/sci/ - Science & Math

What?

>>10962051
Pilot wave theory. Why bother trying to eliminate FTL interactions when entanglement effects occur instantaneously anyway?

>>10962051
many worlds theory can't be true. Consider
If there are infinitely many worlds, then quantum immortality must be true.
That means there is a reality where I am quantum immortal.
That means there is a reality where everyone is quantum immortal.
But wait - people die every day, which means the chances of us being in one of those timelines is 0, or its so rare it won't ever happen.
That means nobody is living in the timeline where I am quantum immortal - from their perspective they are always in a different branching timeline.
That means nobody exists in this timeline.
Which means I can't possibly exist
Which means nothing exists since nobody was here ever or will be here to experience anything
Therefore shrodinger's cat is dead in every timeline and nothing is real

>>10962051
I agree. Many worlds takes the wavefunction at face value, as a literal thing. No questionable assumptions about some "collapse" process. An apparent collapse is just the result of the observer becoming entangled with the observed system in a particular way. It's actually simpler. Less assumptions.
Uninformed people don't realize that the many universes aren't some additional postulate, but rather a consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics.

>>10962667
Bohmian is better than most of the others, because it actually views the wavefunction as real, but it seems like it's just a more convoluted version of the everettian approach. Like, the everettian approach is able to explain everything with just the wave function, but pilot wave needs the wave function and a bunch of particles to work. Why include the unnecessary particles, when we have a perfectly good explanation that works without them?

>>10962667
>adopt pilot-wave
>directly contradicts general relativity
okay, now we need a new replacement for general relativity

>>10962683
Existence is a social construct. QED

>>10962683
A bunch of nonsense. MWI doesn't imply that there is a branch where you're immortal. It implies that, in the future, whenever the fact of whether you're about to die depends on a quantum event, there will be some branches where you live and some where you die. But death doesn't always depend on quantum events that branch the wavefunction, like if you fall in a volcano there are probably no branches where you survive.

>>10962735
I mean we already know we need a replacement for GR, it conflicts with QM. We need a replacement for both theories that unifies the two (quantum gravity)

>>10962746
just replace literally "immortal" with "living to the longest possible timeline" then. Nobody has lived past 120 or so, do you think that's the exact longest timeline possible for all humans ever?

>>10962750
Right now GR+QM are perfectly fine with each other. Its only certain interpretations like pilot-wave that contradicts with GR. Both copenhagen and many-world works fine with GR.

>>10962754
No. The part of the wave function where anyone gets lucky enough to be kept alive for a long time by super lucky quantum events is probably super small. We wouldn't expect to be in a branch of the wave function where that was the case, on average.

>>10962759
No, all interpretations of QM have some conflict with GR. They make different predictions about what would happen, e.g., inside a black hole.

>>10962773
Yeah, but the problem with pilot wave is, it says quantum entanglement is fake news. Pilot wave is dead and has been largely dead. Not only that, it relies upon hidden variable that's been dead since the 50s.

>>10962784
Yeah I agree, I'm not defending pilot wave. I'm just saying we know GR is wrong (or at least incomplete) anyways, regardless of the interpretation you choose for QM.

>>10962784
>hidden variable that's been dead since the 50s
Hidden variable is only dead because people like locality so much. Pilot wave explicitly has non-local effects, so hidden variables are still very much viable in that context. Plus entanglement itself is nonlocal so idk why people are so dogmatic about locality.

>>10962860
Entanglement isn't nonlocal in MWI. And there's no need to be dogmatic about locality to get to MWI, it's the best interpretation anyways, because it interprets the Schrodinger equation in the most straightforward way.

When you die, you live as another iteration of you in another timeline

>>10962854
I think that the described phenomena of general relativity and special relativity can both be explained differently. Instead of curvature of spacetime, the same effects of gravitational lensing and time dilation can be predicted by a fluid lattice of harmonic oscillators, a rarefied intermediate phase state of hydrogen, the aether, orienting to equilibrium states of pressure mediation and conservation of momentum. Such ethereal oscillators can be thought to have a period of oscillation that elongates in the mediation of pressure along the axis of rotation. This elongation of the period of oscillation corresponds to a decrease in the rate of radioactive decay, merely as a conservation of momentum, explaining the time dilation observed in atomic clocks. The electromagnetic field and the gravitational field can be described as corresponding to actions of these oscillators along different axis, gravity being a transference of momentum in parallel with the axis of rotation, and electromagnetism perpendicular to that axis of rotation.

>>10962725
This

Also for those who think just the idea of so many worlds is nonsensical...why would existence NOT be infinite?

>>10963343
Exactly, you exist to observe. You cannot truely die according to QM because there must always be an observer

>>10962725
Many worlds takes it as self evident that the wavefunction is a mechanism and not just a probability distribution of outcomes from measurement. If the distribution of outcomes was truly random, meaning that there was no predictable pattern, I would be inclined to agree with this assumption. However, given the consistency by which an interference pattern emerges from the double slit experiment, I can only conclude that the apparent randomness is merely a result of interaction with some medium, capable of exchanging angular momentum with the particle. By supposing that a wavefunction is a mechanism, and not merely a distribution of probable outcomes, the many worlds interpretations deviates from strict deductive reasoning, making an assumption with absolutely no supporting evidence, of the existence for a mechanism which can not be explained, much like spacetime curvature. By applying such an additional axiom, many worlds may have fewer assumptions than the cope hard hagen interpretation, but it is implausible to the point of absurdity by comparison with a theory that strictly refuses such imagined mechanisms.

bump

>>10962683
>That means there is a reality where I am quantum immortal.
>That means there is a reality where everyone is quantum immortal.

Quantum immortality guarrantess that you live in a timeline where you are immortal. It doesn't mean others need to be immortal as well (from your perspective)

>>10962746
You could formulate strong quantum immortality, where the events that lead to you falling into a volcano cannot happen either.

>>10963671
Literal delusional psychosis instigated by an unwillingness to face the existential horror of mortality.

>>10962051
That's a pretty picture

>>10963401
>Many worlds takes it as self evident that the wavefunction is a mechanism and not just a probability distribution of outcomes from measurement. If the distribution of outcomes was truly random, meaning that there was no predictable pattern, I would be inclined to agree with this assumption. However, given the consistency by which an interference pattern emerges from the double slit experiment, I can only conclude that the apparent randomness is merely a result of interaction with some medium
That "consistency" IS the probability distribution of outcomes. It's a basic fact of statistics that, the more experimental trials you have, the more the distribution of results will resemble the underlying probability distribution. The outcomes themselves are random, but the distribution from which outcomes are drawn is not.

>>10963968
How does that contradict my point in any way? According to many worlds interpretation, the interference pattern observed in the double slit experiment is a result of a particle interacting with itself, as a result of occupying more than one location simultaneously. This wave-function is proposed to be the mechanism by which this particle interacts with itself, by assuming that at any point in time the particle occupies all possible points in space, all simultaneously, as defined by this wave-function.
The reason that people think the copenhagen interpretation is retarded is because of that shit right there. That shit does not make any fucking sense. That you would seek to rationalize it by suggesting that infinitely many possible outcomes not only exist, but actually occur, is evidence that you have fetal alcohol syndrome, you pathetic epsilon.
That you would then defend this rationalization as being simple and involving less assumptions than other theories is utter madness.

>>10963991
It contradicts your statements that A. the distribution is random, and B. the consistency of the distribution is somehow evidence against randomness.
I don't cling onto an interpretation, because interpretations are the least interesting parts of quantum mechanics. I'd like to point out that MWI is the only mainstream interpretation that suggests that
>infinitely many possible outcomes not only exist, but actually occur,
meaning you have fetal alcohol syndrome by your own metric. I don't believe in Copenhagen over other interpretations, but Copenhagen considers superposition as indefiniteness, rather than all possibilities existing with full reality.
If MWI derived the Born Rule I would give it more credit, but for now it's just an interesting pet model for thinking about quantum processes.

>>10964041
Next you'll say you were only pretending to be retarded. Learn to read. I never said that the distribution is random, I explicitly stated that I disbelieve in such nonsense. Second, the interference pattern is clear evidence against randomness, because randomness has no discernible pattern by definition. Furthermore I would like to berate you for lacking interest in theoretical models, and preferring instead to be a lowly meat calculator. Finally, your misrepresentation of my argument is nothing short of a strawman, because I in no way suggested that the copenhagen interpretation allows for these proposed infinite possible outcomes to all simultaneously occur. I simply stated as a matter of fact that the mere suggestion of superposition was absurdity beyond plausibility. You have completely failed to understand every aspect of my argument, or moreover you have twisted it to somehow avoid acknowledging the obvious validity of it.

>>10964060
>randomness has no discernible pattern by definition.
Jesus christ take at least one probability and statistics course. Nothing could be more stupid than this statement.
You tried to say that you would believe Copenhagen more if the distribution was random, even though this makes as little sense in Copenhagen as in MWI.

>>10964091
Duly noted but I still think you're fuckin' retarded for defending the MWI. Wave function collapse is about as magical as one's reasoning can get. Infinitely many outcomes or no. Aside from spacetime curvature, this wave-function collapse appears to be the most contrived and dogmatic belief that is enforced in institutions of learning.

