🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:51:27 UTC No. 16584745
So Bell's inequalities disprove the hidden variables interpretations of quantum mechanics?
How many interpretations are possible now? Is Many Worlds still unproven to be false?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:57:44 UTC No. 16584755
>>16584745
Unfortunately, Bell's inequalities are borderline pseudoscience and have disproved nothing. Only midwits care about the bell inequalities.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:03:09 UTC No. 16584761
>>16584755
>too complicated for me boss man
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:05:13 UTC No. 16584764
>>16584755
>pseudoscience
humm, what do you base yourself on ti make this controversial statement?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:18:08 UTC No. 16584773
>>16584764
Look at the original paper by Bell
https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/f
He starts off by making the pseudoscientific assumption that the hidden variable theory must give some random variables [math] A(a, \lambda), B(b, \lambda) [/math] with the properties that they take the values [math] \pm 1 [/math] and also satisfy the addition property that [math] A(a, \lambda) = -B(a, \lambda) [/math]. These are meaningless assumptions and there's no reason for such random variables to exist in the hidden variable theory.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:21:49 UTC No. 16584775
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:25:19 UTC No. 16584777
>>16584773
maybe reading whole papers is too complicated for you and you need the concepts dumbed down for you
watch this: https://youtu.be/qd-tKr0LJTM
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:29:07 UTC No. 16584781
>>16584777
>It is not supposed to be rigorous
Discarded.
I'm not watching your midwit popsci propaganda video. I already posted the original paper and pointed out the flaws in it.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:10:27 UTC No. 16585098
>>16584773
>These are meaningless assumptions and there's no reason for such random variables to exist in the hidden variable theory.
It seems like you misunderstood. A(a,\lambda) represents the results of Alice's measurement of spin in direction a, and likewise B is for Bob. A and B are the results of experiments they are not hidden variables. It is an experimental fact that you only get two possible values for the spin no matter which axis you measure it, and that if Alice and Bob choose the same axis their results will be opposite.
The hidden variable is \lambda. The whole point of the hidden variable hypothesis is that if we somehow could know \lambda we could know the results of the experiment no matter which axis Alice and Bob choose. Bell showed that this doesn't actually give the right correlations.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:18:22 UTC No. 16585102
>>16584773
Those aren't his assumptions. That's literally how quantum mechanics works.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:22:06 UTC No. 16585106
This is probably a dumb question, but in many worlds, what becomes of all the mass energy of all those worlds?
Theres just an infinite amount of mass and energy out there? Do all the worlds interact in any way?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:15:23 UTC No. 16585162
>>16585102
Yes.
The non unified theory of standard model quantum mechanics is saturated with midwits that can't distinguish science from pseudoscience.
Which is why standard model physicists haven't done shit for science since the 70s. Everything since has been production improvements and luck.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:26:09 UTC No. 16585183
>>16584775
>>16584776
>when you can't come up with a coherent argument but the SCIENCE TRUSTING is strong
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:30:57 UTC No. 16585192
>>16585162
cope
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:49:03 UTC No. 16585228
>>16585192
This is about the level of intellect I've come to expect from standard model cultists.
The irony is you can't name one thing science has accomplished that isn't a rebranded discovery from the 70s (or older). I accept your concession, midwit.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:37:23 UTC No. 16585276
>>16585106
many worlds is dumb and its proponents are edgy midwits
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:20:56 UTC No. 16585306
>>16585276
Okay, but do they have an answer to my question?
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 01:21:21 UTC No. 16585353
>>16585306
there is literally no answer to the question because many worlds makes no sense.
just forget about that dogshit interpretation
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 02:13:54 UTC No. 16585375
>>16585353
So, no one has ever considered that?
That seems unlikely.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:28:34 UTC No. 16585704
>>16585098
I said random variables not hidden variables. You are the one misunderstanding. You never stated why a hidden variable theory must contain those random variables.
>>16585102
Wrong. Bell's theorem is about hidden variable theories, not quantum mechanics.
>>16585106
The energy in each world is given a weight. What is conserved in the mwi is the weighted energy of all the parallel universes.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 16:00:47 UTC No. 16585802
>>16585162
Everyone is retarded except for you.
What breakthroughs have you been working on in the field?
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:40:36 UTC No. 16585959
>>16584776
You know how testing of a hypothesis works, right? It's never proven true.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:13:06 UTC No. 16585993
>>16585802
>Which is why standard model physicists haven't done shit for science since the 70s.
I realize you can't answer this question so personally attacking me is your only option but you're just so boring and predictable it's sad.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:55:21 UTC No. 16586020
>>16585993
I'm not interested in that debate.
I'm interested in what you are doing. What your expertise is, and what your sector of the field is, and what you've been doing in it.
Feel free to be candid.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:07:04 UTC No. 16589082
>>16584776
what's wrong with that?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:13:52 UTC No. 16590548
>>16585704
>You never stated why a hidden variable theory must contain those random variables.
