851

To slow down the thing in a instructions don't try both hopes you expect try both bored but bits until the two touch and it will take 20 seconds and do both go take that up if your prison cells let that much freedom fit too hmm

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:13:05 UTC No. 16563855

I mean. Here FINISHED. when your about to prove 1. Do the board crap waiting instead of the exciting but. That will be a day but it says when they happen it will take 20 seconds to start to deform and do both hopes. That's ya big theory it's it interesting

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:15:48 UTC No. 16563859

Exciting bit*

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:21:42 UTC No. 16563871

>>16563729
>hidden info
heres one of the quotes in the book. i dont believe he is advocating it being a hidden local variable thing if thats what you are alluding to.
i could just be misunderstanding the exact meaning because a lot of the preceding text is complicated to understand even sans the math. but "the wave function is believed to embody facts" strikes me as indicative that he doesnt necessarily belief it to be the phenomena, but only the representation.

bells inequalities could still hold for a global hidden variable model cant they? assuming what ive said above isnt incorrect/misrepresented it is a fair statement to say the wave function only represents experimental data, yeah? regardless of whether schrodinger was incorrect about stuff

anyway im just a laymen (retard with a cs degre) but it is sometimes a fun mental exercise to try and understand it at some very basic level

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:23:13 UTC No. 16563873

>>16554459
Decoherence, dis-entanglement, many world/everettian explanation of QM is likely closer to truth than copenhagen bullshit about permanent collapse. Further, I used to think "observer collapse" was woo bullshit, but there might actually be something fundamental to it, but that is way outside of scientific process right now and more in the realm of philosophy.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:50:42 UTC No. 16563918

>>16563873
>I used to think "observer collapse" was woo bullshit
quantum eraser proves it's about the observer

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:55:34 UTC No. 16563925

>>16563918
No it doesn't.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:00:54 UTC No. 16563935

>>16563925
>I don't understand the logic in the experiment

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:03:07 UTC No. 16563938

I have done it, I did it? Hahaha I raced up the present and did one and I waited with it until it finished and that took 20 seconds and then I realised probability and determinism are one scams and I had readjusted the scams up to figure my new thought and then guess what I understood that I was racing back across the present to finish in the same spot as it should have if the thought had it close and that's 2 more curves in here than you teach and subjective yes so psychiatry is once again up my arse not to chill. Then I found both things I did and I did one. So it is now better than before that I can see nearly and subjectively that I chose one. Not bumbling shit knowing it in an out quickly and getting it. But 2 clear things that went on

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:05:18 UTC No. 16563944

>>16563918
observer does nothing. it's about the ability of extracting information about the system, not about some magic observer observing. lol

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:06:08 UTC No. 16563945

Neatly* not nearly. 2 thing went on. The one I did and the one I met did. And I could learn to make choices this way with practice. Yep good on ya I loved it ay I might have never reviewed a choice in my life next to that wow

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:09:04 UTC No. 16563951

>>16563944
>it's about the ability of extracting information about the system
aka an observer

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:11:20 UTC No. 16563952

There was another interesting details the choice I made was the fake choice in an old theory I concucted

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:12:45 UTC No. 16563954

This is what I would call a fu-ck-in-g piece of cake

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:16:17 UTC No. 16563961

I'm now changing my subjective perceptions to choose my next one

Psychiatry is to be killed off by the testicles

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:23:34 UTC No. 16563968

>>16563951
shit collapses when the information can be extracted not when the information is extracted.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:24:14 UTC No. 16563971

The schizoposts are rolling in I kill em

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:25:47 UTC No. 16563977

>>16563971
Mine I mean, I just can't say it's all been talked about and explained but the no due respect for schizo is why that is. Dead meat I'm getting my heritage to back us all

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:55:40 UTC No. 16564033

>>16563968
you don't know
> when the information can be extracted
which is only relevant to an observer

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:15:13 UTC No. 16564059

>>16563977
>>16563971
Hello Sars, how is texas today?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:17:01 UTC No. 16564062

>>16563319
>Why are you bitter
Yes, you even argue like a religious zealot.

tl;dr

The model is not the phenomena; you're in a cult and you very clearly don't know shit about science.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:18:33 UTC No. 16564066

>>16563715
>Schrodinger was wrong about QM
Yes that supports the statement the model is not the phenomena.
Your grasp of logic is very bad.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:20:11 UTC No. 16564071

>>16563830
>>16563832
>>16563840
>>16563842
>>16563844
>>16563851
>>16563855
>>16563859
I didn't read any of these: you're too dumb to properly use this website so anything you have to say about science is clearly retard level.

