Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:28:16 UTC No. 16621547

>>16621492
I already resolved it: there are no particles; only waves exist. But you prefer being dense or obtuse. You 4channers are closed-minded.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:02:44 UTC No. 16621610

>>16621492
We simpletons know better than you experts.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:03:14 UTC No. 16622441

>>16621492

different interpretations are possible in every field of physics.

its just that the common sense view is easily visible and everyone agrees

take classical mechanics. someone who didnt know what classical mechanics was about but saw the different formalisms would.be boggled about what its talking about.... least action? hamilton jacobi? koopman von neumann? other weird shidd? crazy

but if you have insider knowledge of what classical mechanics is about its obvious

same will happen with qm its just the correct inside view is not well known

but when everyone sees it they will be like " ah yes, thats common sense"

so the fact interpretations are not agreed upon or cannot be empirically determined is not a true issue

because when people become familiar with the common sense view
it will have been obvious all along

just like with classical mechanics

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:56:42 UTC No. 16622783

>>16622441
You mean it is obvious when a wrong thing is wrong? So which interpretations are wrong?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:42:11 UTC No. 16622963

>>16621492
Because it gets results and lets us do lots of useful or interesting things. If you're not satisfied with the interpretations (neither am I), we're awaiting your preprint on the arxiv.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 01:16:38 UTC No. 16623203

>>16621492
How does lack of consensus on interpretation invalidate invocation of QM?
Could it be the case that all interpretations are computationally equivalent but just seem different?
Demonstrate that the "difference" you see between interpretations is relevant.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 02:00:31 UTC No. 16623243

>>16621492
>17% were collapse, 21% hidden-variables
I don't believe this for one second
90% must be collapse

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 05:33:41 UTC No. 16623364

>>16622783
which ones are wrong?

all of them except the stochastic one

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:46:05 UTC No. 16623513

>>16622963

Okay. Name one useful thing to come out of the field. Just one

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:47:07 UTC No. 16623514

>>16621492

The many worlds free will libertarians don't want you to know the other interpretations exist because they have a conflict of interest.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 22:30:05 UTC No. 16623957

>>16621492
> collapse
Non-sense
> hidden-variables
Probably
> many-worlds
maybe
> epistemic
Retard level schizo babble

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 23:49:24 UTC No. 16624002

when you were studying science, i was studying philosophy
when you were having debates about quantum mechanics, i mastered epistemology and logic
while you wasted your days at the lab in pursuit of materialism, i cultivated knowledge
and now that the world is on fire and the barbarians are at the gate, you have the audacity to come to me for help?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:28:13 UTC No. 16624396

>>16621492

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:37:27 UTC No. 16624407

>hidden variable
Ruled out by Bell's theorem; no nonlocal physics has ever existed nor any nonlocal theory modeled anything useful.

>transactional intepretation
schizo/useless

>QBism
schizo/useless

>Pilot wave theory
Nonlocal, ruled out by Bell's theorem

>Copenhagen
Pointless/useless

>Many Worlds
schizo/insecure people wishing they could make better choices in another world/scifi fan

>Super determinism
Schizo/useless/nonfactual

>Ensemble
Pointless/Useless

>Quantum Mysticism
pure concentrated schizo


There's no need for any interpretations. Everything has an associated wavelength. If light/photons can have it, why not massive particles?
You make such a big deal out of it and it's really funny to me. Probably none of you have actually learnt QM, have you?

t. phd physics

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 22:48:39 UTC No. 16624571

>>16621492
there are actual experts who believe in many words interpretation? i thought it was just reddit goys

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 23:08:55 UTC No. 16624593

>>16624407
>Many Worlds
>schizo/insecure people wishing they could make better choices in another world/scifi fan
Proof? It's logically sound.
> insecure people wishing they could make better choices in another world
How the fuck is that even relevant? Nobody will ever interact with a different universe so who gives a fuck? It's just as real to us as imagination so this take on many worlds is just retarded

> t. phd physics
yeah some grunt tier metallurgy I bet

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 01:17:11 UTC No. 16624664

>>16624407
pretty embarassing for a phd in physics to make the claim that bells theorem falsifies bohmian mechanics

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 02:30:14 UTC No. 16624697

>>16621492
Can someone here who actually understands physics explain to me why exactly we believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed for anything to travel in vacuum? Is it not entirely possible that non-light elementary particles or non-EM fields (like gravity) could propagate faster than light, and the "speed limit" imposed by light actually comes from our measurement technology being limited by the speed of light?

What if some fundamental fields/elementary particles are in fact able to move faster than the speed of light and the probabilistic results in some sense comes from the optical/EM based sensors being the bottleneck? I don't know if this would explain away the probabilistic results, but it would definitely explain part of it.

If you want to see an example of what I'm talking about, make a signal in your favorite programming language that is a large normalized linear combination of sinusoids with fundamental frequencies significantly above 1 Hz, and sample it at 1 Hz. Your final result will look quite stochastic despite in principle the fundamental signal being a periodic waveform.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 05:06:17 UTC No. 16624753

>>16624697
i dunno, maybe coz it has no mass?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 06:15:05 UTC No. 16624779

>>16624593
Many worlds is untestable, it's pointless to think about.
Pilot wave is just many worlds with extra assumptions but worded so cleverly one thinks it's not as outrageous. It's exactly the same thing but asserts that the wave function is real and thus so are the many worlds but in some bizarro simultaneous fashion.
Unphysical empty pilot wave was so bad even we Broglie dropped it.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 06:22:02 UTC No. 16624780

>>16624779
Stop being so emotionally charged and try to reason your way around the topics a little.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 06:50:38 UTC No. 16624789

>>16624697
That is a great point.
With astronomical observations you'd be limited to the speed of light even if gravity was faster since you only have access to visual sense data not gravitational sense data in the form of gravitational disturbance.
You can describe most gravitational phenomena by observing how a light beam behaves in a gravitational field so we know we're comparing apples to apples. If gravity was faster than light it could relay this information faster than light but we have LIGO measurements that show the speed of gravity and speed of light are the same, corrected for distance traveled (light arrived ever so slightly later but had longer distance to travel). The gravitational wave affects the laser beam so if gravity traveled faster than light the gravitational distortion would happen earlier than the light from the merger arriving on Earth.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 07:11:04 UTC No. 16624791

>>16624780
idk what do you want me to say
If I came off as confrontational I apologize
if many worlds is untestable and pilot wave is essentially the same there's not much else I can say
the original version doesn't stand because we know now empty waves are not a thing even for gravity
I think all the interpretations are wrong and with enough time we'll simply accept the results as it is
All these interpretations do is frame QM in relatable terms because our knowledge is relational and relating it to another concept that is known is sufficient for us to deem it as solved and satisfying even if the concept it's relating to is also a priori
local hidden variable was interesting because it was falsifiable
there's nothing interesting about superdeterminism or ensemble because they're untestable
I wouldn't even put superdeterminism in the realm of philosophy, it's just clever wordsmithing and sophistry basically the solipsism of metaphysics

There is a reason why most people subscribe to "Copenhagen" interpretation because it's the code word for taking QM at face value

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 07:50:25 UTC No. 16624801

>>16621492
Quantum mechanics works, shut up and calculate.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:29:27 UTC No. 16625000

>>16624791
I want you to think more before saying dumb things

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:39:47 UTC No. 16625075

>>16624697
>Can someone here who actually understands physics explain to me why exactly we believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed for anything to travel in vacuum

Because everything that predicts anything in physics, assumes exactly that.
When you get rid of this assumption, you can't do like, 99% of physics and instead have to do a bunch of ad hoc voodoo that's pulled out of your ass.

Anything from Maxwell's equations to General relativity and quantum mechanics -- both of which are fundamental to anything from semiconductor science, to how planets move (all testable through experiment) require speed of light to be a constant. To achieve anything accurate, you eventually have to add "c", constant speed of light into the equations in some form.

It's a natural consequence of wanting to predict the natural world, just like you have to assume 1+1=2 for math to be consistent, you have to assume c is a constant if you want physics to predict anything in any way. Can you do voodoo math where 1+1 is not equal to 2? You can. Have fun with that. Why complicate life for no reason like that?
(1/3)

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:40:52 UTC No. 16625076

>>16625075
>>16624697
> Is it not entirely possible that non-light elementary particles or non-EM fields (like gravity) could propagate faster than light, and the "speed limit" imposed by light actually comes from our measurement technology being limited by the speed of light?
No. Actually the prediction of that is purely mathematical (differential geometry), and consistent with experiment. The result is a prediction by theories which predict everything else within such small error of margin you might as well call them god equations.
For example, gravitational wave equations, in which constant c appears, indicating the speed at which they propagate, are a natural consequence of linearization of Einstein's Field Equations, later on you naturally get out a wave equation. From just perturbing EFE, so a metric tensor and its derivatives. Wave equation arises naturally when you disturb geometry and it also naturally spits out speed of light as the gravitational wave speed.


Maxwell equations do the same thing for an electromagnetic wave. You don't need to know anything except basic electric/magnetic interactions to construct mathematical equations, to be consistent and predict phenomena as in nature, have to be limited by the speed of light. If you put something else, they will predict nothing.

Why does it limit information? It'd break everything if you could send a signal faster than light.
All those theories would break apart, as that'd imply moving back in time, breaking causality, spacetime constructions to be inconsistent, time dilation to be not real etc.
(2/3)

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:42:20 UTC No. 16625078

>>16625075
>>16625076
>>16624697
>What if some fundamental fields/elementary particles are in fact able to move faster than the speed of light and the probabilistic results in some sense comes from the optical/EM based sensors being the bottleneck? I don't know if this would explain away the probabilistic results, but it would definitely explain part of it.
>If you want to see an example of what I'm talking about, make a signal in your favorite programming language that is a large normalized linear combination of sinusoids with fundamental frequencies significantly above 1 Hz, and sample it at 1 Hz. Your final result will look quite stochastic despite in principle the fundamental signal being a periodic waveform.

What you are talking about is experimental resolution. This is 1st grade uni in physics. The funny thing is, nobody knew speed of light is maximum/constant at any point, nor was it assumed. But once people did that, suddenly everything started to fall into place and we got so many predictions it opened new physics.
Nothing like this has been demonstrated and theory predicts no such particle can exist. If such particle would exist, it'd break relativity in weird ways (moving back in time etc.). Speed of light being maximum is a result of a prediction; not experimental resolution. All experiments have shown for speed of light to be always constant, and math shows it to be both constant and maximum.

(3/3)

tl;dr If you don't assume light of speed is constant in all frames of reference everything breaks apart, and you have no more predictive power. Making physics useless.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:44:49 UTC No. 16625081

>>16624697
> it's electrical engie tries to understand the world episode
You love to see it. Always embarrassing

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:45:23 UTC No. 16625082

>>16625075
>>16625076
>>16625078
>>16624697
Also:
For example, time dilation (which is measurable with just a clock btw), is impossible if speed of light is not constant in all frames of reference. But we clearly have time dilation, as again., you can measure it yourself, and for GPS to work precisely you have to account for it. The time dilation is both gravitational and velocity-dependent, and both have to be accounted for for GPS to show exactly where you are on Earth. Military grade GPS can detect things within tens of centimeters accuracy.

You can calculate this yourself. I will leave this as an exercise for a reader (or simply ask ChatGPT-o1 to do it for you).

