Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 16:35:16 UTC No. 16562495

Sabine says God only fakes playing dice. For some reason.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 16:36:24 UTC No. 16562496

>>16562475
Reminder that he became a crackpot in his later years and people at Princeton stopped taking him seriously. Instead of contributing to quantum field theory research, which was in active development at the time, he preferred to imagine extra dimensions in his head and produce nothing of value out of it. Reminds me of a certain contemporary cult...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LU6kbao3vo

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 16:46:06 UTC No. 16562502

>>16562475
"When your analysis tools were made by and for casinos, everything looks like a crapshoot". -- Greg "Galileo" Newton

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 16:51:25 UTC No. 16562510

>>16562502
why the whole theater though? people thought world is deterministic up to QM, which is somehow "fake" but only for like 55 years until people figure out superdeterminism. imagine going through all of the effort of making things seem weird for just 55 years, imagine the effort put in this whole universe as laws and stuff.
>"gotcha for ~50 years innit" God probably

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 16:56:11 UTC No. 16562518

>>16562510
Physicists: wdk, really. this shit is weird af.
You: bitch, why you lie!! why so much drama!!! lying divas!!!! non-truth-telling prima donnas!!!!!!!! REEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, relax.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:09:46 UTC No. 16562528

>>16562510
woah, bro, these dudes sitting on their asses all day on our tax money somehow don't have it all figured out already? Preposterous.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:36:33 UTC No. 16562578

>>16562475
I think randomness is a scale thing. At a certain scale things can be "random" but if you look at a massive fuckton of this same "random" phenomenon, patterns and distributions emerge. Could these patterns emerge if every one of those individual events were truly random? I don't think so.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:37:21 UTC No. 16562580

>>16562578
https://youtu.be/tyIY6JlmP7M

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:38:59 UTC No. 16562587

>>16562475
If probability of winning is bigger than 1/3, you just need to triple the bet every time you play to win.

If you're playing lottery, they've got to press a button to not-reroll automatically if somebody guesses correct numbers.

Otherwise, chaos prevail either way and always over aspects that you can predict.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:56:01 UTC No. 16562613

>>16562475
Einstein was influenced by 19th century philosophers like Marx.
>>16562510
Superdeterminism isn't accepted at all. It's materialist cope from fringe pseudoscientists.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:58:45 UTC No. 16562618

>>16562580
How does natural selection lead to atomic orbitals?

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:00:46 UTC No. 16562622

>>16562578
>Could these patterns emerge if every one of those individual events were truly random?
They can and do.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:01:21 UTC No. 16562623

>>16562622
The same pattern every time?

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:05:26 UTC No. 16562629

>>16562578
random is what fuels patterns which are supported by our universe. like throwing random shit at the wall until something eventually sticks, and some more random shit on top of that and something starts emerging eventually, if universe permits it to.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:07:06 UTC No. 16562635

>>16562578
>Could these patterns emerge if every one of those individual events were truly random?
Literally yes. That's why virtually all numbers contain virtually all finite numbers. That's also why you literally cannot tell 2 penrose tilings apart locally.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:08:11 UTC No. 16562638

>>16562623
Nothing is ever the same except for fundamental particles from each other. For example, a electron is exactly the same as another electron. You can't even distinguish them by giving them numbers in your head.
If you're talking about macroscopic patterns, no they're never the same.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:17:29 UTC No. 16562648

>>16562638
Is the precise location of an electron random? that's what I'm told. If this is truly the case, how does a very large sampling of electron locations over time always yield the same orbital shape? And if it has a different energy, it will have a different orbital shape, but that shape will also emerge every time you have a large enough sample to see the pattern. Maybe you can say that the location is random within certain constraints.

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:18:02 UTC No. 16562649

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS_2dX4Q0L0

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:22:48 UTC No. 16562658

>>16562648
It is inherently random, but the probabilities
are defined by the wave function. If you keep flipping a coin, the more times you flip the closer the results will trend towards 50/50

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:41:26 UTC No. 16562691

>>16562658
>but the probabilities
Are constrained. For the coin, it's constrained to 50/50 because there are two sides. The number of sides isn't random, so this constrains the probability. To me, this means that the result of the coin flip isn't really random. You only have two choices (unless it lands on its edge, but that's highly unlikely due to other constraints). For an electron in an orbital, it's constrained to be somewhere close to a nucleus. A mole of helium atoms will scatter off each other "randomly" but the collection of atoms will always expand outward until it meets the walls of a container. Ok, there's a calculable probability that all the atoms will somehow end up stacked on top of each other in one corner of the container, but in reality that will never ever happen. Somehow every "random" event seems to be contained or constrained, making it less than truly random in my eyes.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:03:45 UTC No. 16562715