Go

Back

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:23:54 UTC No. 16564078

>>16563299
>We reached the bottom
>we
You reached the extent of your intellectual depth--that's on you.
>>16563301
Wrong
>>16563304
The wave equation isn't a real thing. The wave function is just that--a mathematical function.
It
isn't
real
>>16563310
Hello standard model cultist. Tell me more about your lord and savior Einstein.

You're so laughably stupid it's hilarious.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:31:32 UTC No. 16564094

>>16564062
Meds

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:36:11 UTC No. 16564100

>>16564033
so dogs also collapse it? lol

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:40:52 UTC No. 16564112

>>16564094
Psychology is a pseudoscience
No wounder your "science" sounds more like theology and you're so unhinged when called out on it.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:01:28 UTC No. 16564144

>>16564100
you don't know until you observe it

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:02:48 UTC No. 16564149

>>16564144
but dogs know?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:06:18 UTC No. 16564154

>>16564149
you can't be sure

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:00:42 UTC No. 16564231

>>16564078
>Hello standard model cultist. Tell me more about your lord and savior Einstein.
>
>You're so laughably stupid it's hilarious.
Uh, the Jewish scientist Einstein had the exact opinions on QM as you do. He was ultimately proven wrong by the Bell's Tests.
Your lack of knowledge and refusal to learn more marks you as a troll. Probably a Jew too.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:02:49 UTC No. 16564234

>>16563871
>bells inequalities could still hold for a global hidden variable model cant they
It could still hold for a nonlocal hidden variable model, and for that to be true, the whole of relativity would have to be abandoned.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:05:36 UTC No. 16564237

>>16563873
Decoherence is complementary to the Copenhagen interpretation, which, unlike many words, doesn't abandon free will.
Many worlds interpretation is basically superdeterminism*infinite worlds. In each of these worlds, both locality and reality are preserved, at the cost of free will.
If you believe in many worlds you might as well believe in superdeterminism, they're fundamentally the same interpretation.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:08:52 UTC No. 16564239

>>16564149
Look up Wigner's friend. From the friend's perspective, the wave function has collapsed. From Wigner's perspective it hasn't.
The paradox is still unsolved.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:16:28 UTC No. 16564248

>>16564239
>Wigner's friend
very interesting, because I constructed the same though experiment few months back. I even asked around here if the dude who observes collapses it for everyone else or it's still in superposition for everybody else apart from him.
but I am now suspecting it is not the observer which collapses the wavefunction rather the possibility of the information being extracted, which should count for anyone as "conscious observer". makes more sense but hey, I'm just a brainlet after all.
the issue with the Wigner's friend is it implies the conscious observer collapses the waves.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:17:44 UTC No. 16564249

>>16564248
>I even asked around here if the dude who observes collapses it for everyone else or it's still in superposition for everybody else apart from him.
as in, if that friend lies to you about his observation, did the waves collapse different for you in this case? seems weird.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:25:55 UTC No. 16564257

>>16564248
>>16564249
In 2019 British scientists performed this experiment with entangled photons.
https://pure.hw.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/25512710/eaaw9832.full.pdf
The result was that Wigner and his friend indeed reached different conclusions

