/sci/ - Science & Math

here buddy

>>5861383

>hurr durr let's hypothesize about scenarii based on a premise which was used to disprove an interpretation of a theory.

You obviously dont know what is meant by observation. I didnt bother to read the rest.
>>>/ifuckinglovescience/
>>>/r/atheism

Maybe you should know that in quantum physics "observation" means measurement.

>>5861408
>implying "measurement" is well-defined

>>5861383
depends on your interpretation. in manyworld/manymind. there are actually 2 cats, one is alive and another dead. based on hidden variable theories, the cat is either dead or alive, but not both, based on any theory containing the wave-function as a real object its both alive and dead, but we dont know how to combine it with consciusness since then we are also dead and alive to something on another planet right now. based on objective reality collapse the cat is too big and this experiment wont work.

>>5861464

Could I do it with tardigrades?

>>5861473
That will be hard, since no matter what you do to them, they will be alive.

>>5861479

Damn! You're right!

could measurement/observation have something to do with the creation of information?

>>5861520
no, since you lose information at that point. It has to do with the transfer of information though.

>>5861553
Do you lose information? Isn't there no information at all until you measure/observe?

>>5861553
>you lose informaton

Information cannot be lost. Information is neither created nor destroyed. lrn2physics

>>5861383
fallacious reasoning

Of course we all live in our own universe. That's what you would call choice.

Every choice you make represents a path and with every different path you choose you make your way EVENTUALLY to your end.

The shut up and calculate approach is the best.

>>5861383
> then it is observation that determines state of reality, right?
Don't many things that we don't obverse later come and effect our lives?

>>5862996
But don't we have calculators for the calculations?

"If observation determines reality"

You must have a fucking sheltered, cozy life if you think that your observation (i.e. your opinion) determines reality.

Reality exists independent of YOUR PETTY OBSERVATION. You fucking idiot.

>>5864142
reality is your observation.

>>5861395
>scenarii

you fuckin douche bag

>>5864142
>observation (i.e. your opinion)
What the hell?

all possible universes already exist, and our choices determine how we move through them. everything else is an illusion we are just constantly switch universes every planck length of time

I think, therefore I am.

Observation does not necessarily determine reality. You are assuming that reality is subjective as opposed to objective, which is like assuming that god does or does not exist. You can't fucking know that one way or the other.

Just because it would make sense that reality is subjective based upon your observation and only seems objective does not mean that it is, because it would also seem objective if it actually was that way, dur.

>>5864450
No, you are because you can be observed.

>>5864880
> 2013
> not knowing how to read "I think, therefore I am"

Thinking is the observer observing itself. The "I" should always be read as referring to the person whose thoughs are observed - you for you, I for myself, and he for him. You don't need an eeg reading your brainwaves to observe that you're thinking, you can just think.

>>5861395
>scenarii
It's scenaria. If you really want to be pretentious, at least be right.

>>5864889
For all I know there are no observable proof of that, and your thinking entirely physical.

>>5864889
I think anon was talking about visual perception.

>>5861383
its Dead Dead & Alive then

mfg for all the shit physics says about 3s, fukyurmeta4

>>5861394
You beat me to it. :(

>>5861395

>scenarii

I literally do not understand Schrodingers cat at all. It bothers me so much.

How can it be both dead and alive? It's only one. It's fucking dead if it's dead and the room will begin to smell like a dead cat.

If it's alive you'll hear the son of a bitch.

>Schrodinger in charge of coming up with good metaphors

fuck this guy.

>>5866487
As if Schrodinger cared about the cat, it's an argument to disprove another argument, not to people see if the cat was or not alive.

Think we can use Schroedinger's cat to explain quantum entangling?

>>5866487
That's the point though.

>>5866492
I do not see how. The observer is entangled with the cat only before the box is opened.

>>5866492
Yes, we can.

>>5866792
>The observer is entangled with the cat

Does that mean the observer could possibly die instead of the cat while opening the box?

>>5866792
0/10

>>5861383

>>ignoring that the thought experiment was intended to show how stupid it was.
>>ignoring that then stupid people took it seriously and we are still talking about it today.

Sigh/

>>5864112
We calculate approximations, then use those approximations to make better approximations, and so on.

People get so carried away with Schrodinger's damn cat. Quantum phenomena are inherently unpredictable, not because we haven't developed instruments sensitive enough to detect these events, and not because mathematics has failed us in any way. Quantum events are unpredictable, which is an assertion that must exist at the foundation of quantum theory, a priori. The math, which when scaled up enough to predict (VERY accurately, I might add) classical phenomena, simply does not hold on the quantum scale. So stop worrying about trying to find out whether Schrodinger needs a new cat; we do not know, and we can not know.

>>5868560
[citation needed]

FUCKING READ THIS AND REREAD THIS UNDER YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND IT SO WE CAN ALL GET ON WITH OUR LIVES WITHOUT THESE FUCKING THREADS:

The wave equation is just our own model of the universe that we use to predict future phenomena. In the case of the cat, we don't fucking know if it's alive or dead so the wave equation has to take both possibilities into account, with different probabilities, and that is why it is a superposition of two states.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL CAT IN THE BOX, WHICH IS EITHER ALREADY DEAD OR STILL ALIVE AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT. The "collapse" of the wave function is not a physical thing. It just means that we have updated our model with new information (oh shit, look, the cat's fucking dead, so we can remove the possibility of it being alive from the wave function now).

Here's a simpler example. If I tell you that someone lives in an apartment building but I don't tell you which apartment they live in, you're "wave function" for where the person lives would be a superposition of the person living in each apartment. If I then tell you that the person lives on the 5th floor, you can "collapse" your wave function so that it is only a superposition of wavefunctions for the person living in apartments on the 5th floor. If I tell you exactly which apartment the person lives in, you get a completely collapsed function.

This isn't fucking magic. The confusion is due to confused people trying to explain shit that they don't understand.

>>5868655
>UNTIL
>your

well, fuck me, there goes my arrogant indignation

>>5868655
>WHICH IS EITHER ALREADY DEAD OR STILL ALIVE AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT
Are you implying hidden variables?

>>5868655
That's not how wave functions work.

>>5868549
Yes. This captures the case where the observer may be of old age or terminally ill.

>>5871394
That's sad.

>>5873170
I know. I wish it did not have to be this way.

>>5873760
What can we do about it? Will it be solved by biology someday?

>>5875344
Maybe when we fully understand the inner workings of quantum consciousness immortality will not be a problem.

>>5876163
Interesting. Do you have any links on the topic?

>>5868560
that's because physics decided that even though it's fucking stupid, it's still accurate

>>5868560
>the thought experiment was intended to show how stupid it was.

Why do people keep perpetuating this lie? The thought experiment was never supposed to be satirical.

>>5869143

Have you read the Jaynes paper?

>>5869143

If we interpret the wavefunction as a subjective probability and not as a physically real thing(i.e. what Niels Bohr actually intended), then the phenomenon of entanglement doesn't represent a physical process but logical inference, and Bell's Theorem doesn't really disprove local hidden variable after all.

See E. T. Jaynes' paper, "Clearing up Mysteries"

>>5870668

orly?

The pic related is C. W. Kilmeister, in the preface to General Relativity and Matter by Mendel Sachs.

>>5878864

>Have you read the Jaynes paper?

Sorry, this was meant for >>5868655

>>5861394
>it sounds absurd therefore it must be wrong

not sure if srs right now...

>>5878981
Whoever made that comic doesn't understand quantum mechanics.

it was merely a thought experiment commenting on how stupid quantum mechanics appears to be...

>>5880037

That was the purpose of the thought, experiment, however, to illustrate the seeming disconnect between things at the quantum scale and things at the macroscopic scale. A cat being both dead and alive *is* meant to be absurd, and the absurdity *is* meant to cast doubt on the concept of waves of probability.

>>5880037
That *was* the purpose of the thought experiment, however: to illustrate the seeming disconnect between things at the quantum scale and things at the macroscopic scale. A cat being both dead and alive *is* meant to be absurd, and the absurdity *is* meant to cast doubt on the concept of waves of probability.

>>5880037

That's actually EXACTLY what Schrodinger was saying in his gedankenexperiment.

It's like you don't even science history.

>>5868584
>
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
—Erwin Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)

>>5868584

You're on a physics and math board, if you don't know Schrodingers thought experiment you should get the fuck out

>>5880037

ha ha ha

good one

Philosophically speaking, this experiment is pure bung. The pointer readers give the correct results. If you have nothing attributed to the cat, you cannot give an answer. By providing a QM equivalent to an answer, you forgo knowing about it.

>>5880305
>>5880306
>>5880365
The comic depicts Schrodinger as having the correct explanation.

>>5880679

IIRC, there is no evidence that supports the Copenhagen Interpretation over any other interpretation. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

>>5880803

The thing is, most people think the Copenhagen Interpretation entails that wavefunction collapse is some sort of physical process, instead of a mental one(replacing a subjective probability with an objective measurement), which is contrary to Bohr's own statements on the issue.

>>5880925

Well, we still haven't found any interpretation that gives us a useful falsification that the others don't, so it's all pretty much philosophy at the moment.

And regardless of Niels Bohr's statements, I have run into PhDs who say that the Copenhagen interpretation is literal truth (although the way they describe it would make even the detector a method of collapsing the wave form, so they're likely mistaken).

>>5880950

Well of course none of the interpretations make different experimental predictions; after all, they all use the same formalism. The point is that the different interpretations make certain research programs seem more or less attractive. The subjective Copenhagen Interpretation allows us to reinterpret entanglement in such a way that it no longer causes Bell's Theorem to prohibit local hidden variables, which of course makes a local hidden variable theory much more attractive.

>>5880925
Of course the wave function collapse is a physical process. If you reject this fundamental assumption, you are rejecting the scientific method.

>>5882011

Please be joking.

The point of the EPR experiment was NOT to show that if certain experimental conditions are met, then the belief that the wavefunction is a physical process must be true/false; the point was to show that if we interpret the wavefunction and its collapse as physical entities, then we must conclude that superluminal effects were propagating, which EPR thought was a priori ridiculous.

Apparently to later generations of scientists, this belief in the physical reality of the wavefunction is so sacrosanct that they didn't even realize that that was what EPR was challenging, so they thought that if they experimentally confirmed QM with some experiments, they would prove Einstein was wrong, which completely misses the point.