>>16562691
>highly unlikely
it's just low probability but still in the possible outcomes.
there's also no coin, the 4th option. something happens to the coin before it lands. someone grabs it. whatever.
we are always aware of some possibilities, usually the highest probability events. we don't know what lurks in the shadows, options we don't yet consider but they exist. we're just oblivious to them.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:17:11 UTC No. 16562740

>>16562715
>something happens to the coin
>options we don't yet consider but they exist
It disappears into nothingness? It turns into an apple? Are those possible outcomes? Are they part of the probability calculation? Surely there must be some things that are truly impossible, not just highly unlikely. Again, the fact that there is a range of possibilities and infinite impossibilities, to me, means that the event or process isn't actually random. If it were, no patterns would ever emerge. I can't predict when an individual uranium atom will decay but I can predict with utter certainty when half of a large enough sample will decay. If it's plutonium it will have a different half life from uranium, but every sample of plutonium will have the exact same half life. How can that be called random?

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:23:18 UTC No. 16562749

>>16562740
some things could probably be ruled out. the whole thing is the uncertainty, low probability events you are not aware are possible because they maybe never happened, or rarely happened, so they're not considered, but they exist nevertheless, in the wavefunction.
>If it were, no patterns would ever emerge
on the contrary, the randomness is what makes patterns emerge, based on the laws of this universe. out of all random shit that happens some of it sticks because the laws of the universe permit it. thus based on the laws shit appears out of random.
random means with no relation to anything that ever happened so far. else it's just determined. but this randomness can eventually build to large scale structures which have a causal chain, they only exist because the universe allows it through it's laws.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:23:25 UTC No. 16562750

>>16562740
QM randomness doesn't mean "anything goes" or that no patterns emerge. The key point is that individual events like uranium decay are unpredictable, but when you have a large sample, statistical patterns appear. The half-life of a substance like plutonium is an average measure, not a fixed outcome for each atom. The randomness is in the exact moment of decay, not the overall trend. This statistical predictability in large groups is a hallmark of quantum behavior, but it doesn’t make it any less random at the individual level.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:29:25 UTC No. 16562760

>>16562749
like for example us humans, we exist because the universe is like "aaigh you good anon". randomness shaped us because the universe allows us to exist. if the universe wouldn't have permitted it (through its laws) we wouldn't exist. I find something beautiful and cozy in that.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:37:36 UTC No. 16562769

>>16562691
I don't think you understand the definition of random if you think a dice roll isn't random because the die can't turn into a bluefin tuna midroll.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:41:40 UTC No. 16562774

>>16562750
>statistical patterns appear
What guides or determines the patterns? To me, something would be truly random if it had no concrete cause. No prior state led to the event. It just happened. I know most people synonymize random and unpredictable, but to me they shouldn't mean the exact same thing. I would think that not all unpredictable events are random. It's just that the cause is unknown or hidden.

>based on the laws of this universe
Which are constraints, which make the events that stick non-random. Or, at least, the fact that they stuck is not random. Maybe the individual events aren't predictable, but something caused them to happen, which was caused by something else, etc. Or, at least, the environment is set up to where there is now a probability that the event will happen instead of it being impossible, such as a uranium nucleus emitting an alpha particle with unpredictable timing. The alpha particle isn't going to be emitted at all without the conditions existing first to make it possible, the uranium nucleus. Like you're not going to get heads or tails without the coin being flipped first.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:42:46 UTC No. 16562775

don't think a coin toss is a good example of random outcome. theoretically it's just chaotic. it need some randomness source to affect its outcome.
build a good enough machine that is very precise and will throw randomness out from outcome.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:43:53 UTC No. 16562780

>>16562769
To me dice rolls and coin flips are not random at all. If you had a very uniform coin and flipped it in a vacuum using the exact same force at the exact same position on the coin every time, you should get the same result every time. Same with rolling a die.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:46:43 UTC No. 16562786

>>16562774
>Or, at least, the fact that they stuck is not random.
if the source of the event is random in nature the result is random in nature.
in schroedinger's cat you can't say the aliveness of the cat is not random. it's determined by a random event even if the rest is just determined, vial breaks, poison gets into cat, it stops working (ded)

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:49:17 UTC No. 16562788

>>16562775
there's no actual example of truly random outcome outside of the quantum randomness itself. Spin up or spin down for example in Storn Gorlach experiment, but that's not an example, that's the thing in question.
>>16562774
Nothing causes individual inherently random quantum events to happen.
>>16562780
That's macroscopic classical thinking. Theoretically, since quantum events are inherently random, and quantum events are the basis of macroscopic events, you can never set up any system where the result with be the same 100% of the time. It might take a billion universal lifetimes to get a different result, but that's still not 100%.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:52:43 UTC No. 16562793