Because that is how quantum mechanics works experimentally. The goal of hidden variables is to provide an interpretation for quantum mechanics. It certainly needs to be able to account for the easiest situation where Alice and Bob have their detectors aligned in the same direction. The non-trivial part of Bells theorem comes later when they have the detectors misaligned, but you seem to be stuck on even grasping this initial part.
I was being polite before, but you should really feel ashamed for being so stupid that you can't even recognize that you might be wrong.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:16:59 UTC No. 16590553
>>16584745
Bohmian Mechanics is the only serious interpretation left.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:18:40 UTC No. 16590555
>>16590548
Let's be honest here. You're a moron who didn't even know the difference between a random variable and hidden variable before I kindly pointed it out to you. You should be ashamed of pretending to be an expert on anything. In fact, if you had any shame at all, you would be apologizing to me right now.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:40:07 UTC No. 16590581
>>16590555
You didn't point out any difference between random and hidden variables. You simply misunderstood Bell's paper, you misunderstood my post, and you misunderstood other people's posts, and all in a very arrogant and aggressively stupid way.
I am about as close to an expert as you are likely to find on this site, considering I have a phd and I'm a publishing physicist. You on the other hand are either some bitter washed up crackpot that couldn't make it, or your some arrogant 19 year old that hasn't yet learned there are smarter people than him in the world. Which is it?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:46:42 UTC No. 16590586
>>16590581
I have misunderstood nothing and in fact have thought about these things for longer than you have. Your alleged PhD is worthless given that you didn't even know the difference between a random variable and a hidden variable.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:02:06 UTC No. 16590606
>>16590586
Alice and Bob measure spins. The results of their measurements are always +-1 in appropriate units. If Alice and Bob measure about the same axis they always get perfectly anticorrelated results. There is nothing "hidden" about this. Any interpretation of quantum mechanics including a hidden variable theory must have random variables like A(a) and B(b), since that is what is observed.
Now since you criticized Bell for including A and B like it was some unwarranted assumption I thought you were thinking they were something in the underlying hidden variable theory, and I was emphasizing to you that A and B are not hidden variables. But somehow you took away from this that I was saying A and B *are" hidden variables? I don't know how that happened but maybe you ought to work on your reading comprehension a little bit more.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:08:45 UTC No. 16590616
>>16590606
>since that is what is observed.
Oh really? When was this probability distribution over hidden variables observed? You do know that this probability distribution is part of the definition of random variables, right?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:42:21 UTC No. 16590659
>>16590616
The probability distribution of the random variable corresponding to say Alice's measurement of spin about any given axis is observable and predicted in standard quantum mechanics. Any interpretation of quantum mechanics ought to involve this random variable, this isn't an arbitrary choice by Bell.
The probability distribution of the random variable is not the same thing as the probability distribution over the hidden variable (\rho(\lambda) in Bell's paper). Refresh your memory by taking a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rando
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:44:39 UTC No. 16590662
>>16584745
>Bell's inequalities disprove the hidden variables interpretations of quantum mechanics?
Only *local* hidden variables.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:48:40 UTC No. 16590666
>>16590659
>wikipedia
pseud. Dropped.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:50:53 UTC No. 16590672
>>16590666
Okay that statement tells me more than anything that I was really wasting my time with you. Good luck
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:51:22 UTC No. 16590673
>>16590659
No one's talking about the probability distributions of quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about hidden variable theories. Why would the hidden variable theory contain the the random variables [math] A(a, \lambda), B(b, \lambda) [/math]?. Note the dependence of A on a and \lambda.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:53:05 UTC No. 16590675
>>16590672
That wasn't even me you retarded PhD holder.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:00:12 UTC No. 16590683
>>16590673
>No one's talking about the probability distributions of quantum mechanics.
The distribution of the random variables needs to be able to match what is predicted by quantum mechanics. I linked that Wikipedia paragraph because it explains how the distribution of a random variable "forgets" about the details of the underlying probability space, which is like forgetting about the details of the hidden variables \lambda and the probability distribution \rho(\lambda) in this case.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:12:36 UTC No. 16590695
>>16590683
What makes you think the hidden variable theory has to let you forget the details of the hidden variable?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:17:36 UTC No. 16590704
>>16590695
Because in reality we don't observe \lambda but do observe the Alice and Bob's measurements and all of their associated correlations. The hidden variable theory needs to explain our observations. I don't even know what you are trying to propose, and I suspect you don't either.
I'm not going to check this site for a while so don't expect another reply soon, if at all.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:02:22 UTC No. 16591302
>>16589082
Double negative. Confuses the reader and creates a double meaning. "Unproven to be false" is a double negative because it combines "unproven" (which means not proven) and "false." Since "false" implies something is incorrect, saying that something is not proven to be false creates an indirect and potentially confusing way of saying it might be true or has not been disproven.
Your welcome for the English lesson.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:07:02 UTC No. 16591705
You have one way to go: from your current state of knowledge, using it to build on.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:26:47 UTC No. 16595016
>>16584773
>>16585704
>>16590555
> Hidden variable theory must give some random variables...
WRONG, retard alert. Hidden variable theory seeks to explain the random variables we obtain in an experiment. You are just purposely obfuscating and then claiming others are retarded