/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10392870]

>he believes in the Copenhagen interpretation and thus thinks that he can alter the random number generator in the CPU with his willpower
>unavoidably resorts to shitposting digit meme magic thinking it works

Why do so many people actually believe this? The pilot wave interpretation is the only correct one. Anyone who is seriously putting forward anything else is either trolling or intentionally tries to misinform others.
Everything happens for a reason.

[Anonymous No.10392884]

>>10392870
how can one person misunderstand the Copenhagen interpretation this much

[Anonymous No.10392888]

>>10392884
How can any logically thinking person believe in anything other than the pilot wave theory?

[Anonymous No.10392914]

>>10392888
you simply have faith in it fag

[Anonymous No.10392933]

>>10392914
Is this the new kind of "atheism is a faith, just like religion" argument? Maybe we're truly moving back to the future in at least some sense.

[Anonymous No.10392951]

>>10392888
hidden variable quantum theories are retarded, it completely defeats the purpose of science. Physics is about what we observe in the world and how human minds are able to survey reality. It is not the search for some dogmatic essence of things in which we find "objective truth". Copenhagen is the only theory that logically holds; many worlds interpretation is for sci fi fans and pilot wave is for low iq individuals who can't ascertain what science does

[Anonymous No.10392956]

>>10392870
>thinks that he can alter the random number generator in the CPU with his willpower

This actually has been documented but it has nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation.

[Anonymous No.10392964]

>>10392956
See? This is the kind of retardation I'm talking about.

This is you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlKkIoavnA

[Anonymous No.10392994]

>>10392933
No, new atheism is a faith worse than religion.

>>10392888
>all logical thinking people have muh opinion
>>10392964
>anyone who disagrees with me is retarded therefore religious
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.10393029]

>>10392994
Then believe in old atheism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVoCKLyt2uw

[Anonymous No.10393042]

>>10393029
>unironically posting Nietzsche

Fuck off anti-democracy, anti-capitalism, anti-west scum.

[Anonymous No.10393046]

>>10393042
>Fuck off anti-democracy, anti-capitalism, anti-west scum.

You're engaging in projective identifications, but there's nothing wrong with either that, or what you stated, though. Both are perfectly natural behaviors and should be celebrated.

[Anonymous No.10393051]

>>10392956
>This actually has been documented but it has nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation.

this but unironically.

[Anonymous No.10393059]

>>10393042
>Fuck off anti-democracy, anti-capitalism, anti-west scum.

You're engaging in projective identifications, but there's nothing wrong with either that, or what you stated, though. Both are perfectly natural behaviors and should be celebrated.

[Anonymous No.10393071]

>>10393059
jej

[Anonymous No.10393671]

>>10393051
I'm honestly interested. Pls provide proof

[Anonymous No.10393690]

>>10392870
The Copenhagen interpretation is true. Check my digits.

[Anonymous No.10393692]

>>10392870
>>he believes in the Copenhagen interpretation and thus thinks that he can alter the random number generator in the CPU with his willpower
You can. You can do the same thing with other people, but the distance is limited to 6 - 8 meters. It's a very short range effect. This was studied by the CIA in their remote action experiments, which confirmed what I'd discovered ~10 years ago.

It may be a quantum effect, but I don't think so. The surface of the skin may well emit millimeter waves, and it definitely emits highly coherent bursts of IR and UV. This may be able to alter someone's brain activity in tasks that consist of a long chain of results where they don't really have any particular inclination and several steps can be biased in the desired direction. The observation of the structure of water responding to intention may also play a role.

I've already done it (scientifically), and though the forefront of my mind used to be anchored on determinism and reductionist thinking, but now there are no philosophical hangups. All that remains is to explain it.

[Anonymous No.10393695]

>>10393692
Also, when I'm intoxicated in some way, particularly really drunk, machines stop working the same way. Computer malfunctions become common, etc.

[Anonymous No.10393728]

>>10392951
>Copenhagen is the only theory that logically holds; many worlds interpretation is for sci fi fans and pilot wave is for low iq individuals who can't ascertain what science does
Shit job, you made your bait too obvious. You have to be more subtle.

[Anonymous No.10393737]

>>10393728
He's right with many worlds

[Anonymous No.10393747]

>>10393695
I try to keep an open mind but you sound deluded desu, post proof.