>>10964126
Wavefunction collapse is an empirical fact. I don't believe collapse has to be fundamental (decoherence is at least certain to be involved), but regardless the empirical appearance of collapse must be explained by any interpretation.
Also, if you're an anti-GR schizo, I'd be happy to discuss that in another thread

>>10964041
>If MWI derived the Born Rule I would give it more credit, but for now it's just an interesting pet model for thinking about quantum processes.

The born rule has been derived from MWI. See 'A formal proof of the Born rule from decision-theoretic assumptions' by David Wallace, https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2718

>>10964146
How is wave function collapse an empirical fact? That would require you to have empirical proof that a particle occupies all possible locations simultaneously. Which you don't have. It is impossible to prove not just in practice but in theory. It literally is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Just because the mechanism causing the distribution of outcomes is as yet undetected doesn't mean you can calim with impunity that particles exist in a superposition of states, interacting with themselves until measured. That's absurd.

>>10964161
Momentum is related to wavelength, it's really not complicated or absurd at all. Momentum space is the fourier transform of position space.

>>10964170
Meant Fourier dual* not transform

>>10964170
Okay, so what you're saying is, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the particle is exchanging momentum with something, and that something must be itself because that is the only conceivable way that the interference pattern emerges in the double slit experiment. In other words, the bohr trajectory of the particle is adjusted by something equal to its mass, and in a distribution around that particle as if the particle was occupying every position and energy state, as defined by the wave function. Why do we know that it is interacting with itself and not something else?

What I mean is, if the wave function requires for arbitrarily high energy states and arbitrarily disparate points to be occupied by the same particle, how can you say with any kind of confidence that the particle is interacting with itself and not with some fluid lattice aether?

>>10964186
The only thing the electron can exchange momentum with is the slits. It does not "exchange momentum with itself," whatever that would mean.

>>10964204
So the electron is indistinguishable from an electromagnetic wave propagating by normal fluid dynamics, diffracting around the slits, and resulting in exactly one particle being measured on the other side?

normal wave interference of both constructive and destructive interference not just exchanging momentum with the slits but also with itself, the one wave. That's what I mean by exchanging momentum with itself.

>>10964210
>So the electron is indistinguishable from an electromagnetic wave propagating by normal fluid dynamics
This doesn't follow from what I said in the slightest. This is just you trying to shoehorn in your own ideas. Electron waves have many distinguishing characteristics from both electromagnetic waves and fluid waves, such as energy-momentum relation, charge, lack of fluid dynamics, spin, and really just about everything except that some value is oscillating.

>>10964222
No, interference is not an exchange momentum with itself. If you pass two laser beams through each other, they interfere but don't exchange momentum. All the way through interference the beams still have the same momentum, and after interference they continue on with the same momentum.

>>10964223
What is the relationship between energy and momentum in electron waves that is not shared by other types of waves? What is charge? Aren't waves inherently the action of some fluid? Isn't spin just angular momentum, which any particle can and does have?

>>10964160
Interesting, thanks for the read. I have a feeling this is still somewhat controversial, or I would have heard of it among Everettians.

>>10964239
>What is the relationship between energy and momentum in electron waves that is not shared by other types of waves?
[math]E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 [/math]. Also, in electron waves and light waves, the energy corresponds to frequency and momentum to wavelength. This is not true of fluid waves.

>>10964238
So electromagnetic waves never destructively interfere? They can only constructively interfere even when propagating from counter-posed laser diodes? Can that happen in superfluid helium?

>>10964248
They can destructively interfere just fine. This does not, however, correspond to an exchange of momentum. Wave interference is not a momentum-exchange process.

>>10964253
Including fluid waves?

>>10964268
Yes, that is also true of fluid waves. Now go learn some wave mechanics before trying to convince me that electromagnetic waves and electron waves are fluid waves, because they're not.

>>10964271
Well hold on, I'm sure I am wasting your time and we got off on the wrong foot and such.. If I could just bother you with a few more questions.. I would be really grateful. I want to put this misconception to rest, if that is even possible. If fluid wave interference is not a momentum exchange process, then why are the objects producing the waves attracted by one another? For example, cheerios floating on the surface of a bowl of milk. I have read somewhere that this is caused by gravity, but I could swear that they are mediating fluid pressure. Plus, waves in a fluid are facilitated by an exchange of momentum between the individual particles that compose the fluid, they literally collide with one another, no?

>>10964283
Cheerios attract in milk, not because of the waves, but because of surface tension. The cheerios deform the surface of the milk forming little depressions that extend to the edges of the bowl. There is a little hill between the cheerios, but this isn't as high as the hill surrounding the cheerios, so the milk pushes them together.
Fluid waves indeed propagate because of molecular interactions, but these molecules do not travel along with the wave. If you think of the velocity of a wave itself, it will be unaltered by wave interference and remain travelling in the same direction after interference with another wave.

>>10963680
I said what the theory says, nto that I necessarily believe it.

>>10964501
This exchange has been very beneficial to me, I apologize if the feeling is less than mutual. I was agitated, acting like a dick. I'm sorry about that.

Attempting to interpret quantum mechanics at this stage is retarded and only speaks to our overconfidence as humans.

People would rather belive there are billions of over worlds in existence somewhere, rather than we simply dont know what the fuck is going on and our capability to currently do so is limited by our technology and mathematical system.

>>10962051
the one where it is revealed as Greek Atomism, and immediately discarded as useless

>>10964730
Out attempts to interpret QM may end up being wrong, but attempting to interpret it is the only good way to make progress. So it's silly to condemn interpretation as "overconfident", since science is based on bold conjectures, that often turn out to be wrong

>>10964788
>Out
our*

>>10964730
>dude just don't think lmao

I can't believe so many MWI cultists infest this board.

>>10965729
>tfw you have no argument against an argument so you just call people cultists

>>10962051
The correct one that hadn't been made.

>>10962051
Lack of proton decay will be the death of QM and the rise of pilot wave theory, I'm calling it now.

>>10962683
>That means nobody is living in the timeline where I am quantum immortal - from their perspective they are always in a different branching timeline.
Not always. Also quantum immortality happens only for some quantum processes that behave like decay, it doesn't happen for classical processes like death from old age.

>>10962773
They make different predictions about everything, not just black hole, it doesn't mean they all conflict with GR.

>>10964041
>>infinitely many possible outcomes not only exist, but actually occur,
And that's why MWI is right, because it's predicted by schrodinger equation. Interpretations that don't have this prediction are incompatible with schrodinger equation and are thus wrong.
>If MWI derived the Born Rule
Born rule was derived by Bayes in 18th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

>>10962667
brainlet

>>10962860
>Plus entanglement itself is nonlocal

No, because you cannot transmit any FTL information using entanglement. Entanglement is really nothing more than the knowledge that systems were interacting in the past.

>>10962051
Consistent (decoherent) histories is the patrician's interpretation.

>>10964146
MWI explains how empirical appearance of collapse follows from schodinger equation. Everett called it relative states. It's literally its whole point.

>>10962869
>because it interprets the Schrodinger equation in the most straightforward way
Not really. It takes the Born rule literally and absolutely. Quantum Bayesianism is more the Occam's razor position than MWI.

>>10964242
"muh born rule" meme exists only because brainlets like Schlosshauer pretend they can't think, it never was controversial.

>>10966411
Born rule follows from Schrodinger equation. Qbism is incomplete, it doesn't compete as interpretation, so no razor for it.

>>10966446
>Born rule follows from Schrodinger equation.
tell that to Schrodinger
>QBism is incomplete
Incomplete doesn't mean wrong. MWI fails to even be reasonable or "common sense."

>>10966464
Incomplete means it's not really interpretation, because it leaves many details without interpretation and only proposes to recover them later hopefully. But being a subset of MWI, it's not a bad start.

>>10966475
Leaving things uninterpreted certainly approaches the spirit of empiricism and science better than a bunch of made up voodoo shit like MWI does.

>>10966479
QBism programme plans to provide missing interpretations, you don't need an interpretation if you want to leave things uninterpreted.

>>10966479
The only voodoo in MWI is realism and schrodinger equation. You will be hard pressed to refute them.

>>10966488
And the whole point of "complete" interpretations is to explain the consequences of QM by mischaracterizing Nature and refusing to give up the bad idea started with.

>>10966493
Also, the extremely unconvincing assertion that whole universes spring into existence at the drop of a pin, casually ignoring the tremendous amount of energy required to create any matter at all, let alone another universe full of it, let alone a vast number or even "infinite" number of them.

>>10966496
empty words
>>10966510
No energy is required to create superposition. Also energy conserves in MWI just fine.

>>10966522
Right, the energy of a finite number of universes sums up to a finite number that is conserved. And what's the reason for supposing that all of those other universes exist, except to cling to a useless idea that the wave function is more real than our eyes are?

>>10966391
Information is not transmitted but the causal link is still non-local.

>>10966321
If two theories make different predictions about the same thing, that means they contradict eachother, and are in conflict. What else would conflict mean?

>>10962051
da jooish one cuz dey got hi iq dey get all da awards NO its not cuz dey invent the award academies trust me cuz i know a jewish

>>10966395
This.

>>10966464
because common sense is always such a good guide to fundamental physics.

>You're trying to tell me that even an object as small as a grain of sand there are *trillions* of tiny objects called "atoms"? Be reasonable! That defies common sense!

>>10966479
>the spirit of empiricism
>science
pick one. Science is about bold conjectures, not about being as wimpy and hedged as possible by refusing to go anywhere beyond the direct implications of observations

>>10966529
Both our eyes and the wavefunction are real. MWI doesn't predict that we should be able to see, with our eyes, the universe splitting. The reason for supposing that the wavefunction is real is that the MOST IMPORTANT equation in physics treats it as a real object. If that's not a good reason idk what is. You sound like

>what is the reason for supposing that dinosaurs truly existed? All we have is fossils that kinda look like dinosaurs, but we could explain that in other ways. What reason do we really have for believing that dinosaurs existed?

>>10967063
>>10967058
>>10967053
>>10966522


You need to read your Motl my dude.

https://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/simple-proof-qm-implies-many-worlds.html

https://motls.blogspot.com/2015/12/maverick-branches-proof-that-everetts.html

https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/07/mwi-fans-are-collapse-deniers.html

>>10967078
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

>If you assumed that all the "worlds" with different outcomes exist, there would exist no basis for saying that some of them are "more likely" and others are "less likely".
Nonsense. The "probabilities" predicted by the Schrodinger equation are, in fact, the width of the respective everett branches. So, subjectively, it appears more likely that some outcomes happen, because, roughly speaking, more of "you" will end up in one branch rather than another. The normal rules of "probability" are perfectly preserved under the everett interpretation, as proven here: https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2718

>>10966529
Existence of superposition follows from schrodinger equation and is consistent with experiments. That's why it's reasonable to think it's true like for anything else.

>>10967045
Interpretations, yes, contradict each other, that's why one of them - MWI - is right and others are wrong.

>>10966529
do you also believe our universe ends just right at our cosmic event horizon? just because light from such distances can never reach us and we can't see that far in principle doesn't mean the most parsimonious assumption is that none of that exists.

>>10962051
>adding some extra bullshit
Like an entire invisible multiverse that we can't measure for some magical (unhypothesized) reason?

>>10967378
Interpretations do not experimentally contradict each other by definition*. Predictions of MWI and others are the same. It is just word salad.

*Bohm theory actually fails to recover predictions of QFT, so that one is experimentally falsified.

>>10967078
It's the usual motl drivel repeated all over again.
>the results of QM experiments are random
Randomness is entirely assumed by copencucks, not inferred from experiments. It's circular logic.
>the decision whether there is a measurement depends on the observer
Provably false, it's a relative effect derived straight from schrodinger equation. Not mentioning that copeniggers still can't be arsed to define measurement and observer.
>it collapses
Collapse quantitatively contradicts schrodinger equations and is thus refuted by quantitative verifications of schrodinger equation.
>Physicists [have] a *coping mechanism* they call the Copenhagen Interpretation
Few words of truth is his retardation.

>>10967430
They have incompatible ontologies. If we assume that some of them even have ontologies.

>>10962051
The interpretation is God decides.
Bow to him.

>>10967432
This "Motl drivel" exactly is what crackpots like you deserve. Our universe is probabilistic, local, non-realist and continuous. We have known this facts for almost a hundred years, and no amount of autistic screeching from people who have not learned QFT is going to change that.

>>10967078
Define "likely".
1. I demonstrate an event whose mathematical expectation 1e-30.
2. I can't do it.
Which variant do you choose.

>>10967450
>If we assume that some of them even have ontologies
Why would we assume this?

>>10967465
Copenhagen is just a self-contradictory set of axioms. It can't provide knowledge. You can only keep screeching "muh randomness", but screeching is not an argument.

>>10967509
>It can't provide knowledge.

because there is no knowledge to provide, randomness is fundamental

>>10967488
Sometimes it looks like copenhagen has ontology, but apparently an inconsistent one, but an inconsistent ontology can't be right, they just cope and prefer to not think about it.

>>10967405
>most parsimonious assumption is that none of that exists.
No it's not. That requires the extra assumption that there's something special about *our* cosmic event horizon. Without such an extra assumption you naturally get the idea that there probably is stuff outside our cosmic event horizon, because that's what the laws of physics suggest. Saying "assume X doesn't exist" when out other laws of physics naturally suggest X does exist decreases parsimony, not increases it

>>10967412
The reason isn't "magical". It's well described by the Schrodinger equation

>>10967533
well yeah that was my point

>>10967515
To claim anything, you need to provide at least a consistent theory, which copenhagen isn't. Without theory it's just "shut up and calculate" recipe, which explicitly doesn't claim randomness. Back to the school, pseud.

>>10967515
Schrodinger equation doesn't give any random elements. Randomness is just a code word

>>10967078
>The observer-dependence may be seen e.g. in the Wigner's friend setup. Wigner observes a friend who observes an elementary particle. They will unavoidably have a different description because the friend collapses the wave function after his measurement, while Wigner hasn't made any measurement by that time, and describes the whole lab as an entangled state of the friend and the particle. So Wigner and his friend clearly use a different wave function.
What is this I don't even. Solipsism?

>>10967063
Even assuming the wave function is the most fundamental object doesn't imply MWI. MWI is just a stupid idea for stupid faggots. It makes no sense and is a great example of quantum voodoo that pop-sci pseuds waste their time contemplating and advocating for.

>>10968849
>Even assuming the wave function is the most fundamental object doesn't imply MWI
It literally does, that's the whole point

>>10968849
The great quantum voodoo is the assumption that there's a conscious observer affecting any of the measurements. COPEnhagen is a COPE answer for the brainlets.

>>10968865
If it did, then it would as easily imply that futures with a common signature are equivalent. You can't un-fuck the probability by insisting it's not a probability question at all.

>>10968865
It literally doesn't. Nothing about absoluteness of the wave function implies more than the one observable physical universe. It's just a useless projection of an unobservable and frankly ridiculous notion that also explains nothing.
>>10968881
This is why quantum Bayesianism is the real solution to the wave function mystery. It's so perfectly boring and unremarkable, it's no wonder pop-sci pseuds with hyperactive imaginations hate it.

>>10968888
>Quantum Bayesian
Dumb theory that swaps one mystery of physics for a mystery of the mundane. Instead of question what physics is, its now "who are we?" bullshit.

>it's no wonder pop-sci pseuds with hyperactive imaginations hate
"pop-sci psueds" hate it because it literally has nothing to do with physics.

>>10968899
The "mysteries of physics" are not a license to engage in fanciful and wild projections that have no evidence. Quantum Bayesianism is a humble position: the mathematics are not so fundamental that wild interpretations must be made. The world is boring, and our mathematics are imperfect. Quantum Bayesianism does not require incorporating the role of an observer into the ontology. It's a passing assertion that QM is a mathematical tool created by humans, and perhaps not the most fundamental explanation.

>>10968906
"mysteries of physics" is not a license for bullshit solipsism which has been argued for billions of years and still no proof. There is nothing humble about QB.

>>10968885
Randomness is an extra assumption in addition to wave function, MWI doesn't need this assumption.

>>10968888
Lack of interaction between orthogonal states is predicted by schrodinger equation, which is unobservability.

>>10968907
It's not solipsism either. You want mysteries of physics to be fanciful, and I want them to be boring. You like MWI, and I like Bayesianism. Really, I hate interpretations of QM altogether, because it's mostly not empirical at all.

>>10968917
>its not solipsism either
Wrong. QB is literally solipsism. The question of QB is not about wavefunction or calculations, its about whether a person perceives something. That is just solipsism. Its quantum voodoo.

>>10968915
Two orthogonal states are both observable.

>>10968888
QBism is not a solution, but a subset of solution. Locality and bayesian probabilities are fine, they are compatible with MWI, but they aren't the whole picture.

>>10968920
It's not solipsism at all. There's no assertion that information about reality is subservient to the observer.

>>10968922
I know, it's not the whole answer. It's enough of an answer to stab MWI to death for being so retarded.

>>10968906
Schrodinger equation is experimentally verified with good precision, so our mathematics is precise and supported by evidence. Your claim of imprecision contradicts evidence.

>>10968923
I don't know why you're arguing against it. The fundamental core of quantum bayesian is personal perception issue. That is solipsism.

If you can't even be intellectually honest with yourself, why the fuck are you even arguing then you have no business arguing about science. Go argue with religious nuts over at /his/ or /x/.

>>10968921
No, you can't observe both of them at the same time. And they can't observe each other.

>>10968927
...for some specific models. How are we supposed to verify the Schrodinger equation when the form of the equation breaks down and fails to describe the physical situation any longer? This happens even when considering helium electrons. What about when the Born rule is not even satisfied because there is no normalization, like with Bloch states in crystal lattices?

>>10968926
It's not enough because it's not the whole answer. Because it's incomplete, it can't reason about arbitrary situation.

>>10968928
I've already given you the argument. Ignoring it and asserting it's solipsism again when it isn't is on you.
>>10968931
>at the same time
Well, there's your problem. What does this have to do with the fabric of reality again?

>>10968935
Isn't that always the case if we consider science to be principally an empirical method?

>>10968934
That sounds like insufficient mathematical methods for computationally difficult problem than failure of the equation.

>>10968943
Theory with ontology prescribes behavior for any situation, because reality there doesn't have an interpretational freedom.

>>10968937
It means that schrodinger equation predicts unobservability, and the prediction is right.

>>10968906
Where QBism claims a flaw in schrodinger equation? Do you have source?

>>10968956
I don't see how that implies what you're saying. What's "unobservability?" Like a neutrino in the absence of a specialized detector?
>>10968950
Well, true, but even incorporating the Coulomb repulsion of two electrons is an analytical and computational nightmare. What hope is there of "confirming the Schrodinger equation" for "most of" the different physical situations that arise?
>>10968953
I agree that QBism is not a complete answer. It doesn't bother me that it isn't. More importantly, it resolves some of the "mysterious" issues with interpreting the wave function and Born rule.

>mwi

derived the born rule yet?

>>10968961
QBism claims that a particular Schrodinger equation with the Born rule are an assertion that a particular equation and set of eigenstates applies to a particular physical situation. Whether or not it actually does exactly is typically unknown except in a few highly constrained exact cases, but otherwise I think a QBist is pessimistic that it ever exactly applies.

>>10968934
The ionization energies of the model Helium atom can be calculated numerically and I'm pretty sure they fit well with experiment.
Infinite crystals do not exist in reality, so non-normalizable states are an artifact of that approximation.

>>10968981
Yes, and? We do some handwaving and use an approximately close but not exact Schrodinger equation and get an approximately close answer for the energies. There is no exact treatment of the mutual Coulomb repulsion of the orbital electrons that I am aware of. Keep in the mind the energies are the eigenvalues, which by themselves do not determine the eigenvectors. In the linear algebra characterization, we need the exact energies and exact matrix elements to define exact eigenvectors.

You are right about the Born rule of Bloch states, but nonetheless the Bloch states are a typical way of treating electronic states in crystalline solids. And they "seem to work" as well for many physical situations, assuming that the infinite crystal model approximately holds. So the Schrodinger equation seems to work, and yet it simultaneously seems hopeless to get an exact idea of what the true wave function is for almost any system.

what if the quantum probability is a real number? how does mwi deal with that? how many new universes there are?

>>10968996
Regardless of the probability there will just be 2 branches. But some branches can be "thicker" than others

>>10968991
In those situations, the Schrodinger equations aren't exactly solvable for the same reason n-body gravity isn't exactly solvable: too many coupled degrees of freedom. However, using approximations like Slater determinants and mean field theory, the Schrodinger equation can be used to calculate solutions to high enough accuracy for all intents and purposes.

These highly accurate approximate wavefunctions can then be compared with experimentally measured probability densities of molecules like pic related. They show that these approximate solutions really are very close to the exact solutions, and that the unsolvability of the n-body Schrodinger equation is more an issue of computational power than theory.

>>10966395
this

>>10968967
>Like a neutrino in the absence of a specialized detector?
Mathematically it's a product of orthogonal vectors <ψ1|ψ2>=0. Observation is entanglement, and entanglement is product, and product of orthogonal states is zero, meaning that such observation doesn't exist.
>What hope is there
You compare theory with nature, it's only possible if you have theoretical result at all. But if you do have, you can verify it.
>it resolves some of the "mysterious" issues
And those resolutions sound similar to MWI, so there you go. You can expand bayesian programme by noticing that copenhagen randomness is derived from assumption that observer's state doesn't change and consequently observed phenomena must be due to a change in observed system, then you come up with randomness, but that assumption can be shown to be false.

>>10968972
Where motl is right is that when all solvable cases match by coincidence, it's a pretty big coincidence. You don't need highly constrained cases, just solvable.

>>10969736
The assumption of randomness can never be shown to be false. Determinism has to prove its concept before it can be asserted.

>>10969780
>The assumption of randomness can never be shown to be false.
Yeah it can: if the results of measurement can be predicted to better than the theory's uncertainty. Determinism can be unfalsifiably shoehorned in to explain any stochastic system, but the converse is not true.

>>10969624
Tard here, is that an atom or molecule or what

>>10969803
A water molecule. Left shows measured probability density of electrons, right shows theoretical.

>>10969780
The assumption that the state of the observer doesn't change can be shown to be false. Heck, who claimed that nondestructive measurement is impossible?

>>10969796
>Yeah it can: if the results of measurement can be predicted to better than the theory's uncertainty.

Yet we cannot do this.

>>10969780
Some even fail to recognize that randomness is an assumption. Determinism is kinda unavoidable, because all laws of physics is mathematical, and mathematics is deterministic, so determinism is always an option, if you think that laws of nature are worth anything. A theory as a whole that implies randomness can be refuted as inconsistent just fine though, a theory is more specific.

>>10969836
Randomness isn't inconsistent. Partially deterministic systems necessarily exist.

>>10969828
Which is therefore a point in favor of probabilism, as it is falsifiable yet was not falsified. This is how falsifiability works.

>>10968967
>What's "unobservability?" Like a neutrino in the absence of a specialized detector?
fix: more precisely, it's due to linear independence. If two states are linearly independent and are solutions of schrodinger equation, they evolve independently too as if the other state didn't exist, that's why they don't see each other.

>>10969839
Randomness alone isn't, but a theory with randomness is, it doesn't hang in a vacuum.

>>10968968
Born rule is a meme regurgitated by brainlets, see >>10967487

>>10969847
>it doesn't hang in a vacuum
It precisely does if we're considering a system that describes the totality of all existent phenomena.

>>10969877
It has to comply with other theoretical ideas. And if theory is inconsistent, that's its falsification. Well, only theory as a whole, not randomness alone, but analysis of failure quite explicitly points at randomness (naive realism) as the culprit.

>>10969916
>naive realism
This was not a debate.

>>10969916
Other theoretical ideas like what? Unitary evolution? Randomness isn't incompatible with unitary evolution, it qualifies it.

>>10962683
>quantum immortality must be true.
How so?

>>10970162
A version of you lives will carry on more consciousness than a version who dies.

>>10970168
>more consciousness
Retarded.

>>10970169
It's literally the entire premise of quantum immortality. Idea being you don't experience the dead versions of yourself via anthropic principle.

>>10970192
If MWI allows for wacky stupid nondeterministic universes that are different from our own to exist (which I highly doubt) then in one universe I am a subject to human experimentation after legislation was passed denying autists human rights. In another I'm happy and fulfilled with a good job, a nice home and a wife who loves me and a child or two. In this universe I am typing a message to you on 4chan. All three are equally conscious.

>>10970199
Yes, it's a silly premise. Anon also forgot to account for the universe where everyone has quantum immortality simultaneously, and the one where the entire works of William Shakespeare were printed in the quantum data of every QRNG we created.

>>10970204
If quantum immortality is real then why don't other (you)s slide into you all the time?

>>10970760
Is this a theoretical question or should I answer from experience?

>>10970763
Oh god, if you got a "Mandela effect" then get the fuck over to /x/ schizo.

>>10969931
It's incompatible, see Wigner's friend experiment. Evolution of wave function obeys schrodinger equation, no randomness there.

>>10969624
I suppose the question here is "how are those experimental probability densities determined?" They aren't a real thing that is directly measurable like, say, an electric field.

>>10971603
Inherent randomness is compatible with Wigner's friend experiment. There is nothing inconsistent about probabilistic theories. See explained in detail here:

https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/03/six-photons-claimed-to-prove-that.html

https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/03/what-is-real-experiment-with-wigners.html

>>10971777
With modern technology, they really are just as directly measurable as an electric field.
The water molecules were adsorbed onto a sodium chloride film with a gold substrate. The probability densities were then measured using a scanning tunneling microscope. Adjusting the tunneling voltage allows the probe to couple to both the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) and the Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO). The measured tunneling current is proportional to the probability density at a point above a water molecule.

>>10970760
What do you mean by that, and how would it happen?

I suppose the worlds merge back when the consequences of the quantum effect are no longer distinguishable i.e. the results are effectively "forgotten".

A possible problem (or potentially proof) with the many world theory is that the results of quantum effects are often not just bunary yes/no questions, but often more like "the partticles is somewhere within this area with this probability distribution" which would lead to infinitely many worlds each collapse, unless space itself is quantized, which we should be able to measure.

>>10971853
According to what I understand, If you die, your consciousness is transferred to another (you) living in another timeline

>>10971943
>According to what I understand
Here's a tip. You don't understand. You are guessing. Guessing based on assumptions about teleportation of magical souls that bypass physics and yet interact with our universe.

>>10971947
Well too many people think that what I said is what "quantum immortality" means.

>>10971807
Motl's idea is not a theory, is it? It's half baked. If you remove solipsism, what he writes sounds similar to MWI. If he claims randomness to be subjective, then this randomness is not objective?

>>10971807
>The observation of the photons by Wigner's friend creates an entanglement with the degrees of freedom in the friend's body, so the state of the photons themselves become mixed according to Wigner (I mean the external observer), not pure.
So he says collapse doesn't happen during observation.

>>10971819
It depends entirely on what you mean by "observable." They're not observable like an electric field is. You have an approximate wave function which does not even include correlation and cannot possibly be the true wave function. A mean field approximation doesn't cut it in terms of "observing the true wave function." You have a wave function that is approximate under the assumptions made. In particular, molecular orbital theory uses single-electron states, when in reality there are multiple electrons bound to the water molecule. The probability cloud induced by that is clearly some kind of averaging over the more complicated, true multi-particle wave function as a result. This really doesn't conflict with QBism; that's exactly what is claimed, that the probability density depends on the assumptions and model chosen.

>>10962051
>Which interpretation do you think is right, /sci/?


What if they're all correct, depending on who's doing looking.
Reality is a subjective experience and assumes what ever form we assume of it, but only to a very small degree. Like a placebo effect. When you start looking at things on the quantum scale this "placebo effect" becomes greatly magnified.