good riddance to juvenile idiocy called the copenhagen interpretation I say. Too bad it took so long. A lot of needless confusion could have been avoided.

File: 1.58 MB, 615x346, Pilot-Theory-Gif-1-11022016.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Apr 7 20:24:28 2019 No.10531474 [Reply] [Original]

good riddance to juvenile idiocy called the copenhagen interpretation I say. Too bad it took so long. A lot of needless confusion could have been avoided.

Anonymous Sun Apr 7 20:25:30 2019 No.10531477
File: 442 KB, 432x270, walkers.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

David Bohm must be smiling down from above, saying, 'I told you so.' I just finished reading F. David Peat's biography on Bohm, 'Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm.' Bohm was on to something. More physicists should have listened to him - and explored the math deeper. As a physicist myself, I never heard a word of pilot wave theory in undergrad or grad school. It was only years later, after meeting Bohm, that I became fascinated with his ideas.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 7 21:22:47 2019 No.10531577 how is pilot wave even considered a good interpretation? first of all, local hidden variables fail as an explanation for EPR correlations, and second of all, it just totally gets shat on by occam's razor. i prefer consistent histories

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 00:48:59 2019 No.10532007 >>10531577 >occam's razor dumbest idea in the history of science.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 00:51:02 2019 No.10532015
File: 29 KB, 602x339, main-qimg-8a748ac5e99f6fc1916905c1bac73670.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10531577
>local hidden variables
de broglie bohm is non local
>occams razor
whether we are in a fundamentally probabilistic of deterministic universe it is true that there is a limit to measurement as we can only construct measuring devices from the system we are trying to measure
therefore occam razors favours de broglie bohm as the double split experiment can be explained by said limit in measurement without while copenhagen needs to add probabilism

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 00:51:51 2019 No.10532018 >>10532007 >consistent idiot I rest my case.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:05:43 2019 No.10532047

>>10532015
>de broglie bohm is non local
isn't that a good reason why _not_ to believe in it? you support spooky action at a distance?

>whether we are in a fundamentally probabilistic of deterministic universe it is true that there is a limit to measurement as we can only construct measuring devices from the system we are trying to measure
>therefore occam razors favours de broglie bohm as the double split experiment can be explained by said limit in measurement without while copenhagen needs to add probabilism
crap argument. your business about placing importance on measurement is a dead ringer that. you don't understand consistent histories (or even many worlds) and your argument about the double-slit experiment only adds to why "there's a particle who rides on top of a wave following the schrodinger equation" is silly compared to a model that only features a wave following the schrodinger equation

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:07:25 2019 No.10532051

>>10532015
wow wrote that like a retard will try again
>occams razor
in both deterministic and probabilistic universes there is a limit to the accuracy of measurement given we can only create measuring devices from the system we are measuring.
De broglie bohm explains the results of the double split experiment with the existence of a wave function a said measurement problem
copenhagen explains it with wave function, measurement problem and inherent stochasm
i.e copenhagen added inherent stochasm to maintain the idea of free will contradicting the occam razor principle

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:10:01 2019 No.10532058 based and bogpilled. These old fucks don't want to accept pilot wave because it means their last 50 years of research were worthless.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:12:21 2019 No.10532061

>>10532051
well you wrote that like a retard again, apparently.

if you want to argue pilot wave theory (please start calling it that instead of de Broglie-Bohm, since that obscures the fact that the model requires a particle riding on top of a wave, you know like the surfer interpretation) you need to show me why that interpretation isn't introducing new, empirically detectable but so-far invisible elements into QM. all the other interpretations explain empirical facts with more economy; copenhagen says it happens at the measurement, while MW/consistent histories says that nature does it all along without a privileged observer

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:16:27 2019 No.10532067

>>10532047
>isn't that a good reason why _not_ to believe in it? you support spooky action at a distance?
no de broglie bohm does not violate special or general relativity. Relativity does not disprove the existence of non local characteristics of reality only that a subset of reality must conform to the relativity

>crap argument.
ironic
>your business about placing importance on measurement is a dead ringer that
didn't put importance on measurement, you mentioned de broglie bohm is incompatible with the occams razor principle, i explained to you copenhagen is the theory that has extra constructions given that measurement is limited in both probabilistic and deterministic universes
>consistent histories (or even many worlds)
these are built on top of probabilistic assumptions which is thing we are arguing about

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:27:05 2019 No.10532083

>>10532067
fine, as said earlier i like consistent histories. MW is a very close cousin but in my conception CH resolves the paradox of why e.g. particle tracks in geological formations older than life are allowed to exist before any human observed them, while MW totally obscures the conception of a human measuring the thing

it's all very dangerous territory to speculate about. even the wikipedia articles on various interpretations feature prominent edits by, for example, wikipedia user Lumidek, who is a prominent blogger that incidentally lost his Harvard professorship for being "that douche" who does quantum interpretation activism via wikipedia.

the lesson, here, is to just take an interpretation that works in your field of research, and run with it. being an argumentative fuck like Lubos Motl lands you in unemployment, and that's why he complains bitterly about his 10k USD lawsuit that even i could safely write off

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:42:23 2019 No.10532106

>>10532061
pilot wave theory in a historical context an earlier iteration prior to bells inequality so no I will continue to call it de broglie bohm.

