Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 22:47:16 UTC No. 16618193

>>16618079
Quantum interpretation has been solved. Its called stochastic mechanics.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:10:48 UTC No. 16618218

>>16618079
Alright, my interest has been piqued. Where should I start with Quantum Mechanics?

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 04:07:34 UTC No. 16618409

>QM doesn't have a model
Seems like he got filtered.
Quantum Mechanics is so simple I could teach it to a child if it understood differential equations.

QM is just a "particle-wave equation" in different forms. Most of introductory quantum mechanics is about Schrodinger's equation, a nonrelativistic wave equation obeying De Broigle's relation, which introduces the constant of quanta [math] h [/math], known as a planck's constant. There's also a couple of postulates, which are usually just mathematical language and basic probability. Whole of quantum mechanics exists because of matter waves, nothing else. And those waves are significant factor at very low masses. That's literally why electron microscopy works.

All you do in whole of QM 101 is just solve Schrodinger's equation and see how we can interpret, then we see it agrees with experiment.
Obviously, you can't say where particle is gonna be detected precisely, because waves are a function of all space, not a singular point.

The only thing that's philosophical here is a fact that matter waves exist and everything has got an associated wavelength. And there's some probability on top of that.
"Interpretations" of quantum mechanics are pretty funny to me. What exactly is so weird about? Because quantum particles don't obey "classical" laws monkey brain is used to?
Nevermind this, the faggot doesn't know about Bell's theorem which essentially proves non-determinism is engraved into reality. He should be happy about that because it actually implies he might have free will after all. Even if it is randomly generated.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 04:14:08 UTC No. 16618414

>>16618409
That's cool but let's ask the real question here.

What collection of frequencies at what power levels would instantly discombobulate a human into atomic dust, smarty smartpants?

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 04:38:04 UTC No. 16618424

>>16618193
retards aren't ready for that trvke

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 04:51:29 UTC No. 16618431

>>16618409
Just sad the entire quantum community has been indoctrinated into believing that rrality must be irreducibly and inexplicably bizarre. No doubt anime faggotry is a direct result.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 04:55:57 UTC No. 16618433

>>16618431
> believing that rrality must be irreducibly and inexplicably bizarre. No doubt anime faggotry is a direct result.

Why would you think it necessarily has some order that is understandable by humans? Is that not even more "bizarre" of an assumption than "if there are rules, we sure as shit don't know them."

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:25:59 UTC No. 16618447

>>16618409
He was filtered by the Neumann endboss. Just because he - apparently the quora poster, which is truly a sad state of affairs for /sci/ - isn't a genius and lacks imagination doesn't mean he is right.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:44:09 UTC No. 16618466

>>16618433
The issue has nothing to do with understandability. People understand quantum mechanics. People understand quantum interpretations. The issue is bizarreness and the fact that everyday experience and what practically every part of science and intellectual endeavour is not bizarre in any way close. I don't believe the universe is that conspiratorial. I don't believe the universe does weird, inexplicable curveballs - it prefers straight lines and stationary action. The universe is profoundly lazy.>>16618447

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:12:48 UTC No. 16619088

>>16618409
For a lot of people "how" isn't enough, they also want to know "why".

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:34:48 UTC No. 16619117

>>16618218
Nobody here reads or knows anything significant, you'll have to find it yourself

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 01:02:13 UTC No. 16620212

>>16619088
There is and never can be a why. Any chain of explanations must eventually end at unexplained facts that just are.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 01:51:54 UTC No. 16620250

>>16619088
The why is pretty well explained as well.
Formulate a proper question about QM and I will answer it properly.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 02:08:06 UTC No. 16620257

>>16619088
>>16620212
Axioms are needed in something as simple as defining 1+1 = 2.
You always have to agree on something as a matter of fact. Preferably something fundamental.

Wave mechanics aren't particularly hard to agree as a matter of fact. You can do basic math on waves you create by throwing balls in a pond.
If you ask a question such as
>Why do particles have wave-like nature?
Why not? It seems to be confirmed by experiments. You might as well ask questions such as:
>Why do we exist?
>Why is does light have a property of wavelength?
>Why is anything, the way it is?
>Why don't we exist in a universe with different constants of nature?
Those are philosophical questions, which may or may not have a satisfactory answer.
Those are not scientific questions.

Of course not to deny their usefulness. Asking why can often deepen the knowledge of the subject substantially and I ask this question often.
Mechanism behind particle-wave duality is pretty well known though. Everything is a wave; it's just that at very low masses the wavelength is long enough not to be extremely localized in one place. What you perceive as a "particle" is just localization due to a certain threshold in its momentum.

Very massive objects have such short wavelengths they cannot possibly interfere, or rather they do, but the scale on which they do it (multiples of wavelength) is so short, it's below planck's length. So you don't observe "quantum weirdness" on macro scales.
You wouldn't think it's weird to have quantum properties if you were molded in an environment where it is common place.
Everything is a wave. Your wavelength is just so short, it might as well be considered a particle.
In the end: why not? If you imagine a world where all of this is flipped around (you normally are a wave but particle in low masses only), you'd think being a classical particle is weird.

"Interpretations" of quantum mechanics belongs to 1950s. We have newer children on the block.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 02:14:56 UTC No. 16620261

>>16618431
Nobody is indoctrinated into thinking reality must be bizarre. We simply think and consider the reality: the experiment and the correct math behind it.

That's what it shows. That's what it is, in reality, by virtue of being checked for in reality.
There's no belief involved here. You, on the other hand, given the comment, will lean into believing some ""alternative science"" facts you read on a blogpost from 2006 operated by a schizophrenic man.

Because, of course, reality *must be* understandable for a low IQ ape like you, right? And be just like classical (simpler) physics, because your intuition is god-sent, you're the smartest, and you know better than 100 years of experiments.
You schizos are clowns. You know this deep inside, no matter your delusions.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 02:27:12 UTC No. 16620271

>>16620250
how can you know that particles exist in multiple positions at same time if you cant measure time with infinite precision?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 02:46:17 UTC No. 16620281

>>16620257
the question is: if quantum theory can be formulated in a way using normal particles rather than mysterious "waves", should we not prefer to interpret as normal particles as is suggested by the rest of physics and everyday experience?

i think the answer is obvious

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 02:51:58 UTC No. 16620285

>>16620261

again, its nothing about understandability. the fact that we understand quantum mechanics very well defeats your stupid understandability straw man. this has nothing to do with understandability. its about bizarreness.

fact is that before quantum theory, the world was locally realistic with intuitive regular particles, and it still is for the majority of science aneveryday experience.

rational belief updating dictates we should update our beliefs to fit the evidence whilst changing our beliefs about the world as little as possible.

when we encounter a theory which works wrt quantum theory, and is much closer to classical intuition than other interpretations, we should accept it. but instead most peole dont because they are in love with the bizarre mystique of quantum theory.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 03:00:52 UTC No. 16620289

>>16620271
Here's an example of a retard who didn't even go through QM 101 because he can't even do high school algebra. Your question is nonsensical and QM doesn't not say a single particle exist in multiple positions at (the) same time.

>>16620281
>if quantum theory can be formulated in a way using normal particles rather than mysterious "waves"
It can't. That's the whole point you retard. You'd understand it if you tried studying it even for 1 fucking month, you'd understand that QM is just a natural consequence of understanding reality in a correct way in a way you can predict.
The reason quantum theory even works is because it's a fucking wave equation obeying de broigle's relation.
Rest of physics wasn't consistent until we did that.
The only part of physics where waves aren't ubiquitous is basic non-oscillatory classical physics. Such as throwing a ball. Which is not "rest of physics". We use wave equations literally everywhere.It is VERY commonplace, so your argument is also retarded. Anything that oscillates uses some form of a wave as a description. Because that's what a wave is.

Plus people tried to do what you are saying. And they all failed spectacularly. You think your ideas are original? There was about 10k physicist before you who tried to do that even though those ones actually knew the math, unlike your ignorant ass. They all failed and were inconsistent in one way or another. de Broglie–Bohm theory comes to mind, but they were many others.

If you don't know what either of those are, which is basically high school physics, then go back to fucking books you uneducated retard instead of trying to argue about something you don't understand even the fundamentals of. Because again, if you did, you wouldn't be asking me those dumbass 1900s tier questions.

You feel more like a peasant from 1700s than a 2025 person with access to all of human knowledge with a couple of clicks.
>muh everyday experience of cutting down wheat is da reality bro!

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 03:04:04 UTC No. 16620290

>>16620285
>rational belief updating dictates we should update our beliefs to fit the evidence
Exactly, so what is the problem with QM?
> because they are in love with the bizarre mystique of quantum theory.
Now that's a strawman you pull out of your ass to feel superior about how open minded you are. This is not true in any way whatsoever. If you had a model with QM predictive power, but was purely particle-like and simpler, everybody would be using it instead (simply because it's simpler).

So yeah. Diagnosis: schizo.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 04:23:05 UTC No. 16620384

>>16618079
Duh. The value of a theory is it's predictive power. It's explanatory power and consistency are secondary and tertiary concerns, respectively.

Mihai at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:49:17 UTC No. 16620469

>>16620289
>It can't

You can.

Its called stochastic mechanics. It is the correct interpretation of quantum theory.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:12:08 UTC No. 16620527

>>16620469
Diffusion equation is literally Schrodinger's equation minus constants so doesn't surprise me you could throw shit at it couple of times and make it stick.

Just like Bohm's theory, stochastic is another one that is "particle focused", yet can't do anything more than essentially derive Schrodinger's equation. Tell me, what does SQM predict other than what Schrodinger's equation does?
Exactly.

Any approach that we have ever done at QM that isn't pure wave mechanic doesn't even stick to Dirac-level predictions.
If you read Bell's theorem even once you'd understand, that by virtue of nature, it's literally impossible to have local QM with particle's position being fixed trajectories.

>It is the correct interpretation of quantum theory.
According to whom?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 08:54:50 UTC No. 16620562

>>16618193
have you also worked with Howard? Surprised that anyone actually has a brain on this board at this point

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:02:00 UTC No. 16620565

> QM has probably driven a lot of people out of physics over the years.
That simply isn't true. I have never met a single student where that happened.

He mostly right about the rest though. QM works, we just can't agree why it works.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:21:24 UTC No. 16620630

>>16620562
>>16618193
No experiment can determine stochastic mechanics is right.
Redefining QM as a derivation through random processes is not going to change that.
I can do anything I want through math and define new physical laws; without experiment its meaningless.

I am genuinely impressed by the amount of low IQ cope you people use just because you have a problem with a fact that electron microscopy works.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:38:58 UTC No. 16620641

>>16618079
Shut up and calculate.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:45:19 UTC No. 16620653

Its just electromagnetic carrier wave.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 12:44:21 UTC No. 16620680

>>16620630
>>16620630
>No experiment can determine stochastic mechanics is right.
wrong
i'm not even going to bother engaging because you clearly don't even have a grip on the basics, i recommend you go outside instead of replying

Mihai at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 15:49:44 UTC No. 16620830

>>16620527
>>16620527
>>16620527
we are talking about interpretations. in principle all interpretations give the same predictions so your point about predictions is null. the point is that if you can reproduce the entirety of quantum theory using locally realistic particles, then this should be the preferred interpretation. you dont even need to use stochastic quantum mechanics at all; its existence, period, is evidenxe that quantum mechanics is really just about conventional locally realistic particles.

it is preferrable over copenhagen-style interpretations because here is no measurement problem.
it is preferrable over many worlds because it has a far less radical ontology - there is no reason to select a crazy theory when a less radical option is available. many worlds also has various other complications with things like decoherence and probabilities.
its preferrable to bohmian mechanics because bohmian mechanics is ad hoc - it just puts deterministic particles on top of the wavefunction. on the other hand, stochastic mechanics derives the wavefunction from first principles and explains where it comes from.

>wave mechanics

the question is - what is wave mechanics? wave mechanics is just the study of conservative fields. it can apply to any medium, light, water, sound.... stochastic mechanics. stochastic mechanics is just the wave mechanics of stochastic particles in a similar way that there is a wave mechanics of h2o molecules.

>If you read Bell's theorem even once you'd understand, that by virtue of nature, it's literally impossible to have local QM with particle's position being fixed trajectories.

bells theorem rules out noncontextual models. stochastic mechanics is not noncontextual.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 15:57:28 UTC No. 16620849

>>16620630
Sure we probably cant experimentally distinguish stochastic mechanics too - can you in the future? maybe - its not entirely certain. but this is not the point because no one is claiming that quantum mechanics is wrong and stochastic mechanics is right. they are claiming that quantum mechanics IS stochastic mechanics, hence your point mentioning electron microscopy is nonsensical. just because you cannot experimentally distinguish something doesnt mean you cant build solid arguments to say that a view is likely correct. you are doing it right now because you think stochastic mechanics is incorrect. you may even be doing it with other views like whether there is retrocausality or a block universe.

but i dont understand why people wouldnt want to choose an intuitive metaphysics of conventional particles when it is available.

boggling

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 19:11:23 UTC No. 16621054

>>16620257
Asking why matter exhibits wave-like behavior is not a question that deserves a "why not" as the answer. Three of those example questions you gave are far too vague for there to even be a meaningful answer to, but asking about matter waves is more like asking "why is the sky blue" or "why do things glow when they get hot", which are very solvable types of questions that ask for specific answers.
And asking why light has a wavelength is not philosophical, and is a solved question. The frequency of an oscillating source charge sets the frequency of the radiation it produced, for reasons that are obvious.

If you don't know the answer, that's okay, I don't either, but don't go around telling people they are wrong pursuing one.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 22:34:41 UTC No. 16621184

>>16620830
Why can't interpretations be refuted by experiment?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 01:25:55 UTC No. 16621289

>>16621184
wwll they can

but in principal the issue of quantum interpretation is the issue of alternative models that have different ontologies but make identical predictions

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:03:48 UTC No. 16621846

>>16618079
this retard was filtered because he didn't want to understand what Ether is and instead got invloved with DEI shit contructed specifically to grant education visas to insectoids and shitskins

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:43:02 UTC No. 16622020

Quora combines the snobbishness of stackexchange with the midwittery of reddit.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:00:59 UTC No. 16622614

>>16620527
>you could throw shit at it couple of times and make it stick
the basis of QM are Maxwell's equations and Maxwell literally did what you just posted

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:40:42 UTC No. 16624409

>>16618079
> bro
Fuck off back to tiktok retard.