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:47:28 UTC No. 16625084

>>16625081
I doubt he even understands what an integral actually does, nor its formal definition. It's honestly fascinating that engineers can come up with such complex contraptions without actual understanding of the underlying principles.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:55:28 UTC No. 16625091

>>16625084
That's even true for physicists to a degree, they often lack the rigorous understanding of math but discover shit in spite of it.
You simply don't need le foundations of everything, that's just autism.
Now obviously more intelligent people are gonna be drawn to the fundamentals and midwits to what they CAN do and fundamentals are gonna have much larger return long term but you don't need fundamentals for dealing with emergent phenomena

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:14:09 UTC No. 16625109

>>16624791
bohm ans many worlds are not the same you fucking retard

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:43:51 UTC No. 16625176

>>16625081
>>16625084
What is the point of being so rude for no reason? When I took real analysis and measure, I was taking alongside math and physics students and we all went through the same process.

Yes, I don't know a lot about fundamental physics, but I've also seen the way physicists do statistics and information theory and it is equally as embarrassing. People have different specializations.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:49:12 UTC No. 16625184

>>16625075
>>16625076
>>16625078
>>16625082
Thank you for your detailed response.

I'll read it over and think about it. I still don't quite understand why exactly we need a strictly constant speed of light for time-dilation to appear, as it seems even "nearly constant" would work for that same sort of dilation.

The effects you're describing seem more likely to show up in any case where you have significant dynamic range distortions. I would bet that even if you varied the speed of light randomly by some small factor (say 1e-6), you'd see dilation effects simply because the velocities within the reference frame are significantly less powerful. In the frame projections, you'd be comparing an eigenvalue in the (at most) 1e4 m/s range to an eigenvalue in the 1e8 m/s range. This projection would introduce distortions without any need for it to be constant.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:57:41 UTC No. 16625197

>>16621492
As a math guy I just don't get how anyone can see it as anything but the wave function being nondeterministic. That's just how the math works. Physics nerds please explain this to me because I don't get how you can use mathematical methods and then just decide you can twist the rules when you don't like the results it gives

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:14:35 UTC No. 16625210

>>16624789
I read through some basics of how LIGO works, and I'm not entirely sure how you'd draw such a strong conclusion from that. Granted, I'm an idiot and this is my first time looking into light-interferometry, so I very well could be wrong.

It seems like the "direct detection" of these gravitational waves are really detections of minor frequency changes in the Fourier spectra of the received light after some number of passes through the interferometry loop. There's also a ton of experimental factors which will impact the performance when you're talking about super precise measurements (e.g., alignment of the particular mirrors used as the "tube bends" via the gravity wave, the particular bandpass process they use to separate the in-phase and quadrature components of the recieved optical signal, and the actual frequency resolution they attempt to observe the spectra).

It seems like even with LIGO, the measurement generator is optical, and your "detection" comes from a model projected into the difference in the laser detection times (which will be directly and causally impacted by things like the alignment of the mirrors, electrical noise in the sensing circuits, the design of the sensor clock and the jitter from clock measurements). I'd be careful taking those results without an appropriate helping of salt.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:09:34 UTC No. 16625799

>>16625210
This would make sense if the measurement was local but we know the wave traveled a very large distance before reaching our apparatus. If gravity was faster than light you'd see a situation analogous to first seeing the lightning and then hearing the thunder. The apparatus in LIGO detected the wave and then 2.7s later another apparatus detected light from the merger and the difference is fully explained by light having to travel a slightly longer total path.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 08:10:24 UTC No. 16626457

>>16621492
[eqn]
$${DTIME}(t(n)) \subseteq $${DSPACE}(\sqrt{t(n)} \log t(n))
[/eqn]

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 08:16:44 UTC No. 16626467

>>16625197
Because models based on empirical observation aren't 1-1 with reality
>can twist the rules when you don't like the results it gives
Welcome to physics. Anything is subject to change if it can be modified to describe physical systems better

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 11:23:49 UTC No. 16626525

>>16624407

If you rewinded reality and hit play. It wouldn't suddenly be different. The "free wills" of the participants wouldn't suddenly act differently. When you take into account antecedence, spatio-temporal arrangement of matter, the positions of atoms, and their velocities. There's only one way it could've gone.

You can pretend "mind" is something "non-physical" (which somehow magically frees it from causality...somehow) all you want. Cope and seethe.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:28:29 UTC No. 16626551

>>16624396
Who was polled?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:29:46 UTC No. 16626552

>>16624407
>no nonlocal physics has ever existed nor any nonlocal theory modeled anything useful.
Meanwhile, Feynmans path integral formulation requires nonlocal ftl information travel for a photon to take all paths simultaneously, but let's just ignore that.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:32:34 UTC No. 16626554

>>16624791
>most people subscribe to "Copenhagen" interpretation
Wrong. Less than half of polled physicists subscribe to Copenhagen.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:37:17 UTC No. 16626555

>>16626525
>baseless assertion
>sneed
>seethe

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:41:17 UTC No. 16626558

>>16621492
All interpretations lead to the same results, if they didn't the it would be trivial to tell them apart. So the interpretation is largely irrelevant.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:58:14 UTC No. 16626567

>>16621492
>ensamble
It's "ensemble". Low-iq post detectet.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 17:08:44 UTC No. 16626747

>>16625799
We know the light took a different path based on what? Refraction? Were the detectors for light and the LIGO 900,000 km apart?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 17:57:52 UTC No. 16626777

>>16621492
Only superdeterminism and manyworlds are legit. Wavefunction collapse is a myth.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 18:23:35 UTC No. 16626790

>>16626747
>based on what?
LIGO is basically just an interferometer thats doing coincidence detection. The distance between the two observatories is known very precisely, likewise the phase shift in the laser at each site is known very precisely. All you're now looking for is a the predicted phase shift in both detectors, with the caveat that one observation should occur t=d/c seconds after the first, but lead to the same phase shift in the interferometer. We know light "took a different path" because the interference pattern changed.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 20:15:32 UTC No. 16626880

>>16626558
This. Obsessing over the interpretations is like obsessing over brands. It's low-IQ entertainment for low-IQ people to feel superior.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 23:35:38 UTC No. 16627012

>>16626880
what kind of scientist is totally uninterestd in how the world actually is?

sovlless take

shame.on you

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 23:36:40 UTC No. 16627014

>>16626552
false.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:55:33 UTC No. 16627044

>>16627012
>Bro, particles are literally what QFT says they are
Friend. Please.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 03:42:35 UTC No. 16627108

>>16624407
Bells theorem rules out Pilot Wave?
Are you retarded? There’s no way you have a PhD in anything, and never could, certainly not physics.

John Bell himself credits the creation of his inequalities to inspiration from Pilot Wave and discredits all of the “impossibility proofs” of Bohmian Mechanics (in particular, Von Neumann’s) that curiously were still being pushed decades after they were proven wrong …

Wildly embarrassing post. How can anyone in 2025 think Bell’s Theorem rules out nonlocality? You have irreparable brain damage

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 03:44:36 UTC No. 16627109

>>16626558
Low iq post

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:29:25 UTC No. 16627116

>>16621492
>>16621492
Yea hidden variables is the interpretation that can accurately describe QM. although the technical term is non deterministic measurements. Because QM relies heavily on stochastic calculus. Or statistical theory.

The uncertainty principle makes this obviously clear.

And schrodingers cat proved the absurdity of QM. Which is why schrodinger abandoned the theory and went on to write his book called "what is life" which was basically thermodynamic biology.

Statistical calculus is used more so in economic theory which is why most people who study QM go to work on Wallstreet.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:37:01 UTC No. 16627117

>>16627108
> How can anyone in 2025 think Bell’s Theorem rules out nonlocality?
You're right, it's ruled out regardless of the year.
Show me 1 nonlocal physical theory that is redundant (predicts more/makes more sense etc).

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:39:10 UTC No. 16627119

>>16624407
>larping this badly

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:40:24 UTC No. 16627120

>>16621492
Because it makes normies feel smart when they say quantum. It makes them feel they understand it when Hawking, Planck and Bohr didn't understand it. Hell Newton wouldn't understand quantum physics if he were alive

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:43:34 UTC No. 16627121

>>16625184
You're right in that we cannot know whether speed of light 3x10^8 or 3.00000000001x10^8 and whether it oscillates between those values.

To know for sure it's truly "constant" you'd need infinite precision, which is not realistic. However, since it might as well be assumed to be constant, and has been measured to be constant with extreme precision, you might as well assume it's constant. Your counter-argument to "constants" seems pretty useless; nothing new would result from "almost constant, but not really". Since you couldn't tell the difference.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:45:25 UTC No. 16627123

>>16627121
The speed of light, by definition of the metre, is neither of those

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:45:47 UTC No. 16627124

>>16627120
Newton's calculus was based off fixed parameters.

Quantum mechanics are predictive measurement or stochastic.

I just went over this

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:50:14 UTC No. 16627127

>>16627121
You idiot schizo. It's set at a constant because it's a universal mesuresment or a standardization. Just like Henry fords interchangeable parts on cars. Constants are just standardized to scale up for manufacturing and distribution purposes.

All our electronic devices use these equations dumbass

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:52:58 UTC No. 16627128

>>16627123
Jesus christ you are retarded. All it changes is the meter might change instead of speed of light.
Metre doesn't define speed of light. It defines itself in terms of speed of light, which if changes, will change as well.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 04:54:16 UTC No. 16627129

>>16627127
>All our electronic devices use these equations dumbass
The fuck are you talking about?
Electronic devices do not use physics to operate. Just math. Are you an AI?

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 05:04:58 UTC No. 16627134

>>16627129
So how does a cellular device connect to a tower?

Do electromagnetic waves not move at the speed of light?

These are obviously machines and can calculate faster and communicate faster then I can blink.

Because these electronic machines operate using electricity dumbass which moves at the speed of light.

Lmao.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 05:11:09 UTC No. 16627135

>>16627129
Wrong

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 05:21:48 UTC No. 16627140

>>16622963
Physics hasn't done anything new since the 50s. Everything since has been production improvements. Any time some idiot claims "does lots of useful stuff" they never ever say "what."

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 05:34:17 UTC No. 16627148

>>16627140
You don't know jack shit about physics. Why should I explain it to you? Go and read a review paper.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:31:38 UTC No. 16627242

>>16622963
>>16627148
The vast majority of application of physics in human society is from Classical Mechanics. Then Relativity is also used in satellites and shit. QM is worthless.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 16:39:06 UTC No. 16627386

>>16627134
You should probably spend some time learning how actual communication systems function.

Information theoretic communication systems design assume that there are irreconcilable stochastic channel effects, and we use statistical convergence to reduce the probability of those errors to acceptable levels. From the receiver's perspective, whether or not the speed of light is concstant or is some random value with a mean of 3.0 km/s and some relatively small variance is completely irrelevant.

If you think I'm kidding, open a communication theory textbook or an information theory textbook. You won't find these strong deterministic approaches where their performance relies on some constant known speed of light. Instead, you'll find systems which assume a model works on the average and assumes the measurements have irreconcilable process errors.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 16:45:39 UTC No. 16627393

>>16626790
> All you're now looking for is a the predicted phase shift in both detectors, with the caveat that one observation should occur t=d/c seconds after the first, but lead to the same phase shift in the interferometer.

Do you not see how that bakes into it the assumption that c is a particular value?

You can't use t=d/c to determine c when you are making inferences on what d "should be" based on an assumed c. That's a circular model.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 17:58:00 UTC No. 16627462

>>16627393
>bakes into it the assumption that c is a particular value?
Nope. The speed of light has had numerous independent measurements of it's speed.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 23:21:10 UTC No. 16627722

>>16627462
Man, you really are rubbing those 4 brain cells together quite hard, aren't you?

If your reason for assuming the light followed a different path of length d, calculated with t = d/c, you can't then go back and say "we know the speed c because it took t seconds to go d meters" when the d meters came from the assumption that it was already going c meters per second.

It's literally the definition of circular. I don't care that at different points in history people have measured the speed of light independently. Your model assumes you know it, so it can't be used to calculate it.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:55:04 UTC No. 16628179

>>16627722
I feel like you're a retard and I might be wasting my time, but here goes: prior to the '83 the meter was defined differently (and independently) to the speed of light. After a series of experiments that just produced ever more precise measurements, it was decided that you could just define the meter to be the distance light travels in 1/299792458 seconds. Why that number? Because it was within the uncertainty of the most accurate prior measurements while keeping the resulting meter consistent with previous definitions.

Make sense? Probably not, low IQs have a hard time appreciating that all units are made up.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:05:24 UTC No. 16628274

>>16628179
I understand that "all units are made up." The issue is not "we define the meter in terms of the speed of light."

The issue is that when you do this, you lose the ability to actually determine the time/speed/distance relationships if the fundamental speed you define your distance w.r.t. is non-constant.

If the argument is "we think the speed limit remains constant and that assumption is good enough for government work," that's fine. If the argument is "the speed of light must remain constant because we define it to be," that is an incredibly retarded way to approach physics because your time/distance/velocity relationships then need to be "fudged" to remain constant if the speed of light is not actually constant. You end up with "these timing measurements aren't consistent with our model, so we have to assume it went a longer path (which we can't ever verify) to keep the relationship consistent."

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:00:50 UTC No. 16628361

>>16628274
>"the speed of light must remain constant because we define it to be,"
That's totally wrong, the metrology that has gone into defining the meter is independent of the constant speed of light. The speed of light is constant because Maxwell's equations tell us that it's a constant. Moreover, the constant speed of light is then raised to a physical law in special relativity, and the precision tests of SR are numerous. If the speed of light wasn't constant, it would have been seen by now in some kind of anisotropy in Lorentz invariance. IIRC non have been observed.

I don't really know where else to take this conversation.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:09:03 UTC No. 16628424

>>16628361
> The speed of light is constant because Maxwell's equations tell us that it's a constant.

This is a map-territory error. Maxwell's equations seek to model classical electrodynamics using the tools of partial differential equations. Maxwell's equations do not prescribe the behavior of EM that they seek to model.

> Moreover, the constant speed of light is then raised to a physical law in special relativity, and the precision tests of SR are numerous.

Again, special relativity is a set of postulates by which we _assume_ the material world operates. Special relativity seeks to model reality, it doesn't prescribe it axiomatically. We assume that the fundaments of physics are constant in all "non-accelerating" (whatever that means) reference frames. We assume that the speed of light in vacuum remains constant for all observers.

These are inferential modeling approaches. They are axioms of a mathematical strategy by which we seek to describe material reality. They aren't something with a priori truths value, and whether they remain consistent matters.

> If the speed of light wasn't constant, it would have been seen by now in some kind of anisotropy in Lorentz invariance. IIRC non have been observed.

I invite you to try something on your computer (to see why you shouldn't take these things at face value). Define a vector field to be:
[math]
V(x,y,z) = \left(3.0\cdot 10^{8}, 3.0\cdot10^{8}, 3.0 \cdot 10^8\right + W(x,y,z)
[/math]
where:
[math]
W(x,y,z) \sim \mathcal{N}(0_3, \sigma^2 I_3), \quad W(x_0, y_0, z_0) \perp W(x,y,z) \forall \left|\left|(x-x_0, y-y_0, z-z_0)\right|\right| > 0
[/math]
with some relatively small [math]\sigma^2[/math].

This field is isotropic despite being nowhere homogenous.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:32:51 UTC No. 16628444

>>16628424
You have said nothing of value. I invite you to show me one experiment with a few replications that have shown any anisotropy in Lorentz invariance.
>This is a map-territory error
It really isn't, you don't understand what that term means. Regardless of if EM waves are longitudinal waves where the E-field is perpendicular to the B-field, the speed of that wave is a constant. It doesn't matter what formalism you choose to describe electromagnetism in, you will still get a term that is shows the the speed at which light propagates is a constant.
>special relativity is a set of postulates by which we _assume_ the material world operates.
Correct, and since they agree with experiment, we can assume our model, we can assume it does indeed model reality.

As I said, you seem to be some kind of epistemological nihilist. There is no reason to continue this conversation. You have said nothing interesting or insightful, just the standard "u can't no nuffing" shit you expect in a freshman philosophy class. If you insist on replying, please do so with an actual argument, not this tedious bullshit.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:43:07 UTC No. 16628457

>>16624407
sounds like you want Relational Interpretation

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:19:07 UTC No. 16628547

>>16624407
>Schizo poster
Ask me how I know you're jewish and shit at physics.
>>16627108
He's a nepo baby and his PHD is in jewish pilpul.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:23:39 UTC No. 16628550

>>16628444
>Can't counter his argument
>>16628361
Maxwells equations are models--they are not the phenomena. I see the problem, you're a cultist not a scientist.

No, the speed of light is not universally constant. The speed of light is a byproduct of the quantum structure of space and contrary to what your cult still seems to believe space isn't a homogeneous void.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:29:28 UTC No. 16628614

>>16628444
You didn't understand the last bit. You can have an isotropic field that is non-homogeneous. You could absolutely have variations in the speed of light over time and space (both in some spectrally flat super-deterministic sense or in a fundamentally stochastic sense) without that non-homogeneity inducing directionality in your vector field (for whatever quantity you are tracking).

Also, there's a ton of circumstances with Laurentz violations that don't require the standard model to be disputed, so I don't understand why you think that is some winning argument. If Laurentz violations occur in circumstances under the assumption that the speed of light is fixed, known and the fastest speed any information can travel, why would you think Laurentz violations would be necessary for the speed of light to be non-homogeneous?

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:03:40 UTC No. 16628629

>>16621492
OP, the philpapers survey isn't interesting if you include African Studies in your results.

Sort by philosophers of physical science.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:13:18 UTC No. 16628634

>>16628629
The survey

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:48 UTC No. 16629349

remember:
>>16621547
>there are no particles; only waves exist

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:19:02 UTC No. 16629354

>>16626552
t. watched the veritasium video and thinks he understands anything

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:51:37 UTC No. 16629371

>>16624697
tachyons?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 01:14:23 UTC No. 16629499

>>16629371
Tachyons, or even just particles that are "small enough" for which the space they travel through can really properly be described as "void" or "free space."

Things tend to get weird when you're talking about particles that are small enough that we can only describe their motion probabilistically.

What if some of that fundamental uncertainty is actually a result of these small particles/quarks/etc. actually moving in chaotic orbitals faster than light whose period is just short enough that we can't observe it quickly enough for periodicity to emerge? Einstein's equations would imply this isn't possible, but his equations also don't seem to be coherent with any meaningful model of gravity, so it could just be wrong on some subtle level that is "close to correct" but missing something.

We already seen to be open to the idea that when objects are "big enough" their gravitational field decays closer to 1/r rather than 1/r^2. Why not also be open to the idea that there is something we fundamentally don't understand about when material things get "small enough" as well? Let alone gravity itself, which is not exactly well understood at the moment at some fundamental level.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:51:22 UTC No. 16631705

>>>/g/104886830

>[effect?]