>you need to show me why that interpretation isn't introducing new, empirically detectable but so-far invisible elements into QM
it explains everything the Copenhagen interpretation explains with better potential predictive power given that our prediction is only limited by measurement whereas copenhagen states predictability is inherently limited in addition to measurement device limits

>all the other interpretations explain empirical facts with more economy; copenhagen says it happens at the measurement, while MW/consistent histories says that nature does it all along without a privileged observer
You state your opinion without justification.
I define economy in science as predictive capacity; a deterministic wave function is by definition more useful in prediction than a probabilistic one

>>10532083
this is the crux of the issue. Science is becoming an institution where you can pay to make people believe what you want rather than it being a decentralized method that optimizes belief by predictive power. All scientists (bohr, hisenburg etc) that advocated probabilistic interpretations had their study, board and travel funded by the Rockefeller institute.
Reminder the lie Satan offered eve was that she could choose to emancipate herself from gods system, it's the same lie the Copenhagen interpretation promotes (that the universe is dictated by the will of any conscious observer)

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:50:05 2019 No.10532120

>>10532106
okay, so you're a schizo poster. the only argument you make is that pilot wave theory is "more predictive", but hate to break it to you, no it's not. the theory that makes predictions is called quantum mechanics, and all its "interpretations" make equivalent predictions. so you lose.

furthermore you go into schizo shit like
>Reminder the lie Satan offered eve was that she could choose to emancipate herself from gods system
which makes me utterly ashamed at this moment that i'm even replying to such an /x/-tier schizo.

pilot wave theory is not benefiting from this

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:54:18 2019 No.10532125 >>10532120 >schizo >schizo >schizo assblasted autist can't handle being wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:59:05 2019 No.10532132 File: 37 KB, 403x403, 7e7a88e5c80760f58ebaf04b2c8839dc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10532120 >he can't deal with any religious analogy your fedora is showing

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 01:59:18 2019 No.10532133 >>10532125 >assblasted schizo can't handle being schizo

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 02:00:50 2019 No.10532135 >>10532132 >posts a fake quote your "me love god therefore oppose science hurr durr" is showing

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 03:52:04 2019 No.10532262

>>10531577
Wrong.

Pilot wave has moved to non-local hidden variable. Problem with that is it breaks off from general relativity. The biggest problem of pilot wave.

Occam razor is a heuristic not a scientific method. Even so, with heuristics you wouldn't get copenhagen's interpretation, you'd get pure everett's interpretation as it has the least amount of assumptions from the Quantum mechanics. Creating the idea of "wave collapse" is just adding another layer of assumption that's not present in the math.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 05:22:35 2019 No.10532369 >>10532007 I bet you don't know what MDL principle is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 09:32:59 2019 No.10532683 >>10532047 all interpretations are non-local, QM is inherently non-local

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 09:38:12 2019 No.10532694

>>10532083
>CH resolves the paradox of why e.g. particle tracks in geological formations older than life are allowed to exist before any human observed them, while MW totally obscures the conception of a human measuring the thing

haHaHHaAHAAHAAAAAAA ooo boi
you don't understand QM. "Observation" doesn't mean it had to be observed by a human. It is just an experimental trick for adding non-quantum apparati to experiments, where interaction with these non-quantum devices is called "observation"

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 10:15:49 2019 No.10532797 >pilot wave sounds like boing fucking up again

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 13:57:16 2019 No.10533323

>>10532120
Nigga why did you have to bring the jew thing. I'm a de Broglie-Bohm supporter but you're just making it less credible by saying all that muh jew muh conspiration bullshit.
I mean if you gonna hate on jews then you should hate Bohm since he was a commie

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 17:43:18 2019 No.10533919 bump

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 17:58:46 2019 No.10533952

>>10532683
You're wrong. QFT (i.e. the best theory we have at the moment) was constructed explicitly to be completely local, which is why it works well with special relativity.

>>10532058
Nobody does research into interpretations, the math checks out either way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 18:07:43 2019 No.10533979 >>10531474 Few in the physics community support this theory at present. Copenhagen is still dominant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 18:19:05 2019 No.10534009 >>10533323 It's a schizophrenic samefag that argues with himself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 18:21:20 2019 No.10534015 Can someone explain why pilot wave is better then Copenhagen?

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 18:34:49 2019 No.10534052

>>10534015
Its not. Pilot-wave is classical mechanics seeking relevance in QM, there's lots of ad hoc patchwork to make it "work". Copenhagen is mathematical interpretation of QM, although shuts down discussions. It works fine if you don't think about what QM means. Many-world is what follows logically from QM math, the implications are bit "out there" and bit counter-intuitive.