[Anonymous No.10393749]

>>10393747
Post proof of what?

[Anonymous No.10393751]

>>10393728
explain how anything but Copenhagen isnt sci fi garbage

[Anonymous No.10393760]

>copenhagenfags: its just magic bro :^)

[Anonymous No.10393770]

>>10393751
>particles move with waves like debris in the ocean is sci fi garbage
>its in like, *rips bong* 2 places at once bro isn’t sci fi garbage
Fix your brain

[Anonymous No.10393776]

>>10392870
I’ll prove you wrong with two words faggot.
>check em

[Anonymous No.10393785]

>>10392870
I believe in pilot wave but you’re retarded

[Anonymous No.10393806]

>>10393770
>straight up lying about both of the interpretations in question
nice

[Anonymous No.10393828]

>>10392951
>how human minds are able to survey reality
>Copenhagen is the only theory that logically holds
Wait so do you believe in reality or not, you're not making sense
>>10393785
But where are the particles :(

[Anonymous No.10393832]

>>10393828
just read the work of bohr essentially

[Anonymous No.10393863]

>>10393806
Are you serious? That’s literally what they are

Maybe actually get educated about what you’re talking about so as to avoid looking like a total retard in the future

[Anonymous No.10393865]

>>10393828
>But where are the particles :(
Huh?

[Anonymous No.10393893]

>>10392951
I'm not really an advocate for pilot wave (though de broglie-bohm theory has good work behind it), but Copenhagen still has the problem of being a measurement centric theory. It's contingent on the idea of observation vs. what may or may not actually be happening. To strongly assert the nonexistence of something on the basis of "complimentarity" (literally bohm saying, "durr, theory bad, experiment good) isn't a great answer from Copenhagen. The theory doesn't tell us about quantum mechanics as much as it tells us how we tend to perceive quantum mechanics experiments.

I'm on my third quantum theory course, and I'm still sorting out my thoughts on the matter, but Copenhagen strikes me as Bohm's attempt to inject mystery and whimsy into a weird but ultimately scientific subject.

[Anonymous No.10393901]

>>10392870
Singles on this post mean local realism is false
Dubs mean there are local hidden variables
Trips means many worlds is true
Quads mean Plato was right

Take your roll gents

[Anonymous No.10393908]

>believing in anything beyond the unitary evolution of the wavefunction

Where did things go so wrong?

[Anonymous No.10393910]

>>10393806
bohmian mechanics is literally just a particle ontology where the wavefunction is a guide on 3N dimensional space. All it does is assert the movement of particles according to a quantum probability current. Like I said before, I'm not a huge advocate, but out of all the theories out there (especially many worlds and copenhagen), it is by far the most "quantum realist" view out there on how it represents quantum mechanics a lot like a classical system

[Anonymous No.10393998]

>>10392870
>everything happens for a reason
False.

[Anonymous No.10394018]

>>10392870
>The pilot wave interpretation is the only correct one.
dobut

[Anonymous No.10394047]

>>10393832
Yeah I am (slowly)
Upon rereading you make more sense, I probably focused too much on the use of "reality".
>>10393865
Hidden variables don't make logical sense to me, maybe I'm just a brainlet who never tried
>>10393893
Are you confusing bohm and bohr?

[Anonymous No.10394102]

>>10394047
Yes, I meant bohr when talking about complimentarity and copenhagen.

[Anonymous No.10394106]

>>10392888

If God wanted me to reject the Copenhagen interpretation he wouldn't have given you the trips of treachery

[Anonymous No.10394783]

>>10392870
Why does nobody on here talk about the Transactional Interpretation? Is /sci/ just too brainlet to understand it or what?

[Anonymous No.10394786]

>>10392870
> random number generator in the CPU
it's not random.

[Anonymous No.10394797]

>>10394783
> It was first proposed in 1986 by John G. Cramer, who argues that it helps in developing intuition for quantum processes. He also suggests that it avoids the philosophical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation and the role of the observer, and also resolves various quantum paradoxes.[1][2][3] TIQM formed a minor plot point in his science fiction novel Einstein's Bridge.

