[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 230x286, eintstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10470716 No.10470716 [Reply] [Original]

why won't quantum physics die already?
mister einstein said it was WRONG!

>> No.10472023

why won't nuclear power die already?
mister einstein said it was IMPOSSIBLE!

>> No.10472169

>>10470716
Einstein was right in saying God does not play dice. He was referring to the common understanding of QM of the time, the Copenhagen interpretation. You have the wave collapse and the disappearing of the information and the spooky "observer" which seemingly doesn't scale to real world. Then there's the probability factor. What is going on here?

Many world is the real answer. There are no spooky stuff with Many world interpetation. Its as simple as classical mechanics but instead of relying on dissapearing world act or the randomness of probability, we have a completely deterministic world where we can predict anything, its just that many world branches out at every local point to create diverging worlds. None of the world disappears, there's no information loss, there's no randomness probability. Its just pure deterministic universe all the way down and does not require any special "conscious" observer.

>> No.10472246

>>10472169
>C-copenhagen Interpretation isn't the main interpretation anymore.
Crack pipe: Put down!
Imagine being such a sperg you can make fun of religious people while believing in parallel universes with zero evidence.

>> No.10472268

>>10472246
Copenhagen is a brainlet answer and suffers from many contradictions as a result this interpretation. The bandaid fixes require many additional laws that have issues with each other. Many world is a mathematically sound/simple/fits perfectly with the observed results, and so on.

Only reason to want to believe in copenhagen is if you believe quantum mechanics does not apply to all things and that you wish to believe the emergent properties like houses/people/cars/cats etc have real existence separate from quantum world. That sort of explanation is not supported in any physics or math.

>> No.10473100
File: 21 KB, 400x352, TIMESAND___photoelectric-graph.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10473100

>>10470716
>einstein said it was WRONG!
Einstein was one of the main inventors of quantum mechanics with the description of Hertz' photoelectric effect via quantized energy such those proposed by Planck a few years earlier. Einstein didn't get a Nobel Prize for GR, he got it for the photoelectric effect.

>> No.10473876

>>10472246
Copenhagen is a shitty ad hoc non-explanation for physicists that don't want to think about what's actually going on in quantum physics. Copenhagen used to be good because, back when QM was new, physicists had no idea what to make of it and needed a basic surface-level description of what was going on.

Even Bohr, Copenhagen's greatest proponent, knew that 'measurement collapses the wavefunction' was full of more holes than Swiss cheese. If you have an electron in a superposition, what happens if one atom interacts with it? Still a quantum system, right? How about two atoms? Three? A virus? A bacterium? Copenhagen makes a distinction between macroscopic and quantum but makes no attempt to draw where one ends and the other starts, even though we know macroscopic objects consist of quanta. It's just a surface-level description.

I'm not saying many worlds is right, but combined with decoherence theory, it's the most consistent intuitive theory out there right now. Everything is properly treated as a quantum system, as it should be. Ill-defined collapse becomes a well-defined irreversible phenomenon.

There are other decent interpretations too, but Copenhagen is awful and nobody who knows QM and thinks about it for more than a few hours should accept it.

>> No.10473903

>>10472169
>Many Worlds
Basis problem.

>> No.10473917

>>10473903
If you said that 40 years ago it might have deterred physicists, but decoherence causes the density matrix of the combined system and environment to be diagonalizable in a basis determined by the details of the system-environment interaction, which is your so-called "preferred basis."

>> No.10473939

>>10473917
How convenient.

>> No.10474307

>>10472169
>i make up bullshit in order to cling to determinism

>> No.10474405

>>10470716
And yet, he contributed more to it than most other scientists in that era.

>> No.10474669

>>10473939
Consistent theories always seem 'convenient' until you study them and work out the details

>> No.10474674

>>10473903
Nah. Occum's razer. Newton's flaming lazer sword.

QM predicts what we observe. It need not do anything more than that. Why are people so unsettled by a statistical theory of reality? Have you all forgotten that science is based on empiricism?

>> No.10474689

>>10474307
>muh souls

>> No.10474691

>>10474689
How are souls and determinism related? It is a fact that QM shows that nature isn't deterministic in the classical sense.

>> No.10474695

>>10474691
>QM shows
Why do you make up shit?

>> No.10474708

>>10474695
What have you actually studied? :')

>> No.10474712

>>10474695
The time evolution of the wavefunction is deterministic (Schrodinger's equation) but the result of a measurement is stochastic with the probability distribution given by Born's rule.

>> No.10474713

>>10474674
Occam's razor doesn't apply when your 'simplest option' (Copenhagen Interpretation) is so poorly defined and inconsistent it's practically an absurdity. In an era where we can begin to probe quantum effects in larger and larger systems, we can no longer sit back comfortably and make a sharp distinction between the macroscopic and microscopic.
To be clear, nobody tries to avoid some element of stochasticity in their theory (besides pilot wave brianlets). If you look into non-collapse theories like many worlds or consistent histories, you'll find they don't claim to completely solve the measurement problem. They just clear up glaring inconsistencies in wave function collapse.

>> No.10474732

>>10474713
I don't think it is poorly defined or inconsistent. That's what this seems to come down to. And how about Newton's sword (which is arguably far more important)?

>> No.10474736

>>10474712
Randomness of quantum state is a relic of the past. We now have a full deterministic and complete explanation of the quantum world with many-world/decoherence.

>> No.10474740

>>10474736
> We now have a full deterministic and complete explanation of the quantum world with many-world/decoherence

Is that so? Can you link me to a source? I'd be interested to learn.

>> No.10474743

>>10472169
Many worlds does have a deterministic world in the idea that it is predestined which path we take. But we can not predict anything, there is uncertainty, within heisenberg uncertainty is the best we can do.

There is no function to find which path our world will take. So we can't predict whatever we want.

>> No.10474754

>>10474743
Probabilistic prediction is the current best but its not randomness.

>> No.10474813

>>10474732
Regarding Newton's Sword, it's true that many physicists go by the mantra of Shut Up and Calculate. But if you aren't interested in the deeper workings of reality, why are you doing physics? Even if we don't current think there are testable predictions, we should still pursue new ideas in case something testable comes up in the future.
As for Copenhagen being inconsistent: its description of reality depends on a quantum system, a measurement, and an observer. What is a measurement? And what is an observer? Can a cat be an observer? A fly? A nematode? A plant? An inanimate system? Most Copenhagen theorists would say a few atoms would just make a bigger quantum system and not an observer, but just add more atoms and you have one. But when? What is the defining point where you go from quantum system to something that can collapse the wavefunction? Copenhagen completely ignores the gray area between, but decoherence theory explains it. Put in a theory like many worlds or consistent histories, and you see how the Schrodinger equation doesn't magically stop applying at some arbitrary size or complexity, and continues to apply at all scales.

>> No.10474840

>>10474813
I disagree but cbf to continue this conversation so bye

>> No.10474886

>>10474740
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory
Anton Setzer - Wheels
http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/~csetzer/articles/wheel.pdf
Jesper Carlstrom - Wheels: On Division by Zero
http://www2.math.su.se/reports/2001/11/2001-11.pdf

>> No.10474918

>>10474689
what the fuck are you talking about

>> No.10474954

>>10474918
It leaves open the possibility due to how undefined the "observer" is in copenhagen interpretation.

>> No.10475069

He didn't say it was wrong... he said it was a "provisional theory"... he predicted that one day we will find the missing piece and it should all make sense.

>> No.10476027

>>10474840
>I disagree but cbf to continue this conversation so bye
A positivist in the flesh.

>> No.10476547
File: 131 KB, 578x341, ef9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10476547

>>10470716
Then the chad John S. Bell stuck his thick, throbbing theorem down Einstein's jew throat and we never listened to Albert about quantum mechanics ever again.

>> No.10477369

>>10472246
The same could be said about CI, have you ever observed a wave function collapse? moreover the MWI is the one that, mathematically, is preferred by occam's razor.
>but muh solipsistic randomness
No, fuck off nigger.

>> No.10479188

>>10477369
>have you ever observed a wave function collapse?
>what is the double slit experiment

>preferred by occam's razor
Occam's razor is just a heuristic for making calculations, it's irrelevant when discussing ontology.