Status quo: Copenhagen. Pure QM: MWI. Seeking classical mechanics uniform: Pilot wave.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 18:40:53 2019 No.10534067 >>10534015 It's not.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 18:43:08 2019 No.10534071

>>10534052
>Many-world is what follows logically from QM math
in what way?
>although shuts down discussions
the theory itself? or the people the propagate the theory
>It works fine if you don't think about what QM means
what do you mean by "what QM means"?

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 18:50:57 2019 No.10534091

>>10534071
Think about what superposition means. Think about the wave-function. The wave function collapse was created to shut down the discussion on what QM meant. It was a practical solution at the time so scientists wouldn't be bogged down in thoughts, or at least that's the generous give. As to what QM means, that's what the scientists have to discuss and figure out. The discussion was cut short back in the heydays due to, well, personality cults.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 18:57:29 2019 No.10534100 >>10534091 I don't follow what you're saying, when you say what QM means are you saying how reality behaves in its essence? not by virtue of its mathematical model?

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:00:40 2019 No.10534109

>The indeterminacies we have discussed are all exacerbated by amplification mechanisms. Such mechanisms are responsible for connecting events at the quantum level with quasiclassical histories.Take a measurement situation such as the Stern-Gerlach experiment,where a sodium atom with valence electron spin up develops a certain photographic grain, while it would develop a different photographic grain if its spin were down. Here a quantum variable is correlated directly with a branching in quasiclassical history. This is true whether a human being (or a chinchilla or cockroach) actually looks at the result or not. There are, of course, many natural situations, not set up by human beings, in which events at the atomic or subatomic scale cause branchings in the quasiclassical realm. For instance, the decay of a radioactive nucleus in a sheet of mica can produce along-lasting track, recording the direction of the decay as well as the fact that it took place. That phenomenon is the basis of fission-track dating.

please guys please just read up on consistent histories.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:00:50 2019 No.10534110 >>10534071 Many-worlds is also not the prevailing view. Yes, still.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:06:58 2019 No.10534124

>>10534100
There's the mathematical model and the philosophical explanation. Ideally they should match with very little change. The mathematical model can be explained straight away with MWI. If you add the collapse, you get single world but host of problems that we're dealing with even today. Quantum magic/quantum voodoo/quantum consciousness/etc are products of copenhagen interpretations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:07:52 2019 No.10534126 >>10534091 >superposition means many worlds It does not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:13:07 2019 No.10534138 >It's hard for me to understand, so it's wrong It has stood the test of time and scrutiny. Your inability to reconcile your intuitions with reality isn't proof of the wrongness of the Copenhagen interpretation. Just accept it.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:18:11 2019 No.10534155

>>10534124
I am of the opinion that no mathematical model actually describes reality as it is in itself, it only "describes" in the sense that it develops metaphors and abstractions to account for what the universe wills. Math and the phenomenal world are fundamentally different substrates, and no model will ever account for why something happens in its essence. I guess this is where me and this board differs, because i think Copenhagen is the obviously correct way to model the phenomenon because it dosen't claim any hidden variables, any hidden "realities" that the math dosent even guarantee: No mathematical model can necessitate MWI ....

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:21:14 2019 No.10534161

>>10534155
This. Real understanding of what reality "is" is not possible for humans. All you can do is shut up and calculate. What are fields? (Not "how do fields behave" what ARE they?) No one knows the answer to this seemingly simple question and no one will ever know. Full stop.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:22:16 2019 No.10534167

>>10534155
The problem of copenhagen is obvious, it hand waves the entirety of the wave in a "collapse." In measuring the quantum effects, it requires a artificial "observer" to measure the changes. And the classical world continues to live independent of quantum world. These are all problems of copenhagen. There's more but you get the picture. The only way to handwave away the wave function is to make it simpler, and people use "occam razor" explanation for this thing, but this is not a scientific reason that explains the loss of information as a result of the collapse.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:22:58 2019 No.10534168

>>10534138
the problem with Copenhagen is that it's absolutely not clear what constitutes a measurement. let me quote again,
>For instance, the decay of a radioactive nucleus in a sheet of mica can produce along-lasting track, recording the direction of the decay as well as the fact that it took place.
copenhagen doesn't tell us what constitutes the measurement that collapses the wavefunction, so it's totally lacking on explaining the mica tracks. you can only make sense of this by abandoning collapse and using decoherence

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:24:59 2019 No.10534171 >>10534167 >>10534168 >The problem with copenhagen. There is no problem with it. The problem is your brain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:27:13 2019 No.10534174 >>10534171 so when did collapse happen in cosmology? was the universe in superposition until the first trilobyte hatched? or until Bohr's earliest memory?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:30:28 2019 No.10534184 >>10534174 "Observation" is not what you think it means. A better word would be "interaction"

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:32:13 2019 No.10534190

>>10534184
exactly. and don't particles constantly interact in nature all the time?

what's happening is decoherence, a natural phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with some external force collapsing the wave function. can we agree on that? therefore the idea of collapse, that copenhagen asserts, is simply irrelevant, so it should be gotten rid of