Literally the popsci interpretation

[Anonymous No.10394808]

>>10392870
>The pilot wave interpretation is the only correct one.
>implying it isn't Many Worlds

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9cgBF6BQ2TRB3Hy4E/and-the-winner-is-many-worlds

[Anonymous No.10394813]

>>10394808
>the Virgin skeptic
>the Chad rationalist
>the Gigachad basilisk

[Anonymous No.10394816]

>>10394808
>hidden variables are icky
>let's have hidden universes instead
yikes

[Anonymous No.10394830]

>>10393737
Many worlds is the one completely consistent interpretation that doens't involved voodoo.

[Anonymous No.10394831]

>>10392870
> Let's have all of space filled with an ad-hoc 'Quantum Potential' that moves faster than light
> Don't even think about trying to touch Quantum Field Theory

Yeah, no. Many worlds is correct and you think otherwise it's probably because you've only heard the meme popsci interpretation of it. There aren't literally many worlds or universes, at it's core it just says that superposition applies to observers as well.

[Anonymous No.10394838]

>>10394830
>magical hidden universes getting constantly created
>not-voodoo
wew

[Anonymous No.10394842]

>>10394816
Yes, it actually makes considerably more sense that way. It's not a matter of them being 'icky', but rather perceiving that what is hidden from us are aspects of the universe that aren't simply accessible to the individual instances of our selves.

[Anonymous No.10394844]

Bohm or go home.

[Anonymous No.10394851]

>>10394842
sounds like fake californian eastern wisdom

[Anonymous No.10394880]

>>10392951
>>10393728
>>10393737
>>10394830
>>10394838
>many worlds interpretation is for sci fi fans
the simplest explanation of our universe is the simplest program that computes it. the simplest such program actually computes all possible universes with all types of physical constants and laws, not just ours.

[Anonymous No.10394881]

>>10394797
>eliminates the observer problem
>trying to discredit Cramer because he wrote a popsci novel for cash when he has worked at numerous particle accelerator labs(including but not limited to CERN) and is a Professer Emeritus at the University of Washington
>calling the Wheeler-Feynman handshake pop-sci
Fuck, this place really is just a shitposting board for brainlets now isnt it?

[Anonymous No.10394890]

>>10394831
>the interpretation that assumes multiple entire Universe timelines are created every time a quantum wave function collapses is more likely than one that assumes that what we measure as waves and particles actually have elements of both.
Occams Razor would like a word with you.

[Anonymous No.10394891]

>>10394880
would run out of memory instantly retard

[Anonymous No.10394898]

>>10393901
Idealism all the way !

[Anonymous No.10394902]

>>10394783
>TIQM is explicitly non-local
JFL
>>10394831
>There aren't literally many worlds or universes, at it's core it just says that superposition applies to observers as well.
So you're saying it reduces to many minds interpreation anyway?

[Anonymous No.10394903]

>>10394880
The simplest program that computes the universe would involve everything being either waves, or particles. Duality is unnecessary if you are just running a simulation. So, already your theory is garbage before we get into what interpretation is true because there are simpler ways to do things than the results that we have already observed and agreed upon.

[Anonymous No.10394904]

>>10394890
>Occams Razor would like a word with you

Yes, and that word is that many words proposes the least number of conceptual leaps and no more entities than necessary for its function. The idea that it's bad because it "goes against Occam's Razor" is brainlet city. It's less arbitrary for all possible events to simply happen than for some arbitrary observer dependent selection process to occur.

[Anonymous No.10394908]

>>10394902
>JFL
Nigger do you even know what entanglement is? We already know the laws that govern quantum physics are non-local. Its not even up for debate.

[Anonymous No.10394910]

>>10394902
aren't all quantum theories non-local?

[Anonymous No.10394912]

>>10394898
Shit

[Anonymous No.10394913]

>>10394903
Suppose there is true (incompressible) noise in state transitions of our particular world evolution. The noise conveys additional information besides the one for initial state and physical laws. But from the Great Programmer's point of view, almost no extra information (nor, equivalently, a random generator) is required. Instead of computing just one of the many possible evolutions of a probabilistic universe with fixed laws but random noise of a certain (e.g., Gaussian) type, the Great Programmer's simple program computes them all. An automatic by-product of the Great Programmer's set-up is the well-known ``many worlds hypothesis''. According to it, whenever our universe's quantum mechanics allows for alternative next paths, all are taken and the world splits into separate universes. From the Great Programmer's view, however, there are no real splits -- there are just a bunch of different algorithms which yield identical results for some time, until they start computing different outputs corresponding to different noise in different universes.