Bell does not even assume hidden variables to begin with. He assumes that QM is local, derives hidden variables from that, and then derives the inequalities. Bell's position, as he has explicitly stated many times, has always been that QM is non-local -- hidden variables or no hidden variables.

Never in history has so much unintentional obfuscation clouded an issue so simple.

>>5862973

what about entropy...yeah...information about molecular complexes becomes increasingly dispersed

>>5882451

In a deterministic system(like an ordinary differential equation, or a field of vectors on a manifold), information is always conserved. The equations of classical mechanics are deterministic, so in reality no information is destroyed in any process that uses gasses that follow the classical kinetic theory.

Information only seems to be created out of thin air in quantum mechanics because we assume that the non-deterministic phenomenon of "wavefunction collapse" is a physical process and thus the ultimate limit of knowledge on the subject. If it is not(and assuming it is requires the belief in superluminal signals, rather than vice versa), then it is only an incomplete description of a deeper mechanics, and because it is incomplete it is "leaky" with regards to information.

Similarly to the wave function in QM, the information and entropy of thermodynamics are not in fact real physical quantities(they can't be directly measured by an apparatus like a thermometer), but subjective entities. They are abstractions with some level of arbitrariness in their definition(Gibbs' paradox). Unlike QM, the deeper level of reality that thermodynamics is laid on top of is obvious: the classical mechanics of molecules and atoms.

Information is always subjective. By definition, it is the subject's experience(i.e. knowledge) of the object(reality). Which deterministic theory is best in describing reality is always a choice with subjective components, but the good thing about deterministic theories is that they keep all of the subjectivity in the choice of theory, and not in the theories themselves. Thus, they naturally make more predictions and are more falsifiable.

Jaynes, being a Bayesian statistical theorist by trade, naturally also published a paper on this subject:

http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/gibbs.paradox.pdf

Here's his paper on Bell's Theorem:

http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf

> According to Schrodinger, the cat is both dead and alive because no one can observe the result and determine it
NO. THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. A CAT IS A MACROSCOPIC SYSTEM.

>>5877648

It ain't physics.

>>5882401

But doesnt QM being nonlocal imply that tbe wavefunction can be a physical entity?

>>5882817

The converse is true, but I'm not sure about that.

>>5882817

I just realized that you probably misunderstood my argument.

EPR assumed that QM made correct predictions, and that the wavefunction was physical, and showed that this lead to superluminal communication. They intended for people to doubt the wavefunction part, not the empirical predictions of QM.

Bell assumed that the wavefunction is physical, and locality, and showed that this conflicts with experimental evidence(excluding loopholes). If he didn't not assume that the wavefunction is physical, then some of his probability factorizations are not kosher: this is the point of Jaynes' paper.

Because Jaynes showed that Bell's Theorem is dependent on the assumption that the wave function is physical, it can be said that in short:

Einstein showed that if we assume the wavefunction is physical, then there must be superluminal signalling, and concluded that the wavefunction cannot be physical.

Bell showed that if we assume the wavefunction is physical, then there must be superluminal signalling, and concluded that there must be superluminal signalling.

It really is that simple.

>>5882401
>>5882674
You keep asserting that the wave function collapse is "not a physical process". This means denying science and the scientific method. It IS a physical process irregardless of whether you understand it or not. If you want to believe in supernatural magic instead, you are wrong on a science board.

>Information is always subjective.
Bullshit. Information is by definition objective.

>>5884128

If you prove that there is no such thing as a five sided triangle, and thus no that there are no five sided triangles even at distances spacelike separated from you, does that mean you received a superluminal signal from the rest of the universe?

Hey guys. I think Schrödinger's cat is about a cat.

4chan

>>5884138
That completely vacuous and nonsensical example could not be more unnecessary. I am always receiving superluminal signals. Your remarkable ignorance about the bulk of physics is showing. Do you even understand Bell's theorem?

>>5883096

So you're suggesting local hidden variables? I'm not sure what your getting at.

>>5883096

I should have phrased it in another way. If QM is nonlocal, and there is a staggering amount of evidence that this is the case, then the possibility of the wavefunction being a physical entity is not ruled out

>>5884841

A) The position that is currently accepted as the orthodox was not held by either Einstein or Bohr, and has no business calling itself "The Copenhagen Interpretation".

B) EPR's argument was not that some sort of unspecified hidden variables were preferable to accepting the wavefunction as the best we can do; In fact, it was much more cutting. Their argument was that denying hidden variables implies nonlocality! Quite the opposite from what we are normally taught, but it is true.

In EPR, the choice is not between a local wavefunction and nonlocal hidden variables, as Bell's Theorem seems to suggest. In reality, the choice is between local hidden variables and a nonlocal wavefunction.

>>5884851

Whatever evidence you speak of, it certainly can't be empirical evidence, because that's not what either I or Einstein were disputing. We accept that the empirical predictions of QM are accurate. There are simply two different ways of interpretation the same formalism: one which allows for locality and hidden variables, and another which denies hidden variables and by extension locality.

"Most proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation have considered this reduction as a mere increase of knowledge (a transition from the potential to the actual), therefore denying that the wave function is a kinematical concept and thus affected by dynamics. The assumption of a dynamical collapse would definitely be in conflict with Bohr’s ideas of complementarity which forbid a physical analysis of the measurement process." - http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0210152

Now here the authors use the moniker "Copenhagen Interpretation" the way I think it should be used, i.e., what Bohr really meant.

"Reduction of the wave packet as a formal rule without dynamical significance"

If the process of wavefunction collapse at one of the detectors in the EPR experiments is, in fact, a purely formal rule without dynamical significance, then the fact that we can infer the spin of the particle at the other detector is also purely formal.

"let us stress that EPR did not question the existence of correlations, which are to be expected in the classical theory. INDEED, WERE THE CORRELATIONS ABSENT, THEIR ARGUMENT AGAINST THE QM FORMALISM WOULD HAVE FAILED." - http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf

Shocking, isn't it?

>>5884805

>I am always receiving superluminal signals.

If you take the orthodox, and completely incorrect view, of Bell's Theorem, then that could only mean you believe in a non local hidden variables theory.

>>5884982

The screenshots seem to imply not local hidden variables or a nonlocal wavefunction, but that "spooky action at a distance" is just a logical inference of the state of the second particle, which I can agree with. Whether this also implies local hidden variables or a nonlocal wavefunction seems to be the preference of the reader.

I really need to read these papers before I say anything else

>>5884128

What leads you to believe wavefunction collapse really is a physical process?

>>5877640
It's pretty much bullshit. Quantum effects in the brain are swamped by thermal noise.

>>5885004
If there's one thing this discussion has convinced me of, it's that I'm going to stick with the Everett interpretation.

>>5861383
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME! STOP TAKING SCHRODINGERS CAT LITERALLY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

>>5885622
why? are you in possession of some knowledge no physicist in the field of quantum mechanics has? do you know which interpretation is the correct one? why haven't you published it yet? dont you want the noble price?

>>5885637
>noble price
double fail!

>>5885622
EK, you don't understand quantum mechanics. You don't even understand middle school trigonometry. Please leave this thread to the people who do.

>>5885643

>>5885642
>autism

>>5885487

Yes! Someone who gets it!

What I don't understand is why a group of people who pride themselves on being hardnosed realists would invoke superluminal causation if it was shown to be unnecessary, especially when the alternative has profound theoretical and practical implications.

>>5861442
An interaction with the system that perturbs it

>>5882674
>http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf

I agree with much of the other stuff Jaynes has to say here, but he has not shown a way to construct a local hidden-variable theory.

Jaynes' problem is that he does not understand how Bell gets from
<div class="math">P(A|Bab\lambda) P(B|ab\lambda)</div>to
<div class="math">P(A|a\lambda) P(B|b\lambda).</div>This is justified in a local hidden-variable theory because <span class="math">\lambda[/spoiler] by definition describes everything that physically influences both the instruments measuring A and the instruments measuring B. Once you know <span class="math">\lambda[/spoiler], there is no way to gain additional information about A from B or b. Similarly, once you know <span class="math">\lambda[/spoiler], there is no way to get additional information about B from A or a.

Jaynes gives what he believes is a counterexample to Bell's reasoning involving balls drawn from an urn, but his counterexample is not justified. He claims Bell's reasoning leads one to conclude <span class="math">P(R_1|R_2,I) = P(R_1|I)[/spoiler], or in words, that the color of the second ball drawn from the urn does not provide information on the color of the first ball drawn. However, his variable <span class="math">I[/spoiler] (the initial experimental setup) does not encompass all common physical influences on <span class="math">R_1[/spoiler] and <span class="math">R_2[/spoiler] (whether the balls drawn are red). It is obvious that there is an additional influence on <span class="math">R_2[/spoiler] from <span class="math">R_1[/spoiler]. Bell's reasoning would justify concluding that <span class="math">P(R_1|R_1,R_2,I) = P(R_1|R_1,I)[/spoiler], but this result is trivial.

Jaynes' thoughts on time-varying hidden variables do not add anything. Perhaps he was under the mistaken impression that <span class="math">\lambda[/spoiler] must be a single real number, but nothing in Bell's argument requires this. You can make the set of variables needed to fully describe the common influences on both detectors as complicated as you want, and Bell's inequality will still follow.

The "I" in his paper does not even make any sense. The author appears to have no concept of what conditional independence and parameter dependence mean either.

The "time-variation" of variables implies either a corrupt and misleading experimental design or nonlocality.

>>5886213

>Perhaps he was under the mistaken impression that lambda must be a single real number,

I know that wasn't the case, he refers to it as "a set of variables collectively referred to as \lambda".

I'm also currently reading http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059, and I will think more about a response to your objections when I get up in the morning.

I first started to become really interested in physics when I read about Maxwell's equations and continuum mechanics, and later relativity, so I will always have a very 19th/early 20th century view of the subject. I have to admit, my personal prejudices and biases line right up with Jaynes', so I think his argument is too convenient not to be right.

>>5882674
>In a deterministic system(like an ordinary differential equation, or a field of vectors on a manifold), information is always conserved.
No, the heat equation is deterministic and doesn't conserve information.

>>5861383
>your-e-cards
fucking disgusting

>>5885925
Who is the person in the picture? Is she a scientist?

Someone is bumping 40 threads twice a day.
Note the post times of:
>>5864112 >>5864880 >>5865964 >>5866792 >>5867918 >>5869143
>>5870668 >>5871394 >>5873170 >>5873760 >>5875344 >>5876163
>>5877640 >>5878835 >>5880037 >>5880679 >>5882011 >>5882674
>>5884128 >>5884805 >>5886213 >>5887303 >>5888809
The threads being bumped:
>>5858447 >>5861383 >>5862983 >>5863249 >>5865823 >>5866853
>>5867452 >>5867640 >>5868097 >>5868460 >>5868538 >>5869504
>>5869595 >>5869759 >>5869946 >>5872951 >>5873166 >>5873829
>>5874378 >>5874727 >>5875025 >>5876410 >>5876819 >>5878449
>>5878607 >>5878684 >>5878722 >>5879148 >>5880041 >>5880453
>>5880775 >>5881738 >>5883678 >>5883998 >>5884070 >>5884116
>>5884625 >>5884717 >>5885183 >>5885545
Write to moot@4chan.org if you want it to stop.

Someone is keeping at least 36 threads like this alive
by bumping them twice a day. Compare the post times of
>>5864112 >>5864880 >>5865964 >>5866792 >>5867918 >>5869143
>>5870668 >>5871394 >>5873170 >>5873760 >>5875344 >>5876163
>>5877640 >>5878835 >>5880037 >>5882011 >>5882674 >>5884128
>>5884805 >>5887303 >>5888809
to the post times in other threads.
It's clear most of these are the same person.
The threads being bumped:
>>5858447 >>5861383 >>5862983 >>5863249 >>5865823 >>5866853
>>5867452 >>5867640 >>5868097 >>5868460 >>5868538 >>5869504
>>5869595 >>5869759 >>5869946 >>5872951 >>5873166 >>5873829
>>5874378 >>5874727 >>5875025 >>5876410 >>5876819 >>5878449
>>5878607 >>5878684 >>5878722 >>5880041 >>5880453 >>5880775
>>5881738 >>5883998 >>5884116 >>5884625 >>5884717 >>5885545
Write to moot@4chan.org if you want it to stop.

Someone is keeping at least 36 threads like this alive
by bumping them twice a day. Compare the post times of
>>5864112 >>5864880 >>5865964 >>5866792 >>5867918 >>5869143
>>5870668 >>5871394 >>5873170 >>5873760 >>5875344 >>5876163
>>5877640 >>5878835 >>5880037 >>5882011 >>5884805 >>5887303
>>5888809
to the post times in other threads.
It's clear most of these are the same person.
The threads being bumped:
>>5858447 >>5861383 >>5862983 >>5863249 >>5865823 >>5866853
>>5867452 >>5867640 >>5868097 >>5868460 >>5868538 >>5869504
>>5869595 >>5869759 >>5869946 >>5872951 >>5873166 >>5873829
>>5874378 >>5874727 >>5875025 >>5876410 >>5876819 >>5878449
>>5878607 >>5878684 >>5878722 >>5880041 >>5880453 >>5880775
>>5881738 >>5883998 >>5884116 >>5884625 >>5884717 >>5885545
Write to moot@4chan.org if you want it to stop.

Someone has been keeping at least 35 threads alive
by bumping them twice a day. Compare the post times of
>>5864112 >>5864880 >>5865964 >>5866792 >>5867918 >>5869143
>>5870668 >>5871394 >>5873170 >>5873760 >>5875344 >>5876163
>>5877640 >>5878835 >>5880037 >>5882011 >>5884805 >>5887303
>>5888809
to the post times in other threads.
It's clear most of these are the same person.
The threads being bumped:
>>5858447 >>5861383 >>5862983 >>5863249 >>5865823 >>5866853
>>5867452 >>5867640 >>5868097 >>5868460 >>5868538 >>5869504
>>5869595 >>5869759 >>5869946 >>5872951 >>5873166 >>5873829
>>5874378 >>5874727 >>5875025 >>5876410 >>5876819 >>5878449
>>5878607 >>5878684 >>5878722 >>5880041 >>5880453 >>5880775
>>5881738 >>5883998 >>5884116 >>5884625 >>5885545
Write to moot@4chan.org if you want it to stop.

>>5885622
Why did you steal my image, you vile, analphabetic, anti-intellectual slut?

>>5889587
lol, bumpfaggot owned by EK

>>5887766
Isn't that a contradiction?

>>5882674
>like an ordinary differential equation, or a field of vectors on a manifold
Neither of these are always deterministic.

>>5891323
Unless you explicitly define them to be non-deterministic, they are by default demernistic.

Nice of you EK, provoking everybody to hate you and then becomes frustrated because everybody hates you. ibcdici snow

>>5893013
The initial value problem
<div class="math">u'(t)=\sqrt{u(t)}</div>
<div class="math">u(0)=0</div>

is nondeterministic as it has infinite many solutions.

>>5893033
>it has infinite many solutions
Infinity does not exist.

Isn't Schrodinger's cat just a thought experiment to show you that you cannot mix Newtonian physics with Quantum Mechanics or whatever?

>>5893781
Actually it shows that Newtonian physics is only an approximation of quantum mechanics.

>>5893033
Given an initial value, the solution is uniquely determined. Sounds pretty deterministic to me.

>>5895735
>Given an initial value, the solution is uniquely determined
It isn't.

>>5895789
Do you even differential equations?

>>5864142
Durr. How could you know if reality exists outside of your observation?

>>5861394
Wow, I was going to make a full length ragepost, but that sums up my frustration pretty nicely.

God, I hate people like OP. Stop "philosophizing" and acting pseudo-intelligent about stuff you clearly don't know anything about except for what you saw in a youtube flash animation created by a person who is almost as clueless as you

>>5889327
I've been noticing that too btw.

>>5897000
For every <span class="math">c \geq 0[/spoiler] pic related is a solution of the intial value problem >>5893033

>>5897021
If it cannot be measured, it does not exist.

>>5897094
After choosing the constants it's still deterministic.

>>5899297
A die roll also isn't deterministic after you have looked at the result.

>>5899337
>die roll
Those are always deterministic.

>>5899825
No, they are probabilistic if you make the dice smaller than a quantum wave function.

>>5901021
How small is that?

>>5901849
Approximately the size of a cat.

>>5885622
This article is hard to understand and I am a visual learner. Are there any clear videos summarizing the topic?

>>5903973
>Are there any clear videos summarizing the topic?

This video is pretty good. It requires an advanced understanding of quantum physics though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=i1YzFLy44ZM

>>5905467
What an excellent video. I hope to learn enough quantum physics to fully appreciate it.

>>5906267
It might take years to learn the quantum physics in the video. But don't give up. With hard work anyone can do it. Think of Feynman who had an IQ in the retard range but managed to win a noble prize.

>>5907919
Thank you for the support.

Is scientific method applicable to quantum mechanics?

>>5910139
No, I don't think so. Most of it cannot be measured with certainty.

>>5911878
What level of certainty is required for science?

>>5912839
100%

You have been visited by the Spooky Skeleton!
Repost this to 3 other threads or your mom will die in the next 24 hours.
█████████████████████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░█████
███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
██░░▓▓░░░░░░░░░▓▓░░██
██░░▓▓▓▓░░░░░▓▓▓▓░░██
██░░░░░░░░▓░░░░░░░░██
███░░░░░░▓▓▓░░░░░░███
█████░░░░░░░░░░░█████
█████░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░█████
█████░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░█████

>>5912839
Depends on the science. In biology less than in physics.

It cannot be solved. It's a paradox.

>>5914198
Quantum mechanics only requires a 33.34% level of certainty.

>>5861383

do you actually know anything about quantum physics, or are you just trolling?

if it's the former, then i'll just say you're wrong, and leave it at that.

>>5919103
I'm not the OP but I happen to know a lot about quantum mechanics and I don't see anything wrong with her post. Can you explain what's wrong?

>>5917442
There are no paradoxes in the real world.

>>5921186
Paradox means when math doesn't work out in the real world.

>>5922201
That makes sense. After all mathematics is only an approximation.

>>5923130
Can we find a better approximation?

>>5924090
How would we measure the quality of an approximation without using math?

>>5925440
By using science.

>>5926424
What scientific experiment should we perform?

>>5927361
FTL travel.

>>5929232
Can we do it by harnessing the power of neutrinos?

>>5930927
Gravitrons brah, Gravitrons.

>>5930937
What do those do?

>>5930937
>Gravitrons
>trons

>>5932198
They cause gravitry (not to be confused with gravity).

>>5933682
Is this the sixth fundamental force?

>>5934743
Maybe.

>>5861395
>scenario is singular
>Do it like potato
-> scenarioes

>>5862996
> Interpreting scientific discoveries is useless
> I'll just go back to being a superior data monkey
> la euphoria

Neuroscience doctoral student here, but always been more interested philosophically in theoretical physics. So there are a lot of questions here about the cat observing himself, where reality is objective or subjective, etc.
Here's a question that I haven't heard before though. Imagine things from the point of view of the cat in the box. Actually let's say it's a scientist in the box. Schrodinger's thought experiment would still apply, and the question of whether the scientist inside the box would be alive or dead, or both. What about how the scientist INSIDE the box determines reality OUTSIDE the box. From the scientist's perspective, the outside reality is in a box itself, since it is a closed system. So to the scientist observer inside the box, would reality outside his box be in a state of superposition? One might see this reality as being in an in-between state of all possible universes at that point in time. I'd like to know your thoughts.

>>5936346
>>every one else in this thread

The superposition of the cat being alive and being dead simply represents the fact that until someone opens the box, nobody outside of the box knows if the cat is alive or dead. There is a chance that it is alive and there is a chance that it is dead, and so both possibilities are accounted for.

Ffs, stop overthinking this. The interpretation is simple. Physical models predict what we will observe. In cases where we have not yet observed, superposition is used to accommodate different possibilities if they exist. Until someone opens the box, we don't know what's going on with the cat. The cat itself is not in some metaphysical limbo waiting for someone to open the box and determine if it's alive. If the poison was released, then it's dead and it's been dead since it was release, otherwise it's alive.

The whole fucking collapse is relative to the observer because the observe lacks certain knowledge up to that point. Once the knowledge is certain, the other possibilities are discarded and the superposed state (consisting of multiple possibilities) "collapses" to one single state representing the now certain state of the cat.

Ffs, why spend so much time musing over shit instead of actually studying it. There are fucktons of introductory books for quantum mechanics.

Seriously? This thread again?

The collapse of the wave function happens as soon as one of the radioactive atoms decays. It's a quantum event, and as soon as it happens, the cat is doomed (if it happens). The whole point is that the quantum world behaves differently from the macroscopic world, and this is an analogy that attempts to describe the quantum world in a more tangible macroscopic setting. The cat would never be in a superposition of both alive and dead. I know what was said by Schrodinger, but the Copenhagen interpretation, for the quantum world, is the most likely correct interpretation... obviously for the macroscopic world it's absurd, but it doesn't apply to the macroscopic world because, well, in a living organism you have all sorts of chemical reactions going on constantly (and even in inanimate matter, there is a preponderance of activity, atoms constantly jostling around, effecting other atoms around them), the exchange of energy and electrons constitutes the collapse of countless wave functions, none of which have anything to do with the radioactive material, but they DO help to maintain a certain macroscopic realness to the cat (or any other macroscopic object).

>>5936346
I despise you. I bet you're that faggot at SfN who didn't know what an NMDA receptor was

>>5936400
This sort of interpretation doesn't really allow for Berry's phase interference experiments or things like the Ahranov-Bohm effect since they inherently require interference between the states in the superposition.

As for the reason the thought experiment has an absurd conclusion is that the cat is a macroscopic object whose superposition states decay away far faster than other timescale involved. Thus, the cat acts as a classical detector to the apparatus requiring the cat be either alive or dead and thus the atom to have decayed or not.

>>5936400
You are a moron. Your first statement is completely long. The paradox comes from the fact that there is no wavefunction collapse before observation. My example is the same as this, but you were too dumb to get it. For the scientist inside the box, the outside is a closed box to him. Fucking dipshit.
>>5936432
You too. You are just trying to name drop SfN to sound like you have credentials. I've been discussing metaphysical topics with many leading scientists at the Santa Fe Institute where I attend. Please only respond if you understand this very simple concept. Everything outside the box, from the observer's point of view, is uncollapsed.

This thread is a month old.

>>5936615
>there is no wavefunction collapse before observation

How do you know?

>>5861383
Schrödinger was wrong, the observer is neither cat nor the scientist.
The observer is the Geiger counter measuring the state of the atom and thus keeping the wavefunction collapsed.
The cat is first 100% alive and sometime later it's 100% dead.

Also regarding the cat observing itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

>>5937641
Schrödinger's cat is just like zero is in math: IT DOESN'T EXIST and serves only to facilitate the thought process.

>>5937655
My point was that the cat was never in the superposition Schrödinger thought it would be in.
The experiment was intended to be a reductio ad absurdum because the cat would be simultaneously dead and alive which seems paradoxical.

Also Zero does not exist any less than any other number.

>>5937700
that's where you're wrong. If you really understand why 0.999... equals 1, you should notice that as well.

>>5937655
>implying the other numbers do "exist"

>>5937700
Define "exist"

>>5937714

I'm going to go with satisfying a statement with an existential quantifier.

>>5861383
You're not getting the point of the thought experiment.
It's not really about the fucking cat, it's about quantum physics you pleb.

>>5937714
The definition of existence is irrelevant in this context, my point was that the the state of existance of the number "0" is the the same as that of any other number.

>>5937707
Nonterminating duplicates of real numbers are siply a redundant feature of numeral systems and has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of any number

>>5937728

The cat was not paying attention.

>>5937745
It is exactly the same thing: you're extrapolating reality creating an anomaly and by doing that you can get real and replicable results!

>>5937765
Where am I creating an anomaly?

>>5937775
The cat and the zero are things that have no reason to be part of the studies, but by having them, you can discover new things you couldn't without them.

>>5937786
Your statement is contradictory, if something allows for new discoveries, then it's relevant("has reason to be part of the studies").
Also Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment and zero is a concept, they are incomparable.

>>5937802

What if there are ZERO cats in the box?

>>5937808
Then you have a box which will, sometime after the start of the experiment, be filled with poison gas.

>>5861383
you the stupid ass hat in my summer chem class who asked this a week ago arent you???? fucking kill yourself you BBT FAGGOT!

If I open the box without looking inside, does the wave function collapse?

>>5939367
Nope. Wavefunction collapse depends on a conscious, sentient observer.

But quantum mechanics can tell if you peek, so you can't cheat.

>chem class
>Talking about quantum mechanics

read this wiki on "The Copenhagen Interpretation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

I prefer Schrodinger's Lady boy...
At the bar from a distance, it could be a boy or a girl. But until you take a measurement (whether it be lifting the skirt or otherwise 'probing' it), you can't be sure. However, once probed, you will know it's gender (hopefully) and the wavefunction collapses... Now the question is... do you really want to take that measurement?

>>5939432
Nobody uses the Copenhagen "interpretation" anymore. Many worlds is better.

>>5939482
>do you really want to take that measurement?

No, I do not want.

>>5864142
sorry plebs i co=sign this man/ you arent special and neither is anyone else. now fuck off and funk about your own self loaded enigma

>>5861383
If I had a dollar for every time someone thought Schrodinger's cat was about "reality" and sight observation and not the limitations of measurement instruments in labs I would safely bet I would have well over a billion dollars

>>5943369
Within the realm of accepted physical processes, it is not a limitation arising from measurement instruments, but a fuzzyness inherent in reality. It is possible that the fuzzyness is entirely an illusion arising from limited measurement tools and there is an entirely non-probabilistic, non-local mechanics underlying everything, but there is nothing to really support such a conjecture beyond wistful thinking.

I don't believe in quantum physics. I want to see how the world really works. Why wasting time on some jewish physics that is made to serve the purpose of confusing your head? Please tell me.

>>5943827
>I don't believe in quantum physics
That's okay, there's still a productive life ahead of you in the church or cleaning toilets.

>>5943888
Ad hominem. You lost. If you don't have anything to say about the subject, it's better keep you mouth shut.

>>5943955
Because this
>Why wasting time on some jewish physics that is made to serve the purpose of confusing your head?
was totally legit and relevant science talk.

We know quantum physics works. If it didn't, these machines we're on wouldn't work and I didn't have to suffer the feeling of my optical receptors being bombarded by the photons that your inane shit shot off the monitor.

>>5861383
Heo op, maximum brofist, i agree 100% and i thought this myself years ago.

>Therefore, we all live in separate "universes" from one another. Two people observing each-other would mean their two universes are coinciding. This has to occur in a dimension transcendent to our own, a "multiverse". But who is to observe that? Some sentient, transcendent being, right?

But i didn't thought about this, awesome!

>>5943958
>If it didn't, these machines we're on wouldn't work

Our machines work on classical mechanics and electrodynamics, not on QM. We don't have quantum computers yet.

>>5944432

here's some popsci you can understand:

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-real-world-applications-of-quantum-mechanics.htm

>>5944466
>four or five plausible applications and the rest is scifi
shiggy diggy

>>5944541
I count five, too. The rest are bull.

>>5944466
None of these is used IRL and most of them are still speculation.

>>5944466
>2. Instantaneous Communication
>1. Teleportation
lost all creditability there. do these people even know the basics of QM?

"Observation determines reality" is one of the biggest assumptions anyone has ever made, on par with the existence of a deity.

That being said, it is a fun thing to speculate about.

and people think philosophy is insignificant. my sides.

>>5880679
Does it really?

>>5946637

Jonathan Atteberry hasn't got a vague goddamn clue.

10 He retroactively credits QM for basic electronics research.
9 He includes a 'simulated' material and implies broad usage, before the fact.
8 He notes that it is a detriment that needs technological fixing; no benefit noted at all.
7 He credits another not-realized promise, then oddly also discredits it's major advantage.
6 A genuinely used application which exists, but a rather silly premise for why it is important.
5 Again, credits modern understanding of a topic by retroactively giving credit to QM.
4 A technical application with nearly no importance?
(Mention of the bullshit "Moore's Vague conjecture"
3 Another unrealized vague tech note
2 Arguably invalid future promise again
1 Arguably invalid AND requires massive other techs.

This guy can't be a science writer; this list barely had any understanding of the science.

This is Wigner's friend paradox all the way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

>tardigrade

You know, given that they can survive all sorts of shit, I think that exposure to an open flame would still kill them. They're immune to heat, sure, but even bacteria that live in Yellowstone die to fire. Its the oxidization that destroys them.

Fuck this shit.

>>5946861
I fail to see how tardigrades relate to this thread.

>>5946664
This is a question of science, not philosophy

>>5949235
Those are the same thing.

>>5946861
>they're immune to heat
>flame kills them
you're retarded

>>5878981

Son, you religious or something?

>>5946808
OP was talking about Schrodinger's cat, not about Wigner's cat.

>>5882702
That's your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, anything below the scale of stars is microscopic.

>>5861383
I don't believe that observation determines reality. Reality is constant, and the observation is just that - observation, it has no effect on reality. So the cat is either alive or dead, one or the other is assured, even if we don't know which. Just like a tree falling in the forest. Based on all other evidence, we must conclude it will make a sound, even if we do not witness it. Reality is constant, observation is simply defining the variables within that constant.

>>5861383
ask warrant officer Schrödinger

>>5951281
What if atoms are like stars in small dimensions?

>>5861395
>scenarii
faggot

>>5953565
He's not just a faggot, he's wrong. "Scenarii" is an incorrect plural because the word "scenario" isn't Latin.

>>5861383
you're not the cat it doesn't matter

if the cat in the box is dead and alive at the same time, and you open the box and the cat is still alive, then how could the cat have been dead? did it return from the afterlife as a zombie cat?

or is schrodingers cat just a very difficult way to say that we simply can't know?

>>5861383

i'm not going to bother reading through 200+ posts of shit, but in case it hasn't been mentioned,

the cat doesn't know when it's going to be observed; for the same reason that he scientists don't know if the cat will be dead or alive

so the cat won't know it's dead or alive when it is observed until it happens (same conclusion as when the scientists actually look at it)

>>5939419
Chemistry uses a lot of quantum physics.
>just leave earth science major

>>5897062

Do you really think /sci/ is visited only by people who are already studied experts in their respective fields? What would be the purpose? To state what they already know and is readily available to anyone?

Stop being an asshole to people who are only trying to learn.

>>5861394
/thread

>>5955399
>Do you really think /sci/ is visited only by people who are already studied experts in their respective fields?

Yes.

>>5955399
>What would be the purpose? To state what they already know and is readily available to anyone?

To discuss cutting edge research contents.

>>5955407
You should read the thread before posting. It has been explained why the picture was wrong.

>>5955407
Why would you say something like that? The picture does not answer OP's question.