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:35:57 2019 No.10534202

>>10534190
You just explained how it happens and then flatly stated "because it happens, we should get rid of it." Kind of a non-sequitur.
>Cats happen
>Therefore, we should get rid of the idea of cats
>I mean, isn't it obvious that cats happen?
>Why do we need the idea of cats if they are so obviously real?
>Just ban the word "cat"

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:36:52 2019 No.10534206 >>10534184 So how can the cat both be alive and dead at same time if interaction is happening in the background?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:37:53 2019 No.10534207 >>10534206 The cat is not both dead and alive at the same time. This is just a metaphor/thought experiment to illustrate what happens on the quantum (not the macroscopic) scale

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:38:44 2019 No.10534212

>>10534202
i’m just arguing that collapse is an apparition, when really what is going on is decoherence. i won’t argue that “collapsing” your wave function while you’re modeling your lab experiment isn’t the correct thing to do, but it’s because nature decohered and not because you did anything special

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:39:34 2019 No.10534218 >>10534207 How can there is such a state when everything and every particles are always interacting?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:40:20 2019 No.10534223 >>10534218 Lab environment. That's it

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:41:11 2019 No.10534226 >>10534223 Lab environment isn't magic you dumbass. Everything is always interacting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:42:24 2019 No.10534229 >>10534226 You're just wrong about that. If that were so, they would never have been able to observe it. But yet they did, and that's why we are here talking about it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:42:45 2019 No.10534231 >>10534229 >observe it Durrr

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:43:44 2019 No.10534236 >>10534231 Exactly. I almost wrote that in all caps

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:44:10 2019 No.10534237

Given all the problems with pilot waves, it is seriously harder to just accept that particles function like waves as well and the reason this doesnt make intuitive sense is not because it's wrong but because our brains are not designed to comprehend such things? I mean we already do it with dark energy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:45:18 2019 No.10534240 >>10534237 exactly. this is why anon claimed pilot wave theory gets shat on by occam’s razor

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:46:13 2019 No.10534242 >>10534237 Pilot wave has like 5% of supporters in the physics community, versus Copenhagen 60%+, the largest proportion of any interpretation. Pilot wave is quackery-tier.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:47:55 2019 No.10534244 >>10534242 again, i think these statistics are wrong. certainly wrong for high-energy theory. please stop making this claim.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:51:06 2019 No.10534261 >>10534244 What do you mean they are wrong? They took a poll of top physicists, asked them a simple question, and this is the result. There is no conceivable way for that to be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:56:06 2019 No.10534274 File: 44 KB, 509x598, qmpoll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10534242 Not sure about your "poll" but here's one. Pilot-wave is near dead. >https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:56:39 2019 No.10534277

>>10534261
who did the poll, who participated, and when was it performed? i can guarantee that all the high-energy theorists in my department would go with a collapse-free interpretation (since you're SOL if you try to do quantum cosmology with copenhagen)

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:58:00 2019 No.10534281

>>10534167.
>>10534168
There is no hand waving, There are numerous theories that are compatible with CH that explain the collapse, decoherence for example
>the problem with Copenhagen is that it's absolutely not clear what constitutes a measurement.
It is made very clear that any interaction whatsoever is an observation. This exactly explains the macro world. If your saying you cant know what an interaction or measurement is in its essence, then i agree, but thats like saying points are poorly defined. Of course they are, its a model used to associate with the world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 19:59:11 2019 No.10534282 >>10534244 real scientists actually understand what science is though, that explains why so many of them adhere to it

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 20:02:58 2019 No.10534290

>>10534281
> A total of 33 people turned in their completed questionnaires; of those, 27 stated their main academic affiliation as physics, 5 as philosophy, and 3 as mathematics (here, too, multiple answers were allowed)
okay, so the sample was worthless, we don't even know who they were, and they threw in mathguys and philosophy guys as ~25% of their sample. it's an irrelevant poll and i can guarantee old-fashioned copenhagen is near 0% as what high-energy theorists use in their day-to-day thoughts

>>10534281
are you talking about consistent histories now? good. consistent histories is pure decoherence instead of miracle collapses, but it incorporates the ideas of interactions acting as projection operators in a way that doesn't exist in many-worlds. this is why consistent histories is the best -- in it you can see both how apparent wavefunction collapse enters via decoherence and you can speak meaningfully about classical-level facts that happened in the past (whereas in MW it's just like an LSD trip imho)

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 20:07:57 2019 No.10534295 >>10534282 if this is a dig at high-energy theory, from some solid stater or something, then i'll just laugh at you for bothering yourself with "big questions" like this instead of working on your mean-field approximations that you admit are toy models

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 20:27:11 2019 No.10534334

In case anyone's curious and willing to look at technical details, this is the kind of bullshittery you have to go through to even begin a relativistic theory of de broglie bohm:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3896068/

Even the authors admit at several points that it's sketchy as hell, and say it probably doesn't generalize to more complex systems.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 20:33:53 2019 No.10534342 >>10534174 Misunderstanding of what “observation” means. All that is required is an interaction with another particle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 20:44:00 2019 No.10534364 here's a paper from a few years ago by Frank Wilczek, MIT high-energy theory professor and 2004 Nobel Prize winner, where he goes in-depth on consistent histories https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02480.pdf

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 20:45:59 2019 No.10534370

Copenhagen is bullshit mental gymnastics to maintain the possibility of free will.