>>16562788
>there's no actual example of truly random outcome outside of the quantum randomness itself. Spin up or spin down for example in Storn Gorlach experiment, but that's not an example, that's the thing in question.
a quantum event determines things. why is that so strange? I don't get it. it determines if cat dies or lives. it determines if your digital computer shows 1 or 0. as long as the origin is quantum the deterministic chain it triggers is just an extension of the quantum source. you see 1 instead of 0 because that's how it collapsed way further away. the rest of the deterministic system between it and your eyes was affected by the quantum event, and the result of that is a 1 on your screen for example. the 1 on your screen had a random cause.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:53:30 UTC No. 16562794

>>16562774
>What guides or determines the patterns?
Nothing. Random doesn't mean completely lacking patterns. Local patterns are expected in random outcomes.

>I would think that not all unpredictable events are random. It's just that the cause is unknown or hidden.
If you could predict a thing if you knew its cause, it's not unpredictable. It's also not random. It's possibly chaotic, but random and chaotic are mutually exclusive.

Something random cannot be chaotic and something chaotic cannot be random.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:55:01 UTC No. 16562796

>>16562793
It's ultimately not deterministic if the source isn't deterministic, and that's fine.
The Bell's Experiment have created a trilemma between reality, locality, and free will. QM chooses to abandon reality, which is the idea that objects have definite properties independent of observation.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 20:03:30 UTC No. 16562800

>>16562774
>I would think that not all unpredictable events are random. It's just that the cause is unknown or hidden.
Hidden variable theory then. Local hidden variable theory, preferred by Einstein, where locality, reality and free will are all preverved, was straight up disproven by the Bell's Test.
If you still like hidden variables, there's the non-local hidden variable theory, on the bottom of the triangle>>16562796
Note however, that it was created by a Marxist, who felt that QM doesn't align with his Marxist philosophies, and thus he spent the rest of his life creating this alternative theory to cope with that, but in the process he abandoned Theory of Relativity, causality, which is ironic because he was a fan of Einstein.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 20:03:46 UTC No. 16562801

https://youtu.be/669AcEBpdsY
like, imagine the sound field is like some laws of the universe, and the balls are just random stuff thrown randomly by the universe. if it happens to land in the field, it stays there, stable. the universe is basically spray&pray with particles and the laws preselect stable configurations. and the spray&pray keeps building on this.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 20:21:29 UTC No. 16562821

>>16562796
>choose 2
Classical locality's already been disproven with quantum entanglement so at best I'd choose 1.

You should have said quantum locality if anything.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 20:25:16 UTC No. 16562823

>>16562774
It's actually quite simple if you think about it philosophically. Some Ancient Greek boipussy enjoyer could walk you through it:
If the actions of the most fundamental particles aren’t inherently random, then there must be a cause behind them—something affecting their behavior. This would imply that these particles aren’t truly the fundamental building blocks of our universe. The entities causing this influence would be. But what influences these entities? If something affects their behavior, then they can’t be the most basic components either. Therefore, the behavior of the most fundamental particles must be inherently random.
>>16562821
Locality isn't disproven since no information can be transferred faster than light. If you prefer to call it quantum locality that's fine.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 23:43:01 UTC No. 16562985

>>16562475
I believe in superdeterminism, because it's the only logical answer.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 07:14:42 UTC No. 16563295

Randomness is a very strange thing that some people get very upset by for very strange reasons.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 07:31:54 UTC No. 16563300

>>16562510
Except superdeterminism is a total crock of horseshit. It's nothing but wishful thinking for people who want the math to be simple and don't want to reckon with what it means for our world to be stochastic with (at most) deterministic moments.

If there is anything that recent physics have pointed to, it is that macro-physics doesn't particularly follow determinism all that well either. Determinism is a reasonable approximation, but it isn't "true" in some objective sense.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 11:11:19 UTC No. 16563365

for me, randomness is synonymous with unpredictability.

every event was predetermined at the conception of the universe, it's just not possible for us to examine all of the factors that influenced an outcome and therefore it's impossible to predict.

so god doesn't play dice with the universe, but with our inability to predict the behaviour of a complex system, to all intents and purposes, he may as well do.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 11:55:02 UTC No. 16563379

>>16562780
>To me dice rolls and coin flips are not random at all
I was using an idealized dice roll conceptually.

