/sci/ - Science & Math

This is gonna be fun.
Monitoring.

I thought the main argument against non-locality is that it requires violating causality.

>>6037052

Fight me IRL you faggot

Bell's theorem.

>>6037088
Entanglement require non-locality and it is accepted by SC.

Causality is overrated, welcome to 21th century physics Heisenold.

>>6037098
Glad you know how to use wikipedia.
Though if you read OP, Bell is irrelevant by definition in this argument.
If you were smart i wouldn't be explaining this to you.

>implying /sci/ knows anything besides homework and baby tier philosophy.

It's convenient to see quantum physics as something inherently random and probabilistic, but that's really just the mathematical part.

The principle of cause and effect is still at work, we just can't see it because we're humans who naturally aren't able to perceive every existing thing in a way that would make us understand.

>>6037106
tl;dr
sorry

>>6037052

No one is claiming particles behave entirely at random...you have a certain probability of finding one at a particular location because all matter is a wave (deBroglie) as well as a particle -- the position is not chosen uniformly at random which would be what you're implying. This would all be very clear to you if you had ever taken a physics course besides Business Physics or whatever you fags take these days.

>>6037052
Gr8 b8 m8 ill r8 8/8 plz no h8

You say "not entirely random".
So you say some of it is random?
As in true randomness? which is more fake than unicorn.

>>6037101
>Entanglement require non-locality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

>>6037117
Mostly this. Nobody thinks that particles are "random"; the probability is in the map, not the territory. I don't believe that non-locality is the answer for entanglement, but yes, I agree with you about hidden factors.

>obligatory lesswrong sequence: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/

>>6037128
goes to:
>>6037117

>>6037115
So what you're saying is that you don't have any empirical evidence whatsoever for there being deterministic variables which cause microscopic particles to behave as though they were randomly sampled from theoretically predicted probability distributions.

But you believe that's the case anyway.

/lit/ is that way , kid.

You all do realize that neither determinism nor true randomness works eventually, right?

>causality
>determinism
>randomness


Poor physics majors, they bloated your minds with buzzwords and you actually think you know your shit.

>>6037146
This. Both are social constructs.

>>6037138
Not him but you're misinterpreting his words.

>>6037152

this, die cis scum

>>6037128
One of the quantum postulates states that there exists an expectation value for any operator that corresponds to the average value that will be measure for a measurable quantity. Meaning there are different, discrete values that you will over time you will end up measuring at a certain ratio based on their probability. How the hell is that random? Sure, one single, isolated measurement might appear random. Nobody, however, is claiming that LOL THINGS HAPPEN AT RANDOM!

Particles have properties that have no physical analogue on our level of experience. We have useful models, but we also understand that they have limitations and a paradigm shift could come at any time. Anyone who claims that we have near a full picture is obviously not a mature member of the scientific community. You're arguing things that sophomore level STEM students and armchair nerds would claim.

In other words no.

>>6037166
Am with you on that.
But famous physicists and pop science and almost everything suggests the opposite.


Friends that study engineering and whatnot again suggested the popular myth that lelrandumb is a valid theory, they said their teachers, books, etc all agree on that.

I couldn't take their word for it.
Am not a physicist obviously, but given the basic premises of the main QM concepts the claim that particles are absolutely random at their core seem completely off to me.


For example look at this guy from the get go:
>>6037098
He uses "Bell's theorem" to prove that randomness is the correct view.
These kind of guys just parrot whatever shit that is shoved into their asses which was the reason i kinda fedora'd all over the place.

>>6037166
Bitches be like " Oh, duh Higgs Boson filled teh Standard Model, nigga we b known' everthin bout all da elementary particles of da fukin universe beeyatch ".

Our instruments used to observe particles are still evolving. We simply don't have the means to know or confirm everything about particle behavior for sure without doubt. So until then you can keep bitching on how modern science is so perfect pls.
Oh and btw, I'm joking about the Higgs Boson.

>>6037052
Hmm, I don't think you understand. It's a set of conclusions based on empirical observation, philosophizing be damned.
>Muh doesn't sound feasible
Well, understanding it's bonkers is a start. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

>>6037138
>>6037166
>>6037152
>>6037189
>>6037131

Actually, absolute randomness AND determinism must eventually be false for anything to exist.
If anyone is up for the "debate" i'll explain why.

>>6037166
>You're arguing things that sophomore level STEM students and armchair nerds would claim.

Like every other post on /sci/

>>6037199
Enlighten us waifu faggot

>>6037101
Entanglement doesn't send information faster than light retard

>>6037253
Yes i know, one of the first things in the intro to pop-QM.
You don't understand the implication of mine or your post.

>>6037276
The fact that you think QE violates causality means you only have a casual understanding of it

>>6037166
>he thinks new paradigm just come around and respect the old ones
Oh child. Physical laws don't just come and go like the fashionable idea du jour. Every theory must reduce to Newtonian mechanics at the macro scale.
In the same fashion every underlying theory has to reduce to quantum mechanics at the nano scale.
>Anyone who claims that we have near a full picture
Thankfully, nobody did that. Now it would be fantastic if you could apply that same skepticism to your own preconceived ideas.

>>6037189
>These kind of guys just parrot whatever
Or maybe you just don't understand the first thing about the topic you are trying to discuss.
"we do have such instruments that allows us to detect any variable that can affect the particles", are you serious? This is not the idea at all behind Aspect experiments.

>>6037280
I don't think that.
What i think is that you lack reading comprehension.

>>6037321
Yes you do.
inb4 some inane nonsense about your misunderstanding of non-locality.

>>6037311
>Every theory must reduce to Newtonian mechanics at the macro scale.
Yes, that's why GR predicts that elliptical orbits will not precess.

>>6037331
At the macro, low-speed, human scale.

>>6037341
>At the macro, low-speed, human scale.
...where lasers don't work.

>>6037324
No i don't, friend.
I know exactly where you got that impression though, that's why i insist on your lack of reading ability.

>>6037195

I love how /sci/ faggots will always say science is cray when you delve into it deeply enough, but they'll be the first to blast Occam's Razor on anyone else.

Makes my balls hot thinking about how autistic they are and don't actually know it.

>>6037347
Newtonian mechanics don't really make predictions about lasers, silly.

>>6037349
>I know exactly where you got that impression though
From the fact that you wrote "Entanglement require non-locality"
Yeah, honest mistake, ain't it?

>>6037052
>2013
>Not understanding science
>Writing rant about something so wrong it's laughable
>ISHYDDT

3/10 for getting me to post

>>6037352

That's because we don't know what the fuck gravity is, or if our idea of how it works is completely accurate.

>everything must work with Newtonian Mechanics on the macro scale

Jesus what a ginormous faggot.

>>6037368
Yes, both QM and GR laws converges to Newtonian laws at the macro low-energy human scale.
Because they work really fucking well and every new theory has to account for that.

2/10 for failing to grasp the basics of the correspondence principle.

>>6037373


>they work really fucking well

We need singularities, dark matter, and dark energy to make it all work.

Jesus what a ginormous faggot.

>>6037375
>singularities, dark matter, and dark energy
>human scale
>low energy
Now it's a 1/10.

>>6037311
>Physical laws don't just come and go like the fashionable idea du jour.

So QM has always been around, eh?

>>6037391
You can derive newtonian mechanics at our scale from QM. You'll learn that once you drop whatever blog you've been reading and open a QM book.
Thanks for trying though.

>>6037373
>QM and GR laws converges to Newtonian laws at the macro low-energy human scale
That's not really true, and you have to fudge so many things to make this claim that it smacks of willful intellectual dishonesty.

Tell me some more about how QM "converges to" Newton's law of universal gravitation at the "macro low-energy human scale".

>>6037394
QM as it is doesn't make predictions about gravity silly.

However, any quantum theory of gravitation has to reduce to Newton's law at our scale, it is obvious and well understood by everyone researching it.

>>6037395
And can you derive QM from Newtonian, you insufferable asshole? We expand our models, and we amend them, we don't just throw them out.

So what the fuck are my preconceived notions? That we might make discoveries that add to our models of matter and energy? What are you even trying to say?

>>6037407
>And can you derive QM from Newtonian
No. I have a feeling you didn't understand a single thing.

>>6037407
>We expand our models, and we amend them, we don't just throw them out.
Nevermind my previous post, you actually got it!
Bravo.

>>6037399
>any quantum theory of gravitation has to reduce to Newton's law at our scale

>any quantum theory of gravitation has to approximate those predictions of Newton's law which have been shown to be reasonably accurate

These are not even close to being the same statement, and it's either intellectually dishonest or rather stupid to imply that they are.

>>6037411
They don't have to approximate, they have to converge to them, which is what QM and relativity do.

>>6037417
laws, not theories

>>6037413
>They don't have to approximate
Yes they do.

>they have to converge to them
That is not a meaningful statement. Theories don't "converge to" other theories.

>>6037417
>Yes they do.
It comes with the convergence.

>>6037410
I didn't 'get' anything over the course of this thread, you just misconstrued my usage of the phrase 'paradigm shift.'

>>6037426
You disagreed with
>Physical laws don't just come and go
and then said
>We expand our models, and we amend them, we don't just throw them out.
I don't really care about you now trying to present all that like you were agreeing with me from the beginning, the important thing is we agree, and you can't just throw away the empirical results of experiment just because of some paradigm shift.

>>6037427
Did I give an example of throwing a paradigm out or a new one coming around?

>>6037418
The point stands that this is not something they do.

What you're talking about is making some ad hoc changes to the math of one theory until you end with the math of another theory, and then pretending that this means that the first theory somehow "contains" the second.

GR predictions, for instance, are not exactly equivalent to Newtonian ones "at our scale". Under certain conditions, they give *approximately* equal predictions. It stands to reason that since Newtonian physics makes pretty good predictions under some circumstances, then within certain restrictions GR must approximate Newtonian physics well.

However, playing around with the math to make some equation from GR "converge to" one from Newtonian mechanics is an entirely artificial and arbitrary action. Without specific knowledge of both GR and Newtonian mechanics, you wouldn't know what sort of monkeying around you'd have to do to produce this "convergence". So it's not something that's really there. It's something you're just imagining and rationalizing.

>>6037432
I don't care what you "really think" deep down.
Just don't write down that you disagree with things if you don't actually do.

>>6037435
>GR predictions, for instance, are not exactly equivalent to Newtonian ones "at our scale". Under certain conditions, they give *approximately* equal predictions.
As in?

>>6037435
>However, playing around with the math to make some equation from GR "converge to" one from Newtonian mechanics is an entirely artificial and arbitrary action. Without specific knowledge of both GR and Newtonian mechanics, you wouldn't know what sort of monkeying around you'd have to do to produce this "convergence".
It's a criteria that new theories abide to. I don't really get your point. The convergence is there and "monkeying around" isn't a scientific term.

>>6037443
>The convergence is there and "monkeying around" isn't a scientific term.
The convergence is there, in your imagination. Demonstrations of its existence are mere rationalizations.

"Monkeying around" isn't a scientific, or intellectually honest, action.

>>6037443

So autist. So blinded by own "vast intellect".

>>6037452
>The convergence is there, in your imagination. Demonstrations of its existence are mere rationalizations.
No, it's essential for a theory to be accepted.

>>6037449
>infantile shitposting

>>6037457

Just like the confirmation of the Higgs-Boson.

"We found it! We saw it!"

lol, no they didn't but they really, really want to believe the data supports its existence.

>>6037461
You don't even know what you're arguing anymore.
Poor soul.

>>6037462

Not the same guy you're arguing with, but it's obvious scientists are so wound up in their dumb shit theories they can't see their ass from their nuts.

>>6037461
Are you actually serious?

>>6037457
>No, it's essential for a theory to be accepted.
I understand that you've been told this, by people you have good reasons to believe are experts, and that you believe it. I'm explaining to you why it isn't reasonable.

Physicists get arbitrarily silly when discussing ideas which aren't testable predictions, just like intellectuals in other fields. The superiority of science is something beaten into its practitioners by contact with objective physical reality, not something inherent to their minds. Where they can be silly, and can't be disproven by experiment, they will be.

The correspondence principle, though a useful rule of thumb, is commonly stated in a confused form and badly misunderstood.