Even in a fundamentally probabilistic universe the measurement problem still exists as it would in a deterministic problem; that you cannot create a perfectly objective measurement of a system from within that system.

conceptualizing the wave function as probabilistic is as unjustified as conceptualizing the length of a room as probabilistic because of your inability to define its length to an infinite level of accuracy

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 20:57:03 2019 No.10534391

the double split experiment was the point where science had to admit that the predictive potential of the scientific method was fundamentally limited (as measurement is fundamentally limited) or change into something other than science which it did and became the institution of belief manufacturing it is today. Perfect example of scientism is people in this thread arguing about the popularity of belief as if that has anything to do with the scientific method

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:07:12 2019 No.10534411

>>10534370
>as unjustified as conceptualizing the length of a room as probabilistic because of your inability to define its length to an infinite level of accuracy
This is a completely flawed comparison. The length of a room is (classically) definable down to arbitrary precision. In QM, there is a fundamental limit of the extent to which complementary quantities can be defined simultaneously. This isn't just because the measuring devices are jostling the quantum systems around, it's fundamentally because these quantum systems are waves. QM tells us the probability distribution for a given observable, but aside from this distribution, there is absolutely NO way to even theoretically give a more precise prediction.
The fact that we have to introduce completely and utterly unknowable hidden variables to maintain determinism should be telling us that reality IS stochastic, as you could introduce bullshit hidden variables to any stochastic system to claim that it's "really deterministic."
Even if you choose to believe that there's some unprovable, unknowable determinism underlying QM, the fact remains that there is an inherent unbeatable unpredictability to some measurements, and probability is the obvious choice to represent this mathematically.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:10:12 2019 No.10534419

>>10534391
and the terrible real life implications of that lie are is that we do not take advantage of the mechanistic properties of the wave function to make our lives better.
Whatever potential we have to control the surface of water via resonance, frequency and amplification also applies to out potential control of the fundamental wavefunction

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:19:26 2019 No.10534436 >>10534391 >>10534419 >>>/x/

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:23:16 2019 No.10534442

>>10534411
you don't understand what I'm saying, even in a universe that is fundamentally probabilistic as the Heisenberg uncertainty problem conceptualizes you would still have the measurement problem as defined in debroglie bohm in addition to the inherent stochasm (ie infinitely accurate measurement is impossible because measurement is an interaction and at a certain point interaction will change what you are measuring more than your degree of accuracy is still true in a probabilistic universe).

Even if we are in a probabilistic universe the double split experiment cannot provide evidence of inherent stochasm as you would need an infintely accurate measuring stick to prove stochasm as uncertainty from measurement is the limiting factor even in a probabilistic universe.
The attribution of of inherent stochasm is not justified by the double split experiment nor can there be any experiment that can justify inherent stochasm until we can construct a measuring device outside of the universe.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:24:44 2019 No.10534445

>>10534442
>The fact that we have to introduce completely and utterly unknowable hidden variables to maintain determinism should be telling us that reality IS stochastic, as you could introduce bullshit hidden variables to any stochastic system to claim that it's "really deterministic."
Clearly you didn't read what I wrote

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:24:48 2019 No.10534446 >>10531474 Pilot wave is objectively wrong >>10531577 It isn't, it's determinist cope

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:26:24 2019 No.10534452 >>10532051 Copenhagen did not add stochastism because of free will. It has literally nothing to do with free will.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:26:37 2019 No.10534453

>>10531474
>>10531477
john bush please go to bed

in all seriousness i went to his office once with a question about a quantum mechanical system from a mathematics perspective and he goes "quantum mechanics? i don't understand any of that". He then took me to his lab where he had a bunch of these experiments going on. seems like a cool guy

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:27:26 2019 No.10534458 >>10532067 Yes, it does violate relativity as in asserts there exists a non testable invisible field that goes faster than light that we can never test in order to shoehorn determinism.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:33:15 2019 No.10534472

>>10534445
It's not a hidden variable theory it's a non local theory. All the mechanical properties of the waveform can be discovered by experiment

>>10534458
non local =/= non testable. Relativity does not disprove the existence of non local characteristics of reality, only that there is a subset of reality that is bounded by relativity.

once again the double split experiment does not justify inherent stochasm as even in a probabilistic universe measurement is the limiting factor. The only thing that can be said to be shoe horned is probabilism

>>10534452
the implications of an inherently probabilistic universe is that reality is controlled by any conscious observer
the implication of a deterministic universe is fate, but that fate is unknowable as prediction is imperfect to degree measurement is imperfect

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:36:10 2019 No.10534478 >>10534472 >the implications of an inherently probabilistic universe is that reality is controlled by any conscious observer No it isn't

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:37:56 2019 No.10534481 >>10534472 >the implications of an inherently probabilistic universe is that reality is controlled by any conscious observer No. Again, “observation” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:42:55 2019 No.10534496

>>10534472
>It's not a hidden variable theory it's a non local theory.
Holy shit you don't even know the basics of the theory you support. De Broglie Bohm is a nonlocal hidden variable theory. It proposes that there's a particle somewhere in the wave with a definite position and momentum, but which is completely unknowable.