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:34:36 UTC No. 16564262

>>16564257
>efore we describe our experiment in which we test and indeed vi-
olate inequality (2), let us first clarify our notion of an observer. Formal-
ly, an observation is the act of extracting and storing information about
an observed system. Accordingly, we define an observer as any physical
system that can extract information from another system by means of
some interaction and store that information in a physical memory.
they define it as interacting and extracting and storing the information.
>Hence, our definition covers human observers, as well as more
commonly used nonconscious observers such as (classical or quantum)
computers and other measurement devices—even the simplest possible
ones, as long as they satisfy the above requirements.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:36:49 UTC No. 16564265

>Before we describe our experiment in which we test and indeed violate inequality (2), let us first clarify our notion of an observer. Formally, an observation is the act of extracting and storing information about an observed system. Accordingly, we define an observer as any physical system that can extract information from another system by means of some interaction and store that information in a physical memory.
>Hence, our definition covers human observers, as well as more commonly used nonconscious observers such as (classical or quantum) computers and other measurement devices—even the simplest possible ones, as long as they satisfy the above requirements.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:36:50 UTC No. 16564266

>>16564257
Part of the Abstract:
"If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way."
I think it simply confirms what we already know. If you already hold fast to locality and free choice (Copenhagen), then objective reality must be abandoned. So reality is subjective, ie. observer-dependent. >>16556583
Pilot-wave and superdeterminists dismiss this experiment, because they don't actually hold fast to both locality and free choice. They abandon at least one of them in favor of holding onto objective reality.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:47:27 UTC No. 16564281

>>16564237
Copenhagen cant be together with decoherence, if decoherence is the explanation for collapse. You have to invent time travel nonsense for the delayed choice quantum eraser explanation. Its nonsense layered onto nonsense to explain the extra collapse. Quantum mechanics doesn't have the collapse built in. Its an added extra to explain coherence/decoherence step that which was never a permanent thing but rather only things that are entangled together interact with each other, if they're not entangled, then they become effectively invisible in almost all aspects. And because the wave function never collapses and only changes coherence, the many world function, the universal wave function which every particle is interacting with each other is the proper explanation and the only explanation. Nonsense about collapse, nonsense about time travel, nonsense about free will, these are not quantum mechanics explanation but lazy and ugly thoughtless answers.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:51:29 UTC No. 16564289

>>16564281
>if decoherence is the explanation for collapse.
Decoherence *isn't* an explanation for the collapse. Decoherence is about how a relatively simple wave function becomes an extremely complex and meaningless wave function. It's still a wave function and still doesn't collapse until observed. The collapse is separate from decoherence.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:55:54 UTC No. 16564297

>>16564112
The only thing unhinged is how you interact with other people. You throw completely off base insults around thinking you're hitting the nail on the head. You just look like an asshole. Sorry you have such a fragile world view that you need to show aggression when anyone other than you talks about their thoughts on things. That's not a sign you have such a strong understanding of the world. Its a strong sign that the only way you know how to defend your view is to attack and misrepresent because otherwise you would have to actually read and reflect on what someone said.

All you have done is straw man every point I made and called me some religious cultist. If anyone is a problem here it's you. You aren't making the thread better, you're not making the board better. The way you behave is simply a net negative.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 00:30:21 UTC No. 16564333

>>16564257
>monkmaxxing in my own Wigner's bubble
lmao ok that shit weird

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 00:33:03 UTC No. 16564336

>>16554459
It's likely decoherence

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 00:40:51 UTC No. 16564342

>>16555231
That leads you quickly to the many worlds interpretation.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 00:41:52 UTC No. 16564343

>>16556855
>>16556973
If you read quantum mechanics as written, there is no collapse and you're left with the many worlds interpretation

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 01:57:29 UTC No. 16564411

>>16564257
I a need robowaifu teach me QM
https://youtu.be/kM1EwKBWXPs
https://youtu.be/pcGIBacW-q0

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 02:23:35 UTC No. 16564436

>>16564343
That's not true. A fundamental axiom of QM is conservation of probability. MWI breaks it since the wavefunction is split between 'worlds'. A measurement being able to renormalise the new partial wavefunction makes even less sense.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 18:59:29 UTC No. 16565261

>>16564257
ok so in Copenhagen the collapse doesn't happen when the friend is supposed to measure but only when you find out what he got? that seems unnatural/not intuitive in a way.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 21:17:37 UTC No. 16565403

>>16565261
Yes, the experiment reinforces the idea that, to hold on to both locality and free will, objective reality would have to be abandoned.
The collapse would be subjective, just like time and length in relativity.>>16564266

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 21:22:01 UTC No. 16565409

>>16565403
so how do we manage to agree with eachother? it does seem like we do. we would have figured out by now something's up, as far as this interpretation is concerned.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:12:18 UTC No. 16565480

>>16565409
On a macroscopic level, decoherence makes the friend's superposition unobservable by entangling it with the environment, so the system behaves classically. For Wigner, in the strict Copenhagen interpretation, the wave function doesn’t collapse for him until he gains knowledge of the outcome. However, by that time, decoherence has already ensured that the friend's state behaves classically, so Wigner sees no practical difference between superposition and collapse.

This is why Wigner and his friend always agree, but the photon behaves differently because it remains in an isolated quantum system, unaffected by decoherence.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:21:02 UTC No. 16565498

>>16565480
>by that time
is it even possible to have macro objects in superposition in the first place? or are Wigner and his friend actual particles but used as Schrödinger's cat to make more sense to anyone reading?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:29:45 UTC No. 16565516

>>16565498
>is it even possible to have macro objects in superposition in the first place?
Yes, in theory, macroscopic objects can exist in superposition. However, decoherence *very* rapidly destroys the observable effects of superposition. The largest things we've successfully done double slit with are C60 molecules.
In the original Wigner paradox they were humans, the experiment just replaced them with photons to show that it's theoretically possible for them to experience different realities.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:35:43 UTC No. 16565530

>>16565516
>the experiment just replaced them with photons to show that it's theoretically possible for them to experience different realities.
ah cool. and pretty weird. so if we could keep macro objects in superposition we should expect weird?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:38:03 UTC No. 16565534

>>16565530 me
wait, so how would you enter in superposition with everything else? fully isolating from interacting with any particle from it? how would you construct the superposition itself

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:38:17 UTC No. 16565536

Current theory says that the rate of decoherence can be slown down with less interactions and thermal activity. So in a vacuum at near absolute zero.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:44:28 UTC No. 16565551

>>16565536
but you don't need to be in the vacuum, your environment needs to. like you get into a capsule which is then isolated from the rest of the world. just make sure no particles interact between the capsule with life support you are in and the outside? would it be that fucking easy lol

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:47:49 UTC No. 16565558

>>16565551
They already do many quantum experiments in vacuum at near absolute zero temperatures for this exact reason. Like the ones with superconducting qubits, for quantum computers.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:50:59 UTC No. 16565562

>>16565558
wait are you saying it is THAT easy? theoretically speaking not practically

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:55:06 UTC No. 16565568

>>16565562
To preserve the effects of superposition? Yes, but I wouldn't call it easy. At current tech level they're experimenting objects with the size of atom and ions

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:58:58 UTC No. 16565573

>>16565568
but getting into superposition is something which naturally happens whenever you stop interacting with the "outside environment" as it were, if you were an atom or something. or is there more to it?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 23:00:44 UTC No. 16565575

>>16565573
You don't "get into" superposition. Particles exist in superposition until observed.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 23:01:59 UTC No. 16565580

>>16565575
so what happens when you "look away" from them? do they get back into superposition?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 23:03:47 UTC No. 16565583

>>16565580
No, it remains in a definite state until further interaction.
This is a great lesson on superposition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3bPUKo5zc

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 23:06:49 UTC No. 16565585

>>16565583
thanks anon, I'll watch it. I'm still confused about the act of putting it in superposion. I get there has to be absolute no interaction so it doesn't decohere but after interacting you should be able to get it again in superposition. it's not doomed to never do it again no?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 23:09:23 UTC No. 16565589

>>16565585
You can "put" a specific property (like location) back into superpostion by observing something else about the particle, which in this case would be momentum.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:14:08 UTC No. 16566479

>>16564297
You used a lot of words to prove me right.
You're unhinged (and a hypocrite lol)

The model is not the phenomena.

You don't have a point, you have a cope and excuses for your obvious low IQ which somehow you think isn't obviously a low IQ lol.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:16:39 UTC No. 16566483

>>16564231
>Einstein has the exact same opinions as me
Nice projection you got there. That's gold standard logic from standard model physicists.

Say the line about the model is the phenomena again, I need a giggle.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:20:05 UTC No. 16566488

>>16565573
He's explaining standard model interpretations.
Don't take them as absolutes... He's clearly stated several times "theoretical."

The model is not the phenomena.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:34:04 UTC No. 16566506

>>16566488
So getting something in superposition is randomising some attribute you're interested in, like spin/position?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:27:53 UTC No. 16566558

>>16554459
>Wavefunction Collapse
my *ss!

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:06:15 UTC No. 16566786

>>16566483
Standard model is called so for a reason. This is why you don't work in physics and I do.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:08:19 UTC No. 16566790

>>16566488
I'm the one explaining. At the most fundamental level, the model is reality. Just like code in a program.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 03:34:22 UTC No. 16567085

>>16565583
unless I drifted away when he explained it I literally have no idea how you put two objects in superposition. yeah I get it they're generated as entangled pairs, photons or electrons. still have no idea why. how tf do you entangle two cars? what is the fundamental idea behind it? in a way that makes some intutitive sense? all I get "no they do it with particles and they are born this way"

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 04:15:20 UTC No. 16567113

>>16566479
This is the equivalent of im right and ur wrong cuz ur dumb

You have not argued a single point. Just simply proclaimed I'm some religious cultist.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 04:18:11 UTC No. 16567115

>>16566790
This.

There is no other way to give a fundamental description of ANYTHING.

There is nothing other than behavior and rules

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:48:49 UTC No. 16567381

>decoherent
more like incoherent lmao the quantum psychobabble is unreal

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:53:58 UTC No. 16567384

>>16567085
There are many ways to get entangled particles. For example you can shoot a laser into a BBO crystal, and sometimes a photon gets turned into two lower-energy photons that are entangled. The specific methods aren't that important for theoretical physics, all you need to know is the entangled particles have properties that are correlated.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:32 UTC No. 16567501

>>16567384
>shut up and calculate
yeah but I'm not interested in that, at least not atm. trying to understand it.
>sometimes a photon gets turned into two lower-energy photons that are entangled
yeah I pretty much got that, they are created entangled. half energy each from original photon that hit the crystal.
I am interested in the process of taking two already existing things and entangling them, not generating an entangled pair from something else (like a single photon).

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:20:55 UTC No. 16567512

>>16567501
You can in some cases entangle particles by making them interact.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:18:56 UTC No. 16567840

>>16567113
>accuse others of what you are doing
So you're saying the model IS the phenomena?
But I'm the cultist.

Priceless, you're seething and oblivious to logic.
Say the schizo line again, I love it when you triple down on pseudoscience.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:23:42 UTC No. 16567848

>>16566786
Yes, because it's a model.
You do strike me as the kind of grifter who pretends to be smart and overcharges for it.
>>16566790
I've never ever met a physicist that was good at programming--you're no exception.
Physics isn't a programming language and you're retarded to pretend it is.
>>16566790
>>16567115
>It's just rules, immutable and we write them
This is why you're cultists not scientists.

The standard "Model" is a "Model" of behaviors. It isn't the behaviors and never will be.

You midwits are so pathetically stupid it's unreal how oblivious to your cultish behavior you are and how delusional your arguments are.

Standard model isn't even a unified theory. Dark matter and dark energy are a Joke and a band-aid for retards like you who pretend to be smarter than you clearly are.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:38:46 UTC No. 16567862

>>16566506
The answer to this question is worth more money than you can possibly imagine.

DARPa is working on solid state fusion, at least some of their undergrad projects are, and one of the issues they're running into is their ignition systems are entangling with the target bulk... and the sensors.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:39:46 UTC No. 16567866

>>16567862
>*undergrad
sorry, graduate project

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:41:39 UTC No. 16567875

>>16567862
>and one of the issues they're running into is their ignition systems are entangling with the target bulk... and the sensors.
that sounds strange

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:54:01 UTC No. 16567892

>>16567862
is it because of high temperature or? wtf how? what are the conditions when this happens?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 21:42:54 UTC No. 16567976

>>16567862
bro you can't drop that shit here and leave. say more. what you can without getting v&

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:36:06 UTC No. 16568106

>>16566506
I can get any property of a particle in superposition by observing something else about it.
For example, I can get an electron's spin along the x-axis in superposition by observing its spin along with y-axis.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:39:56 UTC No. 16568110

>>16567501
>I am interested in the process of taking two already existing things and entangling them,
You can entangle two electrons by basically putting them together and taking advantage of Pauli's Exclusion principle. They end up in correlated states of spin up and spin down.
Technically in any atom, the two electrons of the 1st orbital are entangled with respect to their spin.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:01:21 UTC No. 16568133

>>16568110
>Technically in any atom, the two electrons of the 1st orbital are entangled with respect to their spin.
like always? and only those two? I remembered seeing this
https://youtu.be/M0b9WJzQqKA?t=149
can there be more of them entangled at different energy levels?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 01:48:15 UTC No. 16568261

>>16567840
Tell me one thing that you can define that isn't a model? The behavior of a single system? There's literally no way to define or describe something. Tell me one thing that isn't rules or behaviors?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 02:18:57 UTC No. 16568277

>>>16567848
Did I say the current model is correct and perfect? No. I'm saying the only things that exist are rules of systems. There is nothing 'concrete'.

A computer program is defined by rules. Go one layer below - more rules. It's an observation that it's impossible to define anything except through rules and behaviors. These rules and behaviors exist whether we're here to observe them or not - they're fundamental to reality itself.

The religious thinking is denying this reality. No one claims 100% confidence the Standard Model is complete. But whatever lies deeper will be another model, another set of rules. Systems defined by behaviors. These behaviors ARE what things are. There's no other way to define them.

>>>it's just rules, immutable and we write them down

You're being intellectually dishonest. No one claims we're the grand arbiters of these models. We work with them because they make useful predictions. The phenomena exist independent of us, but the only way to define what something IS is through models of how systems change. All properties, every aspect, just define how rules play out. The rules themselves exist independent of our models - we're just trying to understand and describe them.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:04:31 UTC No. 16569087

>>16568261
>Tell me one thing that isn't rules or behaviors
observable reality.
Rules and behaviors model observable reality, they aren't observable reality.
>>16568277
At no point in your senseless (seething) rambling did you remotely come close to disproving the simple fact: The model is not the phenomena.

You're in a cult and very stupid.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:09:10 UTC No. 16569097

>>16567875
Internal confined fusion was considered weapons grade science and was classified as such by DoE up until 2020 when trump moved it into the public sphere--My guess is he wanted his Lockheed stock price to go up (which it has)

The ignition systems are still classified and they don't really talk about the solid state stuff, just the tokamaks and Stellarators.

>>16567892
>>16567976
ITAR

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:09:23 UTC No. 16569262

>>16568277
You mean you don't have irrefutable evidence that is 100% accurate? You don't even have a fully compelling description of something like that? Why even have this conversation if you can't present a compelling case for evidence in the first place.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 22:32:15 UTC No. 16569470

>>16567862
Who wrote this? this is absolute retardation. what are your other posts so I can dismiss them? superposition is a particle's natural state of being. you don't need darpa. are you a lying jew or a lyingchink?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 22:41:43 UTC No. 16569485

>>16569087
>>16569097
These are from the same retard isn't it? You don't even have a basic grasp of QM, and you're trying to lead white men astray with your incoherent babble.
Look at the triangle. Sit through a lecture.The universe is built with rules.
If you're being disingenuous instead of being 20IQ then just kys