[Anonymous No.10394915]

>>10392870
get back to me when pilot waves manage to even recover relativity

pilot waves are brainlet tier for people who after a hundred years still refuse to accept that nature is probabilistic and local, no actual phyicists working on quantum theory take it seriously

Copenhagen or consistent histories is where it is at

[Anonymous No.10394920]

>>10394915
>and local
no quantum theory retains locality retard

[Anonymous No.10394921]

>>10394904
Except pilot wave theory doesnt assume any crazy multiple universes. It makes all the same predictions as the leading interpretations except some minor variations involving spin, but that very well could be due to us misunderstanding spin itself. MWI is only the simplest in terms of comprehension, but as far as the Universe would be “concerned” the process is far more complicated than every other interpretation combined. I dont even ascribe to pilot wave, I am playing devils advocate. I just gawked at an MWIanon saying its the simplest explanation. Its not.

[Anonymous No.10394927]

>>10394891
t. CSlet

>Computing all universes
One way of sequentially computing all computable universes is dove-tailing. A1 is run for one instruction every second step, A2 is run for one instruction every second of the remaining steps, and so on. Similar methods exist for computing many universes in parallel. Each time step of each universe that is computable by at least one finite algorithm will eventually be computed.

>Time
The Great Programmer does not worry about computation time. Nobody presses Him. Creatures which evolve in any of the universes don't have to worry either. They run on local time and have no idea of how many instructions it takes the Big Computer to compute one of their time steps, or how many instructions it spends on all the other creatures in parallel universes.

[Anonymous No.10394929]

>>10394927
>CSlet
>The Great Programmer
ok so this is just a cult

[Anonymous No.10394931]

>>10394920
>no quantum theory morons locality retard
let me guess, you are one of those retards who think entanglement can be used for FTL?

there are some very limited nonlocal effects in quantum theory, mostly confined to certain quantum gravity regimes or other special cases, and that is it

any self-respecting interpretation must be local, and this is actually a weak point of Copenhagen and why consistent histories is prefered

[Anonymous No.10394936]

>>10394929
>The Great Programmer
>God
>muh idol
what isn't?

[Anonymous No.10394941]

>>10394880
note that simplest program is not the same as fastest program

often the most simple program is very computationally demanding

this is not an issue because Nature is not a fucking computer

[Anonymous No.10394946]

>>10394908
>Nigger do you even know what entanglement is?
Yes. And do you know what er=epr is?
>>10394910
>>10394920
Dirac equation is 90 years old, you ape. Why would anyone bother to reconcile qm and gr if the former was inconsistent with sr in the first place?

[Anonymous No.10394954]

>>10394931
>let me guess, you are one of those retards who think entanglement can be used for FTL?
what the fuck are you talking about you retard?
>there are some very limited nonlocal effects in quantum theory
so you agree that all quantum theories are non-local, good
>any self-respecting interpretation must be local
wtf, are you insane?

[Anonymous No.10394955]

>>10394920
>no quantum theory retains locality retard
Learn some QFT for fucks sake.

[Anonymous No.10394959]

>>10394941
>this is not an issue because Nature is not a fucking computer
why is the program analogy meaningful in the first place then?

[Anonymous No.10394960]

>>10394954
>locality may be broken in a very limited way in a black hole singularity maybe
>hurr durr that means my magical FTL pilot waves are allowed

Nope.

[Anonymous No.10394962]

>>10394959
it is not, I was just playing devils advocate

[Anonymous No.10394964]

>>10394941
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Universal_search

[Anonymous No.10394977]

>>10394946
>er=epr
>muh tiny wormholes
Thats way more complicated than TIQM. TIQM is also T-symmetry compliant. What you are arguing here is that Leonard Susskind has a better understanding of QM than Richard Feynman did. I get that science is built on the shoulders of giants but retards like Susskind arent barred from jumping off daddy’s shoulders either.

[Anonymous No.10394983]

>>10394977
>What you are arguing here is that Leonard Susskind has a better understanding of QM than Richard Feynman did.
Maldacena has.