>The only thing that can be said to be shoe horned is probabilism
???????????????
Probability is literally the only means anyone has of predicting the results of most quantum processes. The probability distributions themselves are actually very well defined and testable to high precision.

>the implications of an inherently probabilistic universe is that reality is controlled by any conscious observer
Here we go with the unnecessary consciousness bullshit

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:49:44 2019 No.10534507 [DELETED]

im completly uneducated and always understood that 'observation' was something like'if you touch it it moves so you can't tell what it originally was' and then people arguing if you can never measure it did it ever even have a value

but how come I see professors and stuff bringing consciousness into it on youtube and stuff?
like is this actually a seriously accepted idea, and how is it different to what im saying

the double slit experiment gets brought up with consciousness alot and I dont get how tf its related
double slit is spooky because a single particle 'knows' theres a slit there because it acts like a wave, even though the particle doesn't touch the other slit

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 21:50:41 2019 No.10534512

>>10534496
there is no hidden variables in de broglie bohm
>completely unknowable
no it's knowable to the degree it is measurable which is defined by the uncertainty principle

>>10534496
de broglie bohm is a deterministic model of quantum mechanics.
This entire thread is an argument about how there is no experiment that justifies probabilism. as even in a hypothetically probabilistic universe you are limited by classical measurement problem

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:00:29 2019 No.10534534

>>10534512
>there is no hidden variables in de broglie bohm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
Read this before posting more verifiably false bullshit.
"In de Broglie–Bohm theory, there is always a matter of fact about the position and momentum of a particle. Each particle has a well-defined trajectory, as well as a wavefunction. Observers have limited knowledge as to what this trajectory is (and thus of the position and momentum)."

>there is no experiment that justifies probabilism
Ask any working physicist and they'll inform you you've got it completely backwards. Every quantum experiment has demonstrated that probability theory has the most predictive capability. There have been no (0) experiments suggesting that there is some information or determinism outside these distributions.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:06:34 2019 No.10534553

>>10534507
You're right in thinking there's no relation between consciousness and the technical meaning of 'measurement.' Measurement, in the technical sense, requires no observer and is essentially just interaction with the environment.
The double slit experiment becomes less spooky once you realize that there is no point particle traveling through one hole or the other. A wave of probabilities passes through both holes, and when it hits the detector screen, the wave interacts in a localized area. Quanta are probabilistic waves that have an all-or-nothing character in interactions.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:10:52 2019 No.10534562

>>10534534
limited accuracy =/= hidden variable. De broglie bohm has no hidden variables ie all variables are knowable to the degree they are measurable

all probabilistic theory is built on the lie that the double split experiment justifies fundamental stochasm. Even if we hypothetically are in a deterministic universe we are still limited by classical measurement problem.
It's not impossible that the universe is fundamentally probabilistic but there is no experiment that can prove it.
In order to prove probabilism you would need an infinitely accurate measuring stick which is not possible in either deterministic or probabilistic universes.

There is no justifiable reason to chose a probabilistic interpretation of the double split experiment over the deterministic interpretation

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:12:17 2019 No.10534565 >>10534562 *hypothetically in a probabilistic

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:13:40 2019 No.10534571 okay, conversation over. now we get to vote on who loses. my vote: LOSER: Pilot Wave

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:21:32 2019 No.10534593

>>10534562
>De broglie bohm has no hidden variables ie all variables are knowable to the degree they are measurable
The exact position and momentum of the particle are hidden variables. They allow the particle's motion to be deterministic, but they aren't themselves knowable. This is the very foundation of De broglie bohm theory, Bohm would wholeheartedly agree with that fact, because it is a fact that De Broglie Bohm is a hidden variable theory. No amount of denying will negate this obvious fact that you could find out yourself if you actually took the time to understand the theory.

The statements you keep repeating about the "classical measurement problem" are based on this thought experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_microscope
You should very carefully read the first paragraph there. In particular, "Recent theoretical and experimental developments have argued that Heisenberg's intuitive explanation of his mathematical result is misleading.[1][2] While the act of measurement does lead to uncertainty, the loss of precision is less than that predicted by Heisenberg's argument when measured at the level of an individual state."
[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0034
[2]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120907125154.htm

So it turns out you're verifiably wrong again

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:27:03 2019 No.10534601 File: 46 KB, 1494x250, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10534593 nope.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:33:05 2019 No.10534612

O.K. Physics Brainlet here, but it's clear that the paradox needs to be reconciled, and inconsistencies amongst theories resolved. Physical nature clearly seems both deterministic and probabilistic depending on what you're doing with it. In lay terms, it's not hypocritical to say it's both deterministic and probabilistic.

For what it's worth, I agree Copenhagen interpretation is likely wrong at some level, and is too narrow a model to accurately reflect the physical nature of the systems involved. Pilot wave seems better to me, yet still incomplete.

