/sci/ - Science & Math

All interpretations of QM are called interpretations and not independent theories because they are not experimentally distinguishable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison

>>3164759
That said, QM itself is most certainly falsifiable, which would apply to all interpretations of QM.

Not really, they are just attempts to rationalise the apparent "paradoxes" created by quantum mechanics. Personally I prefer Copenhagen.

>>3164755
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are not considered part of Quantum Mechanics, and arent even fucking science.

If you are ever smart enough to learn QM, interpretations will not be discussed (not even in a grad level).

The only faggots talking about "interpretaions" now of days are philosphers and little kids, both of which DONT KNOW QM!

Stop wasting your time on interpretaions, and actually fucking learn the subject matter DUMBSHIT!

The interprataions are just a philisophical circle jerk, with no consequence what-so-fucking-ever!

>>3164759
>>3164765
Thanks. Another question is; Is there evidence that favors some interpretation over others? Or do we yet not know that much about QM?

>>3164786
>If you are ever smart enough to learn QM, interpretations will not be discussed (not even in a grad level).

They teach interpretations of quantum mechanics at cambridge. Does that make me dumb?

admittedly they're optional lectures... but still

>>3164786
What you say seems reasonable, and that's exactly why I am asking. I wouldn't be asking about this if I were versed in QM.

>>3164766
>Not really, they are just attempts to rationalise the apparent "paradoxes" created by quantum mechanics.
Thanks, I also thought this would be the case.

Lookup reversible quantum computing. If you implement your consciousness as an algorithm and run it on a reversible quantum computer, have that copy of you make QM measurements, and then reverse the copy to its original state, the outcomes predicted by Copenhagen and Many Worlds differ.

In Copenhagen, an observation by a consciousness observer collapses the wavefunction and cannot be reversed. In Many Worlds, everything is a wavefunction, even conscious observers, so if the effects of the observation are canceled when the observer wavefunction is reverted.

>>3164788
I don't think there's any such evidence, or they would be theories and not intepretations. One possible exception might be deBroglie-Bohm theory. I've heard rumors of a way to distinguish it from mainstream QM, but I'm not sure.

>>3164786
It would be a fucking poor school that didn't introduce you to the interpretations at least in grad level. I once read a good PhD thesis on the interpretations of QM.

>Stop wasting your time on interpretaions, and actually fucking learn the subject matter DUMBSHIT!
If the subject matter is "how does reality work" then the interpretations ARE the subject matter.

>>3164755
Some say 2 + 2 = 4 because when you have two of two things, they are equivelent to four things.

Others say the reason is because if you took four things and divided them in half, you would have 4 things.

I'm unsure which fanciful story to believe.

>Agnostic

>>3164806
I hope this doesn't imply a violation of the No Cloning theorem.

>>3164794
Yes, they often make them optional. The fucking point is that they are not required for even the most advanced quantum mechanics, nor are the "interpretaions" actually considered proper science.

They are philosophy, and studied more by philosophers then actual physicist.

Read this, OP:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9501014

>>3164811
>interpretations of quantum mechanics

I didn't know /sci/ was so open to philosophy.

>>3164816
No cloning theorem is safe. You "only" need to implement the algorithm logic underlying consciousness, and not duplicate the quantum state of every particle in your brain.

>>3164826
Thanks for the link, I'll download that.

>>3164806
I'll also look that up.

>>3164755
ITT: people who don't even know quantum mechanics discuss the interpretations of quantum mechanics

What are you gonna do for your next trick? Discuss calculus without knowing basic algebra? Discuss the work of Mark Twain without actually knowing how to read?

>>3164829
They certainly arn't open to rational examination of cause and effect.
>black people
>religion

Bell's inequalities were entirely derived from his interest in settling the foundational issues in QM, and this led to a better understanding of entanglement which has led to the development of quantum computation.

This shit is hardly worthless sophistry, even if you morons think taking a course in QM and eating up what the prof. and the book spoon-feed you.

>>3164847
I see nothing objectionable ITT so far. PhD student in physics here.

Stop being such a grouchy asshole.

I am interested in learning about quantum mechanics. What books did you use in college or which books did you find to be the most helpful in understanding this field?

>>3164755
>interpretation falsifiable

No. That is why they are not considered "science", nor are they required to actually do quantum mechanics. They are philosophical not scientific.

They maybe neat things to think about, but they are utterly meaningless.

>>3164860
Griffiths is what we used as an intro.

>>3164863
>They maybe neat things to think about, but they are utterly meaningless.
On the contrary, they are all *about* meaning. What they are is inconsequential. They have no bearing on predictions at all.

I'm being picky, I know.

shut up and calculate confirmed for best interpretation

ITT: Engineers talking about QM.

>>3164863
They are only meaningless if "science" to you is not supposed to reflect the real world but just be an abstract set of calculations that you do. That's not what "science" is to me. It's supposed to tell us what is happening in the physical world.

>>3164858
Ignore >>3164847, he says the same thing in every QM thread.

>>3164887
However, insofar as intepretations are not distinguishable, arguing about which is better *is* pointless. You can just satisfy your own personal need for something that makes sense - looking for converts to your favorite interpretation would very much not be science.

>>3164887
OP here, as I see it he is saying that it would be unscientific to adhere to any one interpretation, not that thinking about it is something completely pointless.

>>3164896
This pretty much confirms you aren't even remotely educated in science. The interpretations might not be currently distinguishable and so you develop ways of differentiating them thus making the interpretations falsifiable.

Welcome to Science.

>>3164896
Argument from lack of imagination. Just because you cannot imagine a way to distringuish the interpretations, doesn't mean that there isn't one. See >>3164806. You find new ways by thinking, and talking to others, as we are doing here.

Captcha: science. I mean nigger.

>>3164875
You sound as dumb as a christian pal.

If the validity (or lack thereof) of an interpretaion of quantum mechanics has no correlation or consequence to the actual universe, it is akin to nonsense. It is a waste of time. It is like you discussing living in the MATRIX.

The sad part is that instead of actually learning quantum mechanics (actual science, actual verified predictions, actual verified explanations), people concern themselves with interpretaions (not science, doesnt make predictions, doesn't provide explanations that can be verified). They basically waste there time on philisophical nonsense, under the allusion that are learning actual science.

>>3164867
Thanks. I found a copy online. Looking forward to diving into this. :-)

>>3164937
High five!

>>3164876

>>3164946
If they were distinguishable, they would be theories, and not intepretations of the same theory.

If you're ready to say that MWI is a theory and not just an interpretation, detail the experiment that I can perform to prove one of them wrong, because I want to steal the credit.

And not >>3164806
That's not an experiment that can be performed, possibly even in principle.

>>3164937
>insofar as interpretations are not distinguishable
Boy, you seem to have an unhealthy need to assume that others are stupid, don't you.

>>3164937
>>3164946
We are very very very very very very very very very very very very far from even talking about this possibility. It is not even known if this can be done in theory (usually thought impossible to do).

Saying that shit right now, is basically you hoping for magic. This is now a magic thread! Since you love magic so fucking much!
Magic is real, right?!

>>3164975
>it hasn't been done so you shouldn't even think about it

You are not a scientist.

>>3164975
Did someone say magical fairytale bullshit?

>>3164985
I'm not even that guy, but you just need to stop. That's not what he said at all.

What do you think you're accomplishing? He doesn't entertain your fantasy, and so he's "not a scientist", as though you were the authority?

>>3164985
>implying we should consider every possible fucking retarded thing that hasn't been done yet, or cannot be disproven yet

You are a chirstian right? Cause you seem to suck at basic logic really really bad.

It is also a possibility that a small teapot orbits Mercury. Should we be talking about that?
What about the possibility that you are sucking 2 cocks at this very moment? It is possible right? Or the possibility that I just came inside your moms pussy? All so possible.

Let's discuss your moms pussy first. It is a favorite of 4chan. I wonder how many other anons have cum inside her? Its possible that many many have, right?

>>3165001
It is an insult to the scientific community to spit upon the drive to improve science as that person has been doing. He is expressing nothing better than a "science fan" opinion, that what received wisdom we have right now is all we should be asking for, and looking for greater things in the future is to be derided.

I'm sorry if you don't understand this.

>>3165036
>It is an insult to the scientific community to spit upon the drive to improve science as that person has been doing
Oh MAN such righteous indignation.
>He is expressing nothing better than a "science fan" opinion,
And IRONY
>hat what received wisdom we have right now is all we should be asking for
He said no such thing
>and looking for greater things in the future is to be derided.
You really LOVE making strawmen, don't you?