The point was you're saying an outcome can't be random if the possible range of results is constrained at all, which isn't what fucking random means. You're effectively arguing nothing can be random unless everything is random, which is fucking ridiculous.

A constraint on the range of possible results for something doesn't mean those results aren't random within that range for any useful meaning of the word random. Nobody fucking uses random to mean existing within a universe of infinite possibility because there isn't a fucking universe of infinite possibility and if there were it wouldn't be useful to imagine.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 11:56:16 UTC No. 16563380

Read some chaos theory, how the smallest uncertainity unfolds into events that are discussed in news, like forrest fires that start with single payeet playing with flame torch.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:00:29 UTC No. 16563382

>>16563365
>every event was predetermined at the conception of the universe
Counterpoint: The universe is a superposition.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:16:00 UTC No. 16563394

>>16563382
The fact you haven't measured something doesn't mean it isn't deterministic. Then Heisenbergs principle quite matters. And even if it means everything is pre-determined, it still means YOU are making the decisions.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 14:30:36 UTC No. 16563491

>>16563394
>The fact you haven't measured something doesn't mean it isn't deterministic
The fact that it is observably probabilistic does mean that though.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 14:36:26 UTC No. 16563498

>>16563491
Fact thet you count probabilities doesn't mean it's not deterministic. I can construct system of which you can construct markov chain, but it still won't represent the system well.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 15:08:01 UTC No. 16563537

>>16563498
>Fact thet you count probabilities
Lolwut

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 15:10:00 UTC No. 16563541

>>16563365
>every event was predetermined at the conception of the universe
notice how you keep clinging to something which justifies other shit in your brain. no proof for what you think, yet you know you have to take that position so the rest of your bullshit makes sense.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 15:10:55 UTC No. 16563545

>>16563537
Statistics are domain of platonic realm.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:59:23 UTC No. 16563743

>>16563365
Explain why Bell's Inequality was violated.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:44:15 UTC No. 16564274

>>16563743
nothing special

just like cosine shidd

its totally geometric

like you can do it for yourself drawing perpendicular lines of different lengths and then calculating areas by hand and it just straight up matches the bell inequality statistics. done it myself.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:49:17 UTC No. 16564285

>>16564274
Sure, the cosine stuff helps visualize how the measurements work, but that’s not really the point. Bell’s Inequality shows that no local hidden variable theory (where everything is already decided, and we just don’t know it yet) can explain these results. The fact that it’s violated means something deeper is going on, entanglement can’t be explained by classical physics.

If it’s just “geometry,” how do you explain quantum entanglement without breaking Bell’s theorem? Drawing lines doesn’t really cover what’s happening here.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 04:29:32 UTC No. 16564545

>>16564285
but clearly the bell violations must follow from the geometric visualization

for me, polarization directions are velocities but not of one particle, average velocities of ensembles of particles going through the experiment one by one.

so all that is really happening at the polarizer is the ensemble is being split up into groups. when you change the polarizer angle, you just change the way the ensemble is cut up

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 07:07:06 UTC No. 16564621

>>16564545
Go learn what the Bell Test actually is.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:42:26 UTC No. 16564973

>>16564621
what i am saying is true though. its just a FACT about the stochastic mechanical interpretation

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 01:42:33 UTC No. 16565737

>>16564621
Where can I learn it? I already read wiki so I'm pretty confident on it

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:00:24 UTC No. 16565749

>>16562658
>it's random
>but it's constrained to this known pattern
Hi.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:02:55 UTC No. 16565751

>>16564545
>so all that is really happening at the polarizer
when a photon goes through a polarizing filter they get absorbed by the atoms in the filter and re-emitted? it's not the "same" photon that comes out on the other side is it? as in the energy packet does go through the filter but not the photon itself that entered the filter

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:04:13 UTC No. 16565753

>>16565749
oh dear we need a Nobel right here right now anon figured it out

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:06:14 UTC No. 16565754

>>16565753
Yeah, thinking you didn't understand what I said.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:21:21 UTC No. 16565785

>>16565751
It's the same photon. It isn't absorbed and re-emitted. You're confusing this with photoelectric effect.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:24:11 UTC No. 16565796

>>16564973
You're missing the core issue: Bell's theorem isn't about randomness or stochastic models fitting the data. It's about ruling out local hidden variable theories, which no stochastic model can explain when it comes to quantum entanglement. Randomness alone doesn’t account for Bell violations without violating locality or reality. How does your interpretation get around that?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:30:32 UTC No. 16565810

>>16565785
if it passes through the glass lattice with zero interaction then it should be equivalent to it passing through void or air or whatever. why would it matter if it passes between two atoms or further away from them, like 1km. as far as they are concerned they didn't pass through any filter.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:36:51 UTC No. 16565820