Also, I have my own opinion/theory on one of the underlying flaws to these models, being the premise of non-locality, and it's resolution into the standard model. That is: For consistency with the standard model, All particles must be local within the light cone of the universe. Non-locality doesn't physically exist anywhere in the universe. It can't by definition.

Nice discussion though, enjoying reading it, just wanted to jump in a bit.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:34:28 2019 No.10534618

>>10534601
All that is is a semantic argument. If you use the sense that almost anyone means by "hidden variable" (a mathematical parameter which makes a theory deterministic but cannot be known) then De Broglie Bohm is as a matter of undeniable fact a hidden variable theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory#Bohm's_hidden-variable_theory
https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2515

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:43:19 2019 No.10534640

>>10534618
>semantics
exactly. would rather not argue about semantics.

It seems obvious to me the flaw with defining hidden as anything other than something that is irreducibly hidden is if the accuracy of variables that cannot be completely defined due to the limitations of measurement are defined as hidden what do you call things that are fundamentally hidden? hiddener variables?

regardless, if you define hidden variables the way you do I fail to see the problem it causes or how it helps your argument that there is an experiment that can be done that justifies the belief in fundamental stochasm when the classical measurement problem is a the limiting factor for prediction in both deterministic and probabilistic universes. There is no justification for a probabilistic interpretation of the double slit experiment

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:48:07 2019 No.10534660
File: 2.83 MB, 8000x3169, pathint.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10534612
>Also, I have my own opinion/theory on one of the underlying flaws to these models, being the premise of non-locality, and it's resolution into the standard model. That is: For consistency with the standard model, All particles must be local within the light cone of the universe. Non-locality doesn't physically exist anywhere in the universe. It can't by definition.
in QFT you model the particles as local but then you do a "path integral" corresponding to taking into account them going along all possible trajectories (at once). that's how QFT handles the fact that particles are intrinsically spread-out spatially in QM. in nonperturbative QFT you can in principle avoid doing path integrals and then your picture looks more like old-fashioned QM without those locality requirements (in this picture you're working simply with quantum fields, and the picture of locality is a bit more subtle)

anyhow what these guys are arguing over is not really about locality but rather about local vs. non-local hidden variables. in other words, one could imagine adding something into QM that represents e.g. a particle having some extra quantum number that we can't observe (local hidden variable) or that there is some global hidden variable that affects all particles, like some bizarro cosmological constant that can't be observed but is still there

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:49:37 2019 No.10534667

>>10534640

If you actually read the second part of this
>>10534593
and read the sources, you'll find that
>the classical measurement problem is a the limiting factor for prediction in both deterministic and probabilistic universes.
is actually verifiably false

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 22:56:39 2019 No.10534691

>>10534660
>anyhow what these guys are arguing over is not really about locality but rather about local vs. non-local hidden variables. in other words, one could imagine adding something into QM that represents e.g. a particle having some extra quantum number that we can't observe (local hidden variable) or that there is some global hidden variable that affects all particles, like some bizarro cosmological constant that can't be observed but is still there

no I am arguing there is no justification for a probabilistic interpretation of the universe given that the classical measurement problem exists as the limit of predictability in both deterministic and probabilistic universes

>>10534667
fuck bro, we already said semantics. I would agree with you if there was some variable in de broglie bohm that was fundamentally unknowable not unknowable because of the measurement problem

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 23:03:18 2019 No.10534703

>>10534691
>I would agree with you if there was some variable in de broglie bohm that was fundamentally unknowable not unknowable because of the measurement problem
According to DBB, the wave nature of the pilot wave is what <<makes>> them fundamentally unknowable, even though they supposedly do really exist in DBB.
Seriously, for the last time, read the sources I linked and you'll find out that this "classical measurement problem" idea of yours has been disproven.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 23:07:16 2019 No.10534711

>>10534660
Ah, thanks for clarification, very helpful. What I was thinking is more akin to the later case then, that is, that the "global hidden variable" if there is one, has to do with the fact that all matter was once in contact, and therefore no matter is non-local over the time of the universe, and that the information has been passed along the universal state ever since.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 23:15:11 2019 No.10534731

>>10534691
okay, what bohm says is basically "there isn't a hidden variable, because all the wave's variables aren't hidden, and the particle is what lights up your detector"
okay, fine. but what is the particle doing when you're not measuring it? it's somehow surfing this wave, right? following some billiard-ball like trajectory? what are its dynamics, precisely, when it is doing this?

the only answer you can give me is that the dynamics are something that's "hidden". otherwise i don't see how this is any different from admitting it's just wave the whole time

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 23:23:42 2019 No.10534744

>>10534711
well, a pretty uncontroversial assumption in these debates is that there is something called the "universal wavefunction", which basically implies everything in the universe is entangled quantum-mechanically. and the fact that we all believe there was a big bang and then a while later inflation happened implies that this makes sense; for sure our observable universe had time to interact enough at least to reach thermal equillibrium (inflation), and perhaps at the big bang, since everything was in one spot in some sense, there is leftover entanglement from that too. you don't even need a nonlocal "hidden" variable because quantum wavefunctions (and indeed the universal wavefunction) are sort of nonlocal to begin with thanks to entanglement

