/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8380456
pic unrelated

>>8380508

>>8380456

Heisenburg was a fraud. Quantum mechanics was a mistake.

>>8380456
Classical mechanics: Fully time-reversible, no arrow of time, can't explain why the past effects the future but not the other way around.
Quantum mechanics: Explains difference between past and future, but doesn't appeal to emotional needs of OCD pedants.

FTFY

>>8380515
assuming this isnt bait, what is the cause of this slander?

>>8380523
>assuming this isn't bait
swing and a miss

>>8380520
>can't explain why the past effects the future but not the other way around
>can't explain why the past effects the future
>why the past effects the future
>effects the future
>effects

>>8380539
>>effects
Found the OCD pedant.

>>8380548
how do you distinguish between past and future using a wavefunction?

>>8380539
ef·fect
əˈfekt/

verb
1.
cause (something) to happen; bring about.
"nature always effected a cure"
>brainlets trying to contribute

>>8380556
>how do you distinguish between past and future using a wavefunction?

QM is not time-reversible, while CM is.
Everything in Classical Mechanics works equally well in both temporal directions.
The same just isn't true of QM.

>>8380559
I know the difference, it's just hard to concentrate on typing at the same time I'm banging your mom.

>>8380575
the wavefunction collapsing isnt physical, elaborate.

>>8380575
>nitpick grammar
>fuck up
>y-yeah I knew it all along but typing is hard stop nitpicking me

>>8380520
Past affects the future but future doesn't affect the past by definition QED

>>8380520
But in quantum mechanics there is no past or future it's all treated the same, no one answered why entropy almost always increases.

>>8380456
t. classical cuck

>>8380456
>not being a scientific realist in 2016

Do people actually still do this?

>>8380523

Nice theory of gravity you got there quantumfag

>>8380456
The biggest problem supposedly didactic descriptions of QM and QFT have is that they try too hard to propose an equivalence to more intuitive emergent phenomena (i.e. waves, classical particles etc). By doing that, the laws seem very paradoxical even though they are not at all. It's ridiculous to me how much people try to fit QFTs into strictly something that still contains the idea of classical particles. When you have to argue that particles are moving along all paths at the same time etc, then it should be obvious that it's probably just not a good idea to stick to the idea of anything moving at all. I believe the notion that fields are the fundamental objects and particles only represent the interactions between them is much more straight-forward and leaves much less questions open. When you do that concepts like "the collapse of the wave function" and "particle-wave-duality" become completely unnecessary to explain the behaviour of the involved fields.

>>8380577
>the wavefunction collapsing isnt physical, elaborate.
Only because "wavefunction collapse" is part of the Copenhagen interpretation, not QM itself.

>>8381104
>Past affects the future but future doesn't affect the past by definition QED
Which is why we knew Classical Mechanics was wrong a century (or more) before QM was introduced.

>>8381186
>no one answered why entropy almost always increases.
No, but at least QM allows it, unlike CM.

>>8381511
>Nice theory of gravity you got there quantumfag
Neither CM nor QM explain gravity, and GR's explanation is compatible with both, despite the fact that Einstein "refused to believe God plays dice with the universe".

>>8381542
>It's ridiculous to me how much people try to fit QFTs into strictly something that still contains the idea of classical particles
THIS. Electrons aren't particles or waves, they're electrons. It's a shame we don't have a macroscopic equivalent to use as an analogy, but you're not in 6th grade anymore, and maybe we can drop the spoon-fed analogies.