>>16565796
The universe more than likely isn't locally real. It could very well be that there is some fundamental issue with the "ground truth" of reality being something "materially real." This is something that could be the case while still having something like a materially consistent macro-reality.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 03:09:14 UTC No. 16565887

>>16565785
>You're confusing this with photoelectric effect.
no, it isn't re-emitted in that case. I remember reading some team managed to "slow down light" in a BEC or something and the explanation was that atoms absorbed the photon it was just taking some time to emit it back out and all these times added together throughout the material made it look like it "slowed" down.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 03:20:34 UTC No. 16565910

>>16565785
from the dude's mouth:
https://youtu.be/wqKb2kB-LYI?t=58

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 03:23:25 UTC No. 16565915

>>16565910 (me)
so if the original photon is gone and a new one is created, or maybe who knows how many of these events happen inside the polarizer, at exit last atom will literally conjure a new photon.
in this case, it makes more sense why probabilities for it being stopped by the next filter are "reset". because it's not even the same fucking photon, it's a new one and nobody knows how it's been conjured up by the last atom in the lattice which emits it towards the next filter.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 03:34:40 UTC No. 16565931

so light which passes through one filter (or glass or _material) is basically information that is relayed by the last glass atom but with a new carrier photon.
when you look outside through the window no outside photon is hitting your eyes, all of them are created by the glass surface on the inside. only the outside information passes through, but not the outside photon's polarization.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 03:36:30 UTC No. 16565932

>>16565931
>only the outside information passes through, but not the outside photon's polarization.
that sounds retarded. so direction/wavelength but polarisation gets lost on the outside surface of the glass. that sounds insane

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 03:37:40 UTC No. 16565935

>>16565887
>>16565910
>>16565915
>>16565931
>>16565932
all me just to be clear. sorry for my shizo stream of posts

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:14:16 UTC No. 16565999

>>16565915
>in this case, it makes more sense why probabilities for it being stopped by the next filter are "reset". because it's not even the same fucking photon.
Ah, so you think the filter somehow "changed" the photon. That's exactly what the experiment is ruling out. Here's how:
I shoot a pair of entangled particles (doesn't have to be photons, but I'll make them photons in this case) in opposite directions.
One passes through a 85% filter, A (filter at 22.5 degree angle)
The other passes through a 50% filter, B. (filter at 45 degree angle)
What are the chances that both photons pass through their filters?
Classical physics/probability would say that it happens 42.5% of the time. 85%*50%
QM says that it happens 72% of the time. 85%*85%
Because the A filter is at 22 degree angle with the B filter, despite filter A and B being at opposite sides of the photon source.

This is a very very simplified version of the Bell's Test.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:22:49 UTC No. 16566004

>>16565999
when using more photons and looking at the numbers doesn't it look like the first filter resets the probability for the photons passing through the second filter? it's not additive. like once through A they are not the same as before A. since they've been generated by glass atoms. that's how I classically understand it. apart from entangled photons behavior through various filters. regular photons.
those who get filtered are absorbed and not emitted again. but those who are re-emitted they now again face the same chances of passing through B, as a group of photons, just like they did on the first filter.
in the absolute classical sense as macro objects that is yet another perspective.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:23:41 UTC No. 16566005

>>16566004
Re-read my post. Each photon only goes through one filter.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:25:27 UTC No. 16566009

>>16566005
I'm talking about this setup, not entangled photons, a group of regular photons.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:29:52 UTC No. 16566012

>>16566009
This is also what I'm talking about. If they do it with regular photons, and have them pass through both B and C filters, then yes, you'd be right to question that the filters "changed" the light somehow.
Which is why in the Bell's Test, they don't do it like this. They shoot a pair of entangled photons in. One goes through B (allows 85% to pass), one goes through C (allows 50% to pass).
The result is that 72% of the time, both entangled photons pass.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:33:11 UTC No. 16566013

>>16566009
A to B (22.5deg offset) all photons have 85% of making it.
If B filtered without affecting the 85% that made it, the 85% didn't face anything in their path, they avoided filtering, and considering they started at A they always faced C at 45deg, so 50% of them should be stopped at C.
BUT!
if B does reset their spin, of these 85% that make it through B, C is at 22.5deg offset so they face again 85% chances of making it through C.
Thus, it looks like B reset their spin. "Randomises" it, scrambles their spin, such that as a group they face 85% of making it through C. Which experiment shows happening.
This combined with the information that photons interact with glass atoms, intimately as it were makes sense as an intuitive model that each filter scrambles their spin.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:34:12 UTC No. 16566015

>>16566012
yeah I wanted to think about the whole thing without considering entangled particles behavior. that is another thing.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:36:20 UTC No. 16566016

>>16566015
This doesn't have to be done with photons. You can do the same experiment with entangled electrons and spin detectors placed at different angles.
Same results.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:38:20 UTC No. 16566017

>>16566016
Meant for this post as well.>>16566013

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:46:45 UTC No. 16566018

>>16566017
thank you for the info anon!