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 23:32:46 2019 No.10534765

>>10534691
>no I am arguing there is no justification for a probabilistic interpretation of the universe given that the classical measurement problem exists as the limit of predictability in both deterministic and probabilistic universes

This is a concise way to think about the topic. I do see how the classic measurement problem acts as the limit for both as stated, and yet macro scale probabilistic events occur. Of course if you break those down to the minimum as stated, then indeed they aren't really probabilistic by definition, but, what if the minimum scale doesn't have preferential treatment? What if scale is relativistic, with each scale getting it's own "scale reference frame?" In other words if an object is 2 colors, it's fair to say it's blue, it's fair to say it's green, it's fair to say it's blue and green, but it's not fair to say it's just blue. The minimal scale argument seems like saying it's just blue.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 23:34:58 2019 No.10534768 >>10534744 That's mostly what I meant, thanks for the consolidation. It just seems in all my education and conversations that is always ignored and never addressed.

Anonymous Mon Apr 8 23:46:37 2019 No.10534807

Another thought experiment would be to ask can a probabilistic event be constructed from many deterministic ones? Maybe this leads in a circle back to hidden variables, but similar to nuclear binding energy, can the whole(probability) be greater than the sum of the parts(determined events)? What would the probabilistic binding energy be? Again, maybe scale at some level.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 23:58:29 2019 No.10534826 >>10534703 the article disproves the degree of accuracy of Heisenberg's original formulation not the general principle >>10534731 this is semantics see>>10534640

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 9 00:01:46 2019 No.10534832 >>10534826 The articles show that measurement alone can't account for Heisenberg uncertainty, which is the point I was trying to make. Heisenberg uncertainty comes from the wave nature of matter, not just from the disturbances of measurement.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 9 00:01:59 2019 No.10534833 >>10534826 it's not semantics. what are the dynamics of the particle as it surfs its wave? does it follow a billiard-ball type trajectory? are the points along that trajectory measurable, or hidden? reasonable questions imo

Anonymous Tue Apr 9 00:06:59 2019 No.10534840

>>10534826
No, that's not semantics. Semantic games are when you try to weasel your way out of an argument by choosing slightly different definitions. That's what Bohm was doing in his quote on how "it's not REALLY hidden variables." The person you replied to raised very valid concerns that you're not addressing.

Anonymous Tue Apr 9 00:13:16 2019 No.10534848

>>10534833
To answer their question for them: the particle's dynamics are described by an additional "guiding equation" on top of the Schrodinger Equation for the pilot wave. The particle has some hidden position, and its velocity is determined by the imaginary component of the gradient of the wavefunction at that location.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 9 00:19:49 2019 No.10534859 >>10534848 indeed, i was trying to get him to admit that he has hidden variables though, without telling him outright, you know socratic method

Anonymous Tue Apr 9 00:37:33 2019 No.10534891

>>10534832
Its gonna take me a while to fully understand their experiment so you win at this point. I would speculate there is an inconsistency in the idea of measuremet and repetitive measurement that makes it invalid to apply this result to what they claim. But more than happy to concede probabilism if theres no problem.
Does this also suggest i was correct until 2012, seems ridiculous.
>>10534859
Its symantics because we define hidden variable differently you dont make the distinction between hidden because of measurement problem and fundamentally hidden. Your definition of hidden variable would make dbb a non local hidden variable theory. The definituon doesnt change the validity of my argument but the result of article would>>10534593
So i admit defeat unless i find a problem with that paper

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 9 14:57:53 2019 No.10536464 >>10534126 It's a definition, nigger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 9 15:37:58 2019 No.10536571 >>10534534 EPR paradox and delayed choice experiment suggest determinism, because deterministic interpretations work well for them, but indeterministic interpretations fail miserably.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 9 19:26:43 2019 No.10537146 >>10532007 I bet you use GR to plan lunar missions faggot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 02:18:13 2019 No.10538167 >>10536571 Those paradoxes are only problematic for Copenhagen, because it presupposes wave function collapse. It's not a problem in many worlds for example, which is still probabilistic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 08:05:07 2019 No.10538687 >>10538167 >many worlds for example, which is still probabilistic ...what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 14:53:23 2019 No.10541755 >>10538167 Many worlds is deterministic (because only collapse is probabilistic and it's not in MWI).

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 16:22:38 2019 No.10542214 >>10538687 >>10541755 The universal wavefunction in MWI is deterministic, but the results we actually see for experiments in MWI are still probabilistic. Which universe we end up in is probabilistic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 18:08:59 2019 No.10542772 >>10542214 this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 19:06:00 2019 No.10543073 >>10542214 Therefore the "universe" is probabilistic. It only looks deterministic from the pov of the present. Right?

Anonymous Wed Apr 10 19:10:19 2019 No.10543096

>>10543073
no. the universal wave function evolves deterministically but what we see from our perