/sci/ - Science & Math

There is no empirical basis for believing any of them. And until there is, I'll abstain from assigning interpretations to measurements.

>>11354703
well even then, which do you think is most likely?

>>11354692
>Which interpretation do you believe in, /sci/?

>>11354692
consistent histories

>>11354708
There isn't a completely satisfying interpretation out there. Why should we be forced to pick from options which are all likely either flat-out wrong or incomplete at best?

>>11354717
i haven't started learning about relativity yet, so i'm unsure of what this is. Could you elaborate please?

>>11354717
That passage has nothing to do with consistent histories itself, stop posting it all the time

>>11354719
Well, they may be, for all I know. You're right we shouldn't be forced to pick from these options, but I was just asking which one you think holds the most ground.
Surely one holds slightly more ground to you than the others right?

I personally like pilot wave theory

qbism

>>11354733
interesting. Why?

>>11354730
Skip learning about the pilot wave or Bohmian interpretation. Copenhagen is the orthodox way people talk about quantum mechanics, so you should learn that, and many worlds is an idea with a lot of problems (in particular there is no way to assign probabilities) but it is worth thinking about.

There are lots of interpretations like consistent histories that are just repackaging of standard quantum mechanics in slightly different language. I don't think they really add much in terms of understanding, but it's a matter of taste I guess

>>11354692
Consistent (decoherent) histories is the patrician physicist's interpretation.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-consistent-histories/

Copenhagen is the common quantum physicist's interpretation.

The rest is pseud trash.

>>11354742
Why? is pilot wave not based? To me the most ideal seems like the copenhagen with my limited knowledge, but the pilot wave function seems like what physicists are after, the grand unified function stating where each particle would be at what time.
many worlds just reminds me of steins;gate.

>>11354770
Pilot wave is not based because it was unable to move out of the 1920s. You can't do quantum field theory with it. As far as I know it has trouble dealing with multiple interacting particles. And it is also necessarily nonlocal, meaning everything affects everything else no matter how far away

>>11354775
but everything does effect everything else, no matter how far away doesn't it? Minimally, but doesn't it? due to gravity?

the simulation theory

>>11354789
No. The earth feels the gravity of the sun, but if the mass of the sun could somehow mysteriously vanish it would take 8 minutes for the earth to notice a difference. No signal can move faster than the speed of light. In Bohmian mechanics there is not this restriction, and so there are difficulties even making it work with special relativity

>>11354717
That's 2 different socks interpretation is a bit misleading-if you translate that into the delayed choice quantum eraser it falls apart as an analogy, since the entanglement in that case shows a correlation that goes deeper than just spin-you're not even ,measuring the spin,you're showing that despite happening "before" the reflector/passthrough step, the collision of one of the particles with a detector will, when matched up time wise with the data about the particles that had their info deleted or not, show interference patterns where the wavefunction is not disturbed in the "later" part of the experiment. (There's no way to transmit information faster than light this way since you need the information about which particles were scrambled or not to decode the interference pattern from the noise)

That's absolutely counter-intuitive and strongly suggests that, fundamentally, our intuitions about causality and the order of events have no basis in deeper reality.

>>11354692
I find the notion of a dynamic luminiferous aether to be much more plausible than the alternative suggestion that time and space exist as a singular object.

The consequence of the existence of such an aether are irrelevant. Though, I would still like to enumerate a few for your curiosity.
1. Faster than light travel
2. Superdeterminism
3. Antigravity and inertia dampening

>>11354692
>The copenhagen interpretation
Sounds European, pass, probably made by some cuck scientist who drives a 1.2 liter Peugot and goes to Muslim solidarity marches.
>the Many Worlds interpretation
Sounds like some new age hippy shit, like the name of a shop that sells crystals in Sedona Arizona
>Pilot Wave
I'm imagining an SR71 Blackbird pilot waving to an alien spacecraft that pulls alongside as he travels at mach 2. The pilot knows nobody will ever believe him, so he just does the wave of solidarity, nods, looks forward again, and hits the throttle. That is badass, so I'm going with this one.

Disclosure: I have no idea what any of these reference .

>>11354770
>many worlds just reminds me of steins;gate.
i don't want derail this thread into discussion about mongolian mangos but it's absolutely crucial to steins;gate's plot that the other "timelines" are "not real", i.e. that they only exist as "possibilities". it drives a lot of the drama and angst in the franchise. in that sense it's more of like a "copenhagen" interpretation of time travel - they do share the feature of being incoherent as fuck at the very least. the more traditional time travel idea of parallel worlds and simultaneously existing equally real timelines is discussed as well though so that's why it might remind you of that.

>>11354789
Distant objects can affect each other, but only indirectly, by propagating an influence through space. Nonlocal interactions are
object A < - > object B
while local interactions are
object A <-> field around A < - > field a bit more distant < - > ....... < - > field around B < - > object B

>>11354811
ah i think I get it now. So the pilot wave theory does not work for a situation where two objects are beyond each others fields, right?

>>11354789
>but everything does effect everything else

Not instantly. Speed of light is the limit due to general relativity. This is something that Pilot wave violates. So it is not even compatible with Quantum Field theory (the most accurately tested theory in all of physics).

>>11354826
It doesn't work for fields period

>>11354826
This issue is that pilot wave is inconsistent with the idea that all interactions have this local field nature, which has been very well-established.

>>11354828
this is delving into topics i haven't fully understood yet. I guess i'll have to understand relativity thoroughly first. Thanks though.

>>11354808
oh, so in the many worlds theory, the different universes are all depicted as real, and not possibilities? I hadn't known that.
You never know, maybe a study on the surface of mongolian mangoes would give us the result we're looking for.

Is the Copenhagen interpretation compatible with the concept of future sight? Does it make sense to say that the future itself exists as a set of probabilities that collapse when measured?

>>11354844
The "other worlds" are just orthogonal states in a giant Hilbert space (or perhaps near-orthogonal, with some absurdly small overlap). The point of MWI is that the actual state the universe is in is not in general one of these basis vectors, hence it can be decomposed into a linear combination of a bunch of them. And then the "Hamiltonian of the whole universe" evolves this state via ordinary unitary dynamics.

Also, there's just one universe in the MWI. That's kinda the entire point.

>>11354692
Relational QM

What would the double slit experiment look like if the electrons and photons just never exhibited particle-like qualities and always acted like waves? Does this lead to some kind of paradox?

>>11354739
Makes more sense to my simple, deterministic mind

>>11354710
based. always god before jewish lies
t.muslim

>>11354806
top kek

Why does nobody read Bohm? He makes a lot of sense

>>11355184
>Also, there's just one universe in the MWI. That's kinda the entire point.
Maybe it's in some sense true, maybe it's for some purposes better way to think of it, but I highly doubt it's "kinda the entire point" of an interpretation called "many worlds". I would have thought what makes it different from other interpretations that it tries to take the fact that the observer is just another quantum system that can be in a superposition as well and assume the observed result is not somehow special to the other predicted possibilities.

>>11355544
He's a communist

>>11355544
the bohmian interpretation violates special relativity. it's a non-starter.

>>11355554
No, it is true im the literal sense. The name doesn't mean anything, people should be calling it the Everettian interpretation. There is one universe, and it lives in one Hilbert space.
There's nothing special about an observer in any interpretation. Most everyone believes that a macroscopic state can be, in principle, described as an emergent description of a quantum one. The difference between interpetations is how they define equations of motion in QM. For instance, Copenhagen posits POVM dynamics when an environment strongly interacts with the system. GRW adds stochastic terms to the Schrodinger equation to force macroscopic "wavefunction collapse". MWI doesn't add anything else to the Schrodinger equation, it posits that as the only equation of motion for quantum states.

>>11355554
> I highly doubt it's "kinda the entire point" of an interpretation called "many worlds"

> the tiresome old argument from words and definitions.

> sighs


That was not the name Everett gave it, that was someone else. He called it the relative state interpretation (RSI).

In RSI there is just the wavefunction and nothing else so in reality there is just one world. OK there are slices of that world that act independently for the most part but there is one universe.

>>11355976
>for the most part but there is one universe.
What's stopping whatever caused the universe from causing one again, an infinite number of times?

>>11355296
well that hasn't occurred has it. Whenever a particle/wave 'notices' that it's being watched, it begins to behave only like a particle. If it doesn't behave like a particle, that means it hasn't been 'noticed' yet. Which leads me to think that this is something related to consciousness.

Please explain what Bell's Theorem means
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs

We're living in a computer simulation, right?

>>11356441
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs
bro wtf
i didn't see this prior to the discussion but it's like we found a way to cheat the system

>>11354692
i just love vibrating the 11th dimension don't you?

>>11356441
Somebody in the comments says that the filters are explained by a classical effect called Malus law. Is he right, or is he full of shit?

>>11356551
malus's law only explains the system of two polarisation filters.
It can explain two filters as a constituent of the three-filter system, however it cannot explain why the system of three and the system of two do not give the same result.

>>11355976
>OK there are slices of that world that act independently for the most part but there is one universe
And the slices we see and thought to be "the universe" are only a part of it and there are other different but equally real slices that we don't see. In so far it makes any sense to talk about multiple universes at all (in the most traditional definition of "the universe" it's just contradictory), that sounds awfully like it. Yes, in the Everettian interpretation there's just wavefunction and nothing else, and you can call this "the world", but I just get the feeling that you guys are just a bit coy about the extravagant implications of the interpretation.

>>11356619
No, malus's law explains the difference just fine. In the two-polarizer system, the second polarizer receives light polarized at 90 degrees, and cos^2(pi/2)=0 proportion of the light will get through.
With three polarizers, the second polarizer receives light at a non-90 degree angle, meaning some light gets through. This light is now polarized at the angle of the second polarizer, so a nonzero amount gets through the third polarizer.
The key here is that the light interacts with the polarizers, which changes the state of the light. There's nothing particularly revolutionary there. With single photons, the cos^2 becomes a probability of transmittance, rather than a proportion of total light transmitted.
The interesting results come when you start sending entangled photons through separate polarizers. Classically, if one of the pair interacts with a polarizer, the polarization state of the other photon shouldn't be affected. Yet experimental results indicate otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAXxSKifgtU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UxYKN1q5sI