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 04:57:13 UTC No. 16566023

Make a graph with entangled electrons and spin detectors. It's the same principle
The electrons had no definite property of spin until observed, at which point a definite propert is generated. If they did, then the probability would be according to the first equation. However, experiment verifies that it is according to the second equation.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 05:12:48 UTC No. 16566033

>>16565999
ok so now in this entangled photons case, consider picrel entangled magenta photons (heh I know). the chances they both make it through B and C are 85%*85% and not 85%*50% because of the 22.5deg offset between B&C?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 05:17:02 UTC No. 16566034

>>16566033
Correct.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 05:26:13 UTC No. 16566037

>>16566034
ye the quantum weird fucking with intuition. I'll think about this.
entangled photons always have opposite spin to eachother?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 05:27:51 UTC No. 16566038

>>16566037
Yes. Entangled electrons as well.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 07:29:41 UTC No. 16566133

>>16565999
Thanks anon, I'm seeing the strangeness now.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 07:52:34 UTC No. 16566142

>>16565999
How do you entangle photons? I know it's real, but I really want to hear from qualified person how exactly that is done.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 08:40:04 UTC No. 16566158

>>16566142
Shoot a laser beam into a special crystal. Sometimes one high-energy photon will be converted into two lower-energy photons. These two photons will emerge with certain properties that are correlated, such as polarization

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 08:52:38 UTC No. 16566162

>>16566158
What exact special crystal does that?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 09:00:04 UTC No. 16566167

>>16566162
Beta-barium borate (BBO) is the main one. There are a few others.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 10:49:24 UTC No. 16566220

https://youtu.be/C2zSFElhgE0

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 10:51:16 UTC No. 16566221

>>16562495
What do probabilities measure? What happens when you have all the information?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:24:14 UTC No. 16566366

>>16566221
>when you have all the information
no such thing

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:49:49 UTC No. 16566383

>>16566167
so the crystal absorbs one photon and emits a pair of entangled photons each having 1/2 energy of the photon that has been absorbed?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:51:39 UTC No. 16566385

>>16566167
Does it mean, that if I change one photon, it has effect on another right?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 17:07:21 UTC No. 16566430

>>16566385
nope

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 17:13:03 UTC No. 16566439

>>16566385
entanglement is a relation between the two particles. they have oposite spin. they are created this way.
if you fuck with one, you ruin its spin, because you fuck with it, thus...it is not opposite spin to the other. this way you ruin the entanglement.
when you check the other, and see it spin down or up, you can't say anything anymore about its partner, since its partner has been fucked with.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 17:35:18 UTC No. 16566449

>>16562475
"Random" = "unknown."
That is a strict and wholly sufficient statement.
Anything more would require the supernatural.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:14:59 UTC No. 16566480

>>16566449
false. you need a mechanism for info to be there

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:47:48 UTC No. 16566511

>>16566009
ok I'm pretty sure this video is wrong
https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs
as far as explanation goes. about counting the photons. it implies there's something strange when there's nothing strange going on, the photons are not the same photons that entered the polarizer, they are brand new while keeping the energy packet info.
thus they have their spins randomized once they are emitted by the polarizer. that recreates a random distribution of spins in the ones that made it on the exit of B filter. which creates the pool of photons (spin) that will be stopped at C. thus nothing weird about it as the video implies (counting relationship).
photons at C don't send info back to B or whatever the fuck it implies. it's just completely missing the info that photons emitted by B are generated with new spins
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/395830/absorption-and-emission-of-photons

so anything with electrons? some experiment setup?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:11:47 UTC No. 16566798

>>16566383
Stop thinking about absorbtion. Like I said I can do this with entangled electrons, entangled neutrons, entangled yous.
The atoms in the crystal splits the photon into two photons. That's not the important part of the experiment, since it's replaceable by other methods of creating entangled particles.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:13:47 UTC No. 16566807

>>16566511
>ok I'm pretty sure this video is wrong
The video is correct, that's the gist of the experiment explained to the layman.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:20:32 UTC No. 16566818

>>16566511
Watch from 8:45, it said what I said.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:26:39 UTC No. 16566821