You're so fucking far off target I don't think you can come back. The people you are furious with were never in this thread to begin with.

>>3165035

>>3165048
Look, it's not my fault if you can't understand what he's saying.

>>3165057
Oh NOW you're the fucking authority on what he MEANT?

>>3165035
>>3165035

>>3164755
FYI: they are not falisifiable, meaning they are not science.

It is not possible to devise an experiment in Quantum Mechanics to prove or disprove any of the interpretations we use today. This is because as far as the science and math goes, they are all exactly the same. All interpretaions are exactly the same from an experimentalists perspective.

It may be possible to figure out the validity of an interpertation one day (far in the future), be it won't be done using Quantum Mechanics. It will require some more fundemental form of physics (that has not been invented yet). Good luck with that one....lol.

\thread

>>3164985
>>3165036
>>3165057
I agree with this guy.

>Trolls everywhere! But on 4chan, there are really only three people - you, me, and someone other guy who never posts. So that means I'm also the one trolling you.

>Unless you are trolling yourself.

>>3165098
THEN WHO WAS TROLL

I agree with that guy's general sentiments, but feel that the rant is badly misdirected in this case.

>>3165102
I am the ranty guy, and i admit I am often a little touchy on this subject. But then again this is /sci/ where there is a lot to be touchy about.

>>3165095
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-quantum-physics-photons-two-slit-interferometer.html

Go away engineers, have some gay sex and cry.

This thread makes me sad. Are you non-thinking, non-philosophical retards really the future of the scientific community?

>>3165145
In my optimistic moments, I think that only about 10% of /sci/ will ever make a career of science.

>>3165131
That's just QM. All the interpretations predict this result. Except... the one that is rightly called a theory, and not just another interpretation.
>Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie,
ITT, see
>>3164810
It is also called a theory in Wikipedia.

>>3165131
>posted unrelated link

WTF?

>>3165153
>That's just QM. All the interpretations predict this result. Except... the one that is rightly called a theory, and not just another interpretation.
Sorry, backwards, they claim support for Bohm theory, not mainstream QM.

It's published in Science now, so we'll see what comes from further investigations.

>>3165095

Isn't the Copenhagen interpretation the "don't try to interpret it" interpretation? The "the math works out, so leave it at that" one?

>>3165167
That paper is bullshit and doesn't prove jack-shit.

Please explain what new understanding there experiment gives us regarding quantum mechanics? How does there experiment give any support of Bohm Theory? explain?

Hint: it fucking doesn't. The results of there experiment could just as easily be from of any other interpretation.

>>3164755
Some people say that 2+2 = 4 because when you have 4 things and you lose half of them, you have two remaining.

I often wonder why they interpret it this way.

>>3165186
Nope. Just wiki it dumbshit.

>>3165095
agreed

lol, we could just say de Broglie-Bohm is right but that's equivalent to saying "there's some fundamental universal configuration, if we knew it then we'd know everything!"

good luck trying to figure out the configuration of the universe, i'll stick to my copenhagen

>>3165186
Copenhagen interpretation says that the wavefunction is inherently probabilistic, and it collapses to a singular value at some point, like when it interacts with something complex enough to be "classical". Most people learn QM in the context of this interpretation, because it is similar in structure to how you go about using QM to make predictions about measurements.

>>3165223

So then what differentiates a system "complex enough to be classical" from a quantum system? At what point does a chain of quantum systems become classical?

>>3165230
Usually size, amount of particles, and energy. It isn't tool hard to connect qm to classical mech, you just need to know stat physics very well.

On a side note, I tended to support Bohmian mechanics, until I came upon this counter-argument by Gary Drescher. Since the pilot wave is postulated to be real and mathematically equal to the Schroedinger wavefunction, then it doesn't matter whether there actually exist any particles guided by the wave.

>The wave itself is capable of computation and therefore supports conscious observers.

The point of view of the observer described by the Bohmian particles is just one of many points of view contained within this physical system. The particles themselves are redundant, and unnecessary by the law of parsimony. The points of view of all the other observers are consistent with many-worlds.

What is the opinion on this of the 10% of /sci/ that cares about such philosophical matters?

>>3165230
Nothing does. That's the problem with Copenhagen. The main thing that makes you treat something as a classical component is if it's you're measuring device. Copenhagen says the wave collapses there. Another interpretation (which predictably makes /sci/ rage) is that the wave collapses at consciousness. Many worlds / many minds interpretation says it never collapses ever. There's no way we've figured out to differentiate this with experiment.

>>3165253
Yes, the Bohm interpretation violates parsimony. It is needlessly complicated, and is really a the-many-worlds-theory.

>conscious observers

Consciouness does not enter into QM anywhere. You must be misunderstanding something somewhere.

>>3165253
>law of parsimony
Which is more parsimonious, a finite number of bohm particles or an infinite number of universes?

>>3165275
>another interpretation is that the wave collapses at consciousness

No. That is just fucking wrong, and easily disprovable. There is no such legit. interpretation.

>>3165253
My main beef with Bohmian mechanics is that it requires a preferred rest frame. And removing the particles that the wave guides around does not restore Lorentz symmetry. That's because the Schrodinger-picture wavefunction, which you're still considering to be a real object, is a function of a global time parameter.

Now what you can do to restore Lorentz symmetry is to make the wavefunction a function not of a global time parameter, but of the chosen spacelike 3-surface we designate "now." But it is no longer so crystal clear that it is simpler than the Bohmian version. We've eliminated some complexity, but then we've added additional complexity back.

>>3165297
how many choices are there in this world?

>>3165292
Consciousness is a mechanical process, so anytime a computation takes place that represents thinking, there is thinking going on.

If we assume for a moment that Bohmian mechanics is true and that we, the people who have proved it to be true, are that which is represented by the Bohmian particles, we still have left the uncomfortable question of what to do with all the other people, encoded in the pilot wave rather than the particles, who, according to the correct representation of the computation taking place inside the pilot wave, have convinced themselves that they've all proven that many-worlds is true.

Bohmian mechanics claims to answer that question by postulating that only the particles are real. But the pilot wave is real too, in some sense, it has to exist to guide the particles and satisfy Born probabilities. So all people believing themselves to live in many-worlds are real as well.

>>3165303
This is the quite the opposite of consciousness causes collapse; I would be the first person to argue against it if anyone.

>>3165253
My main beef with Bohmian mechanics is that it requires a preferred rest frame. And removing the particles that the wave guides around does not restore Lorentz symmetry. That's because the Schrodinger-picture wavefunction, which you're still considering to be a real object, is a function of a global time parameter.

Now what you can do to restore Lorentz symmetry is to make the wavefunction a function not of a global time parameter, but of the chosen spacelike 3-surface we designate "now." But this interpretation isn't very simple anymore.

Bohm: invisible Lorentz breaking and overly complex
Many-worlds: invisible Lorentz breaking or overly complex

I prefer many-worlds to Bohm, but it's not my favorite overall.

>>3165303
It's called "consciousness causes collapse". It's no more disprovable than any other interpretation.

>>3165292
>Consciouness does not enter into QM anywhere.
It necessarily must enter into interpretations until we can eliminate it, since we can only consciously explore the subject. See the paper I posted ITT exploring the interpretations.

>>3165275
>>3165381

so what's the idea behind this interpretation? you can have your machine measure and record the spin of a particle a bunch of times in a row and the results would show the same spin (quantum zeno style) showing the wavefunction has been collapsed, long before anyone is conscious of the result.

>>3165405
You don't need collapse for the quantum Zeno effect to work.

>>3165405
The result wouldn't show the wavefunction collapsed before consciousness was involved -- the same way that many worlds would say it never collapsed at all. In "consciousness causes collapse" there is a superposition of machine states that collapses when the machine is consciously observed. Many worlds/many minds says the superposition of machine states becomes a superposition of mind states.

>>3165413

but if you measure spin up 100 million times in a row, you can be pretty sure it's collapsed to the spin up state.

I like the Many Worlds interpretation.

Everett takes Occam's razor to the next level, and just assumes that shaving is unnecessary because everything is actually infinitely hairy, and the hairs each grow their own beards, and we just don't notice.

You've got to love a man who claims that assuming an infinite number of universes all spawning infinite numbers of universes is a simplification.

anyways, hasn't it been proven that if we as a physical system have consciousness, splitting and deconstructing us by induction, that individual particles must have consciousness?

>>3165422
Okay, that has nothing to do with the QZE (that's good, we can keep this simple).

Let's imagine a quantum computer where we start out with a single bit in a quantum superposition, and the rest of memory clear. That is, the state is:

|0000...> + |1000...>
(times a normalization factor)

We measure bit 1 and put the result in bit 2:
|0000...> + |1100...>

We measure bit 1 and put the result in bit 3:
|0000...> + |1110...>

We measure bit 1 and put the result in bit 4:
|0000...> + |1111...>

Now the conscious observer comes along and collapses it. Now it's either:
|0000...>
or
|1111...>

>>3165428
Where do they put all of the new universes?

>>3165433
>Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>3165415
>>3165391
>"consciousness causes collapse"

This is not a valid interpretaion of quantum mechanics. You cannot add "magic" to shit and call it an interpretation. That is not the way science works. Once you add "magic" you are not doing science, you are just trying to justify some shitty religion you believe in.

What you are talking about is new age bullshit. It is laughable, not science, and not physics. It is in no way a dominate idea in physics. The overwhealming majoirty of physicist have rejected it as fucking retarded and nonscientific. I'm sure there are a few retarded scientists who believe it, just as there are a few retards who believe in the creationism too.

A few crazy supporters in no way gives legitamacy to this fucking stupid idea.

>>3165434
They live in configuration space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_space

>>3165433
>conscious observer

NO

In >>3165444 's world, science works by calling ideas you don't like names, posting reaction faces, and shouting "NO!"

wuts going on in this thread?

>>3165391
>It necessarily must enter into interpretations until we can eliminate it

NO. You trollin? or just fucking retarded?
You are introducing an unquantitative concept into physics.

You can't fucking do that, that is not science, not physics, and doesnt make any fucking sense.

Should we introduce "love" into quantum mechanics too. We can't rule out "love" right? What about god, should we introduce god into qunatum mechanics? we cant rule it out right?

YOU FAIL SO FUCKING MUCH BRO!

>>3165450
As opposed to your world, where you openly accept fantasty, and give it fucking validity as science?

YOU CHIRSTIANS MAKE ME FUCKING SICK!
CHRISTIANSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

>>3165461

>>3165391
>>3165415
YOUR AMOUNT OF STUPIDITY SEEMS TO HAVE NO BOUNDS

>>3165461
We are conscious observers. Any interpretation of quantum mechanics must account for our observations. It's really not a hard concept.

>>3165469
>conscious observer
>trying to include your shitty religion into physics

Your parents should be tortured, raped, and killed, for the shitty job they did rasing you.

Your siblings will be sold into slavery, and you will be slowly disssected and used for scientific experimentaion.

>>3165476
>Fractal expansion of poe's law, gets every scientist, every time.

>>3165461

love and god are not correlated to collapse.

but observation very clearly is. we can only demonstrate that a collapse occurred after we are conscious of it. that is indisputable. that's solipsism, which you have to agree is absolutely true, but it's a no go position and we need to make assumptions if we are to move forward. the question is how much out on a limb are we comfortable going from this tautology.

>>3165495
I'm pretty sure he's just trolling at this point.

>>3165391
Your argument is fucking pathetic.
How come we don't need the concept of conscious for all branches of physics then? Classical Mech and Relativity work fucking great, yet they don't require consciousness? Yet we use consciousness to view them? WTF DUDE?

KAKAROT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>3165517
>Yet we use consciousness to view them

You're claiming that there are conscious observers in classical mechanics who view observations? Fuck you! Get your magic out of this thread! :)

>>3165495
>>3165495
>we can only demonstrate that __INSERT RANDOM SCIENCE__ occurred after we are conscious of it

However, We don't need to introduce the concept of consciousness in chemistry, biology, classical mech, special relativity, general relativity, and basically all of fucking science. Why would this be bro?

Do you not understand parsimony? Introducing extraneous unneeded bullshit is not the way science is done. That is the way religion is done.

>>3165495
>we can only demonstrate that a collapse occurred after we are conscious of it.
We can't demonstrate that collapse occurs at all.

>>3165530
NOT WHAT I AM CLAIMING! THIS IS WHAT >>3165415 IS CLAIMING!

HE IS A STUPID DICKSUCKER WHO LOVES THE CUM!

>>3165570 = WINNER
WIN

>>3165391 = THE BIGGEST FAGGOT WHO EVER CAME OUT OF A FILTHY WHORE

>>3165579
Right on, brother! Conscious observers do not exist! Any sentence that contains the word "conscious" is wrong!

>>3165545
>>3165517

first of all, the ENTIRE UNIVERSE seems like a huge unnecessary complication, when all we can be sure of is our own consciousness. if a child says they saw a monster, we say it's more likely they were imagining it rather than a monster actually existing. same goes for the complexity of the universe.

next, observer effect plays as much a part in classical mechanics as it does in quantum mechanics: not at all, and absolutely yes at the same time. the schrodinger equation has as much "consciousness" written into it as F=ma, particularly since the later is just a limit of the former and everything on the macro world obeys quantum in a classical (hbar->0) limit. it's the *interpretation* that includes the consciousness, and this is the simplest interpretation possible.

>>3165595
forget i said 'observer effect'

>>3165391
Fucking stupid.

>>3165595
>schrodinger equation has as much "consciousness" written into it as F=ma

Confirmed that he knows no physics at all.

The schodinger equation has no consciouss observer. Not even the fags who believe in conscious observers claim so. That is not where they say the conscious observer comes into play.

YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED SON.

>>3165632
that was exactly the point.

>>3165595
>>3165595
>Newtons second law is the just a limit of the schodinger equation

WTF AM I READING?
SO SO SO SO SO SO MUCH FAIL BRO!

>>3165591
Read the post that
>>3165292
was referring to. It had nothing to do with CCC. There's no special role assigned to the conscious observers in the argument except for the fact that their observations need to be accounted for. The argument is "how can you claim that the other worlds don't exist when there are people in them?"

As for CCC, I find it unlikely, but I'm not going to automatically assume it's wrong just because you think it sounds like magic. It's not a fully-developed theory of course, because we'd need to figure out exactly what constitutes "consciousness." But we know consciousness exists, and I think you'll agree with me that whatever it is, it's probably not "magic."

>it's the *interpretation* that includes the consciousness, and this is the simplest interpretation possible.

Fail, wrong, thank you come again. There are perfectly good interpretations which actually make MORE sense and don't have any of this loopy consciousness causing collapse of the wavefunction being inserted forcefully into my anus.

Look up the transactional interpretaion or De-broglie-bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, they're far more sensibl. And in those interpretations the universe actually exists when not being consciously observed! How astounding.

>>3165595
Please explain how the schrodinger equation (an energy equation) becomes F=ma (a force equation), in the proper limit.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

>>3165275
>>3165275
>>3165275

>>3165664
>transactional interpretation
>sensible

The transactional interpretation is even more vague than CCC on some rather crucial points, such as:
* Under what circumstances does the wave function collapse?
* How the hell do you compute this "standing wave" from the advanced and retarded wavefunctions?

If you like retrocausal interpretations, there are much better ones out there.

>>3165653

>But we know consciousness exists

Nope. You have never take a philosophy course have you?

It's called the Correspondence Principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle

In the limit as hbar->0 (another way of saying large quantum numbers), the commutator of x and p becomes zero and you get classical behavior.

How to get a force equation from an energy equation? Have you even taken an undergraduate course in Hamiltonian and Langrangian mechanics?

>>3165700
goes to:
>>3165669
>>3165647

>>3165691
The wavefunction never collapses, everything which interacts with that quantum system becomes 'entangled' with it, it becomes a part of a bigger wavefunction.

As for the computations, I have no idea, but if this interpretation doesn't actually affect the resultant values then I would presume they would follow the standard methods of calculation in QM.

>>3165700
You said that the schodinger equation became newtons second law. This is bullshit bro, schodingers equation would just become an classical energy equation (hamiltonian).

You are full of shit, bro. And know very little (if any) actualy physics.

>>3165698
I'm conscious. Consciousness exists.

>>3165750
Said the words on an imageboard.

>>3165700
and if anybody's interested, here's a derivation of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (i.e. an equivalent formulation of classical mechanics to f=ma) from Schrodinger's equation (actually the reverse, but Bohm did it quantum->classical).

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/hamilton-jacobi.pdf

>>3165747
>The wavefunction never collapses
So you say. Cramer says
>it is the absorber rather than the observer which precipitates the collapse of the SV

>I would presume they would follow the standard methods of calculation in QM.
It is something that he made up. There is no standard method of computing it.

If someone trolls on /sci/, does it make a sound?