[Anonymous No.10394988]

>>10394977
>retards like Susskind
pseud confirmed

[Anonymous No.10394995]

>>10394988
not even that guy, but he is right, Susskind is a popsci hack

[Anonymous No.10394998]

>>10394977
If anything, Feynman would appreciate a significant result like er=epr (assuming he could understand the underlying logic since it is a current area of research). Dont you dare pretend that Feynman would be on your side.

[Anonymous No.10394999]

>>10392870
>pilot wave
Bohemian mechanics has been dead for decades. Fuck off you literal Reddit

[Anonymous No.10395001]

>>10394998
TIQM is an extension of Wheeler-Feynman handshakes. Im not arguing he would be on my side, motherfucker he INVENTED my side. If anything, I am on Feynmans side, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.10395003]

>>10394995
Susskind has some popsci tendencies but also a publication track record that disproves your bullshit. He is considered one of the fathers of string theory.

[Anonymous No.10395008]

>>10394999
Except it really hasnt. If you look at the history of quantum mechanics, many of the great physicists of the 20th century were very supportive of Pilot wave theory. Theres no real good reason why it was ever left behind, as its never been disproven, the other interpretations just get more media coverage.

[Anonymous No.10395012]

>>10395003
>one of the fathers of a literally unprovable mathematical theory that has made zero useful predictions, or even any experimentally confirmed predictions
Its literally mental masturbation trash. Its not even science, its philosophy with monstermath tacked on.

[Anonymous No.10395014]

>>10395008
Media coverage does not determine what physicists research, merits of the theories do. Bohmian mechanics never had any significant support and only became more irrelevant since being proposed. Because most competent physicists see it for what it is: a fundamentally flawed idea that only has internet advocates among people (I hesitate to call them physicists) who do not understand quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.10395018]

>>10395012
>translation: I am too dumb to even begin to understand string theory

[Anonymous No.10395028]

>>10395008
Many great physicists were supportive of failed theories in the past. That's literally how science is done, lmao. You sound like a literal undergrad. In any case, Bohmian mechanics relies on a deterministic wave function, thus requiring hidden variables. But the loophole free Bell tests have already proven this cannot be the case.

[Anonymous No.10395041]

>>10395014
John Bell was a supporter of pilot wave theory. You cant say its only supported by internet memers, that is a falsehood and a fallacy.

>>10395028
>I don’t understand what non-local hidden variable means
The Bell experiments only disprove LOCAL hidden variables. Every time pilot wave theory is brought up, you brainlets cite these experiments when(like i said in response to the previous guy) John Bell HIMSELF SUPPORTED PILOT WAVE THEORY. Its like you havent even read the Wikipedia page on Bell’s theorem, let alone done any serious research on the subject.

[Anonymous No.10395050]

>>10395018
>I believe that if you can ascribe math equations to unobservable phenomena, they must be true

[Anonymous No.10395052]

>>10395041
Non-local hidden variables is something untestable, obviously. Might as well claim "God did it".

[Anonymous No.10395061]

>>10395052
Or, it ascribes a mechanism to a part of quantum theory that other interpretations simply avoid. All of the QM interpretations have something similar to “God did it” at some level because we dont have a complete understanding of QM. Not to mention, there is going to come a point where we cannot experimentally verify reality any further. Science does have its limits.

[Anonymous No.10395524]

>>10394838
You need IQ at least 80 to post here, nigger.

[Anonymous No.10395530]

>>10395524
explain the many worlds interpretation without using cheap-sounding eastern wisdom justifications

[Anonymous No.10395550]

Hasn't Bohmian mehanics been flat-out ruled out mathematically?

[Anonymous No.10395597]

>>10395530
The wavefunction exists as the fundamental object. That's all many worlds says.

[Anonymous No.10395625]

>>10395550
No, mathematically it's identical to any other QM interpretation.

>hurr durr it's nonlocal

and QM is non-relativistic, so what.

[Anonymous No.10395654]

>>10392870
Check my trips bitch

[Anonymous No.10395657]

>>10395666

So clothes

[Anonymous No.10395667]

>>10395654
>>10395657
>implying >>10395666

[Anonymous No.10395705]

>>10395667
Nice miss faggot

[Anonymous No.10395727]

>>10393671
read Conscious Universe by Dean Radin.

[Anonymous No.10395878]

>>10394954
>so you agree that all quantum theories are non-local, good
No, non-locality is pure interpretational artifact in theories that postulate FTL collapse.
>>10395028
Bell's theorem considers only pure newtonian hidden model. Pilot wave has newtonian model for realism and copenhagen for non-locality, and yet another pilot wave in addition to that. Since it's non-local, Bell's theorem doesn't apply to it.

[Anonymous No.10395884]

Most physicist alive today believe in the Copenhagen interpretation above all others

[Anonymous No.10395886]

>>10395625
No, only MWI is pure interpretation, other interpretations are extended theories that add extra postulates to the base theory.

[Anonymous No.10395890]

Most physicists alive today believe in the Copenhagen interpretation above all others

[Anonymous No.10395892]

>>10395625
QM is relativistic, moron, everything is relativistic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

[Anonymous No.10395899]

>>10395530
Strawman.

[Anonymous No.10395903]

>>10395884
They believed in phlogiston too, didn't help.

[Anonymous No.10395919]

>>10395530
The objection against complexity doesn't hold water. As long as there's wave function, there's superposition. And superposition is identical to MWI. Consequently wrt to complexity and mathematics MWI is strict subset of most other interpretations except for hidden variables that denied wave function altogether.

[Anonymous No.10395922]

>>10395892
QM is not QFT

[Anonymous No.10395992]

>>10395922
Now this is a pretty stupid maneuver desu.

[Anonymous No.10396034]

>>10395550
No. It hasnt been ruled out using logic in any way. Its been ruled out by preference of mainstream science.

[Anonymous No.10396045]

>>10392870
I don't know what any of that means, but your mom's a whore.

[Anonymous No.10396199]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=akvRTybPbBE

[Anonymous No.10396488]

>>10394831
>at it's core it just says that superposition applies to observers as well.
I don't know much about the subject but this seems like it should be testable. Wouldn't each observer have 50/50 chance at seeing a different result as opposed to everyone getting the same result when a wave function is collapsed? (I hope what I'm asking even makes sense, having trouble wording something I don't know)

[Anonymous No.10396502]

>>10393893
I've studied QM significantly less than you, but I feel kinda the exact opposite. I agree with Bohr for the most part. I think that a theory should be the most basic and straightforward explanation for what information we have.

[Anonymous No.10396784]

>>10396488
That would be observation of the same eigenvalue for the same state, which has zero probability. What you say is suggested by copenhagen for EPR paradox and it had to introduce FTL to evade it.

[Anonymous No.10396785]

>>10396784
*different eigenvalues

[Anonymous No.10397027]

>>10395890
most physicists are retarded

[Anonymous No.10397450]

>>10397027
Says some random shitdick on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.10397576]

Anyone who doesnt ascribe to the transactional interpretation is literally retarded.

[Anonymous No.10397605]

>>10397576
>The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) takes the psi and psi* wave functions of the standard quantum formalism to be retarded
>wave functions of the standard quantum formalism to be retarded
>retarded
the transactional interpretation is literally retarded

[Anonymous No.10397622]

Do you guys even CSCH inequality and Bells theorem? One can literally measure that QM cannot be explained by a Local realistic theory. So either faster than light communication is possible or only measurement defines a particles state. And so far ART withstands falsification. So hidden variable theories are btfo.

[Anonymous No.10397626]

>>10397622
only local hidden variable theories are btfo, locality is the issue, not concealment

[Anonymous No.10397764]

>>10397622
See
>>10395041
>>10395878
Or the numerous other posts ITT that explain why you are too retarded to understand Bell’s theorem.

[Anonymous No.10397838]

>>10395727
by proof I mean an experimental setup and the results

[Anonymous No.10397862]

>its a particle
>no its a wave
Plot twist the measurements are wrong.

[Anonymous No.10397874]

>>10397626
locality is not "an issue", it is a basic fact of the universe, courtesy of general relativity

nonlocal theories are literally disproved for over a century and no amount of autistic screeching is going to change that

[Anonymous No.10397913]

>>10397874
there's literally no reason why the universe should follow your fevered dreams

[Anonymous No.10398141]

>>10397913
There's no working non-local model, so local is the only way.

[Anonymous No.10398143]

>>10398141
there's no working model at all

[Anonymous No.10398171]

>>10397874
>i have never heard of entanglement: the post