>>16566807
yeah I looked again from >>16566818 timestamp and indeed he mentions it.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:27:17 UTC No. 16566822

>>16562475
Nothing is random, the universe is a computer. Few understand

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:34:08 UTC No. 16566834

>>16566822
>Nothing is random
proof
>the universe is a computer
it technically is an analog computer yes. both Turing and von Neumann struggled with understanding it.
>Few understand
no shit. nobody does, unless they invent the math for it, which is proof they understand it.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:36:18 UTC No. 16566839

>>16566818
I raged out 5:07-5:13 at his statement.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:43:38 UTC No. 16566848

I have to add, since there are lots of posts itt talking about aborption.
Photons in the light filter Bell's Test don't get "absorbed and re-emitted" when they pass through a filter, they don't create a "new" photon through absorption and re-emission, as is typical in materials like glass. They only get absorbed if they're blocked.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:47:13 UTC No. 16566851

>>16566221
fuck me never thought of it like that. Basically disproves Bayesian inference.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:50:33 UTC No. 16566855

>>16566848
what kind of filter is that?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:51:58 UTC No. 16566857

>>16566855
Polarizing filters in the photon experiments. spin detectors in electron experiments.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:53:17 UTC No. 16566858

>>16566857
no I get it but what kind of filter, physically. how does it work if it doesn't absorb the photon like glass does. light passes through materials in this way. no?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:56:36 UTC No. 16566861

>>16566858
They work by letting photons with a specific polarization pass through while blocking others, like Polaroid film, which contains long-chain molecules aligned in a particular direction. These molecules allow only light waves vibrating in the same direction as their alignment to pass through, while blocking light waves vibrating perpendicularly.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 23:21:41 UTC No. 16566886

>>16566861
so photons are just basically passing through with zero interaction like the filter isn't even phisically there?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 23:36:08 UTC No. 16566904

>>16566886
The ones that pass through do get their polarization collapsed into a definite state, there is an quantum interaction.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 23:36:47 UTC No. 16566907

>>16562475
He was somewhat right. Whether you think quantum mechanics is deterministic or random comes up to your interpretation (aka opinion) in the end. It makes no difference to reality one way or the other what interpretation you pick, so all the discussion about randomness is real or not is just noise from the scientific viewpoint.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 23:44:04 UTC No. 16566913

>>16566221
>What happens when you have all the information?
Disproven concept.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:14:53 UTC No. 16566939

>>16566913
May I introduce you to the wavefunction of the universe?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:18:48 UTC No. 16566942

>>16566904
>The ones that pass through do get their polarization collapsed into a definite state
sounds interesting
>quantum interaction.
what is it called or how would I learn about this phenomenon?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:53:46 UTC No. 16566968

>>16566939
No. Mom doesn't let me talk to Marxists.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:58:38 UTC No. 16566978

>>16566942
well, you can think of it as the filter "changing" the photon's polarization, from a definite state to a different definite state. Then you'd be confused by the results of the experiment. the results only make sense if you don't presume a definite polarization angle prior to the filter. Instead, the entangled photons are in a correlated superpositiob. the observation of one will determine the states of both.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 01:58:14 UTC No. 16567021

>>16562475
the way that I understand the issue is that there is not really such a thing as random, but some processes, if not most of them, are measurable only using probabilistic terminology, since we can't model and compute specifically all of the interactions between particles and the forces involved.

I'm not a physicist btw, I'm a probabilist math guy, so maybe I am biased

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 02:22:10 UTC No. 16567043

>>16562475
i do

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:49:43 UTC No. 16567382

>>16567021
This line of though was decisively proven wrong, if you're a probablilist math guy you'd love QM.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:01:03 UTC No. 16567475

>>16566439
I've seen this quantum teleportation experiment on news... They claimed they teleported information, I thought it was thanks to entangled state.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:23:56 UTC No. 16567516

>>16567475
>teleportation
this concept is kind of murky. I teleported this message to your display

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:25:29 UTC No. 16567518

>>16567382
No it wasn't. You have no idea what you're talking about

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:27:59 UTC No. 16567520

>>16567516
No you haven't. It traveled less than at speed of light.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:30:11 UTC No. 16567523

>>16567520
so what? still fast enough

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:30:51 UTC No. 16567524

>>16567523
Can you teleport it back? I don't want to see it anymore.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:32:15 UTC No. 16567527

>>16567524
huh?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:37:21 UTC No. 16567541

>>16567527
It's also on your screen you cloned it not teleported... Lyer!

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:39:03 UTC No. 16567546

>>16567541
anon teleport concept is scifi brainslop like "muh subspace" and shit.
teleport, even at scifi level, is information transfer. take something and get it somewhere else.
all atoms are identical.
you can see where this is going. hint - 3D printer or some type of assembler.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:41:43 UTC No. 16567554

>>16567546
Anyway I'm dissapointed what entangled particles really means, it's not entangled anyhow, it's just symmetrical.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:51:59 UTC No. 16567574

>>16567554
think of it this way. say you have a 10x10x10 gold atoms cube.
if you want to teleport this object just send it via photons to any distance, and receiver reassembles the 10x10x10 gold atom cube.
scale this up, a laptop. what is the cost of you moving all those atoms 1ly away (anywhere close to the speed of light), and what is the cost of sending the information via radio?
>entangled
yeah still trying to understand it. some say it's not only about the correlation between them

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 17:19:09 UTC No. 16567621

>>16567574
I had hope in that, but now I'm afraid, that those are same people who thinks observation is placing detector somewhere.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:31:02 UTC No. 16568102

>>16567518
Yes it was.
>>16567475
They did do quantum teleportation using entanglement, but that required classical information transfer and thus did not exceed speed of light.
>>16567554
They're described by the same wave function, observation of one determines the states of both. That's entanglement.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:36:01 UTC No. 16568105

>>16568102
>They're described by the same wave function, observation of one determines the states of both. That's entanglement.
but if I write 0 and 1 on a piece of paper put it in plastic ball and shuffle it until your consciousness looses track of them are they in superposition? the same correlation between them is there but they're macro objects. when you look into one you know what's in the other no matter how far away you take it. particle entanglement seem to have some more magic sauce to it

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:45:27 UTC No. 16568114

>>16568105
>but if I write 0 and 1 on a piece of paper put it in plastic ball and shuffle it until your consciousness looses track of them are they in superposition?
No.
>particle entanglement seem to have some more magic sauce to it
Yes. It's called superposition ie. lack of definite values independent of observation.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:15:46 UTC No. 16568148

Correlation of entangled particles' property come from the laws of conservation, of momentum, of angular momentum, etc. That's not the special part.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:27:04 UTC No. 16568162

>>16562475
I believe the the study of the histroy of physics is important for all.
Einstein and Shrodinger were determinists, they did not believe in QM's interpretation.
Einstein then proposed this thought experiment to counter QM:
>If a particle were to be split into two, then according to the laws of conservation, certain properties of the two must be correlated such as momentum and spin.
>At that point, if you observe one particle and determine it's property, say it's spin up, it must mean that you've also determined the other particle and it's property. But that particle could be light years away! That's against relativity. Impossible.
Copenhagen:
>well yes if that's what you do, then I guess that would be the result that you get. Particles don't have a definite state till observation, thus the experiment doesn't violate relativity.
Then Shrodinger was like:
>So you be saying those particles would be ENTANGLED with eachother? Lol lmao copenkooks owned by facts&logic

Basically Einsteinian view:
two particles have correlated property value=black or white, those are inherent.
you observe one, you see white, because it was always white
the other must be black, because no shit.
Relativity isn't broken. No FTL info transfer.

QM view:
two particles have correlated property values=black or white, but what color each has is indeterminate without observation.
you observe one, RNG generates white.
due to correlation, the other must be black.
Relativity isn't broken. No FTL info transfer.

20 years later, Bell's Inequality used a nice way to turn this philosphical question into a scientific question, and the experiments proved the QM view.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:44:47 UTC No. 16568185

>>16568114
>Yes. It's called superposition ie. lack of definite values independent of observation.
why are they always opposite spin when they're created entangled? or even when electrons entangle themselves? why never same spin? that's some yin yang shit

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:50:02 UTC No. 16568194

>>16568185
>why are they always opposite spin when they're created entangled? or even when electrons entangle themselves? why never same spin? that's some yin yang shit
Pauli Exclusion Principle. It states that no two electrons in an atom can have the same set of quantum numbers (which include spin), so if they share the same orbital, they must have opposite spins.
>but why is this a law? is Pauli God?
When you swap two identical fermions, their combined wavefunction must change sign (become negative). If two fermions tried to occupy the same quantum state, their wavefunction would mathematically cancel itself out, which is impossible.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:53:56 UTC No. 16568200

>>16568194
>Pauli Exclusion Principle
ye gotta study this. thanks anon

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:54:36 UTC No. 16568202

>>16568185
in case of entangled photons, since they're created from 1 photon, the opposite polarization is due to law of conservation of angular momentum

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 01:11:22 UTC No. 16568230

>>16566822
Irrelevant. A deterministic system that requires so much information to calculate the next state accurately, for all practical purposes, is random in nature for everybody but God.