/sci/ - Science & Math

>about how they don't choose until you actually see them.

I made that mistake too. It's not because they can't choose it's because we can't observe both velocity and distance of particles. This is because the quanta of light, photons, will affect the original values.

>>1333995
>>1333995
Pretty much that

OP what do you mean particles can't choose? What?

OP particles are sensitive to observation because anything we use changes the original state and so we can never certainly say what exists on the quantum level. That is, in distance or speed.

>>1334004

particles can seem to exist in multiple states until you observe them, in which case they will pick one state.

basically what shrodingers cat is all about.

>>1333999
>>1333333
Yes

I'm with Einstein when he said that god (the figurative one) does not play dice with the universe. We are merely missing a piece of the puzzle at the moment.

>>1333984
OP, you mean that a "definite position" of say an electron does not exist until it is observed. In that sense, yes you are correct.

The way to test your idea would be to measure a shit-ton of particles at the same time, until we exhaust processor power, and shit gets all werid.

>>1334017
Someone never heard of Bells inequalities before.

Sorry, but QM is complete.

>>1334029
Yay dogmatism! What do you know about Bell's inequalities?

>>1334029
>QM is complete

In what way are you using the word "complete"?

>>1334031
Ha ha, you're a funny little guy.
It's not dogmatism. Go read a book.

>>1334034
Wow, did you never hear of Bell either?
Go look up Bell's inequalties. QM is complete in the sense that there are "no hidden local varibles", this was proved by Bell. The univsere is "locally" probablistic.

>>1334056
Agreed
Einstein was wrong

>>1334056
No, that kind of thing never came up in my undergrad teaching.

>>1334070
>undergrad teaching

Yeah, thats the problems. There is tons of shit you don't learn in undergrad. Sorry.

The universe is not a simulation, except possibly for very perverse interpretations of the word "simulation."

>>1334082

you think it is impossible?

I think it is very improbable, but what basis/evidence do you have that states that it is impossible?

>>1334056
Well, that's a more accurate summary of Bell. Now how the hell did you jump from there to "quantum mechanics is complete"? You surely don't believe that quantum mechanics has been proven, and that we're never going to need a more accurate theory?

>>1334121
By the accurate summary, I of course mean "no local hidden variables" not "quantum mechanics is complete."

>>1334099
This, except that I have no reason to consider it improbably.

>>1334182
*improbable

>>1334121
Lol, you don't seem to understand QM.
Just like Classical Mech, QM is complete and works perfectly in it's range of validity. It was proved by Bell, that there existed no "missing information" in QM. It is a complete physics, and has been for sometime.

Just like there is no "new classical mech", there is no "new quantum mech". Those fields are "done". The basic mathematical structure is fininished.

Now, of course, the range of validity of QM as well as CM is limited, everyone knows they fail at some point. Eventually we need a new physics at that point (but It wont be called QM).

Does that help you?

One of the assumptions of Bell's inequalities is that the particle's current state is independent of future measuring devices. This assumption is incorrect. Once you realize that QM is no longer mysterious.

>>1334199
>QM is complete and works perfectly in it's range of validity.
Well, there's a tautology if I ever heard one.

>>1334218
LMAO, yeah, let's all just make shit up. Classical Mech assumes linear time, but what if a monster comes and makes time not linear!
IT ALL MUST BE WRONG!
OHH NO!

You cannot be the "supreme skeptic" in science, shit won't get done. Learn to fucking logic.

>>1334226
Wow, yall really need to learn more physics. The level of undergrad fail in here is causing a stench.

>>1334244
The point is that saying "X is valid in its range of validity" is only meaningful if you have some idea of what that range is. If that's what you mean by "quantum mechanics is complete," then it's an empty statement.

>>1334226
you fail at logic, do you even know what a tauntolgy is?

>>1334250
I do. Explain to me why this is not a tautology.

>>1334249
>>1334249
But, we do know what the range of QM is.
Look it up dumshit!

>>1334239
I have no idea what you're going on about.

There's nothing crazy or unusual about allowing the current particle state to depend on future measuring devices. The particle is influenced by past events, so why not future events?

The only reason this seems counterintuitive to us is because we are thermodynamic beings. But thermodynamics are not relevant to individual particle interactions.

>>1334263
No, we don't. The only way to establish what the limits of a theory are is to test it until we find a place where it doesn't work. So far quantum mechanics has always worked.

>>1334271
>>1334271
>>1334218
No, Actually Bell's inequalties are independent of measureing devices. Yall are assuming that it is our measument systems not being "fine tuned enough" that is creating the indeterminism. LMAO.

Yall, need to learn about Commutators.

>>1334250
Do you even know how to spell tautology?

>>1334323
It has nothing to do with fine tuning. Go ahead and derive Bell's inequalities without the assumption about measuring device independence. I'm waiting.

>>1334342
>>1334335
ITT: little kids who think they know physics

>>1334342
Its in Griffiths dumshit. It is obvious you don't know physics.

0/10

>>1334364
You already know that Bell says that it's local hidden variable theories that give different predictions from quantum mechanics, you already said as much. Now think about what local means, and get back to us.

Sure is lack of Bohmian mechanics in here.

>>1334409
Yes, another way around the dogmatism of >>1334029. A way that has the advantage of having all the details worked out, and where we know it reproduces all of quantum mechanics. Again demonstrating the importance of the "nonlocal" part.

>>1334355
go back to /b/ troll.

OMG U R right!
The universe is a simulation, bacause the propability to live in a simulation is higher, because the universe can simulate many simualtions and they can simulate too and that makes the universe : simaulation ratio 1:n , n>>1.
Learn Haskell, and think again...
It's irrelevant

bro.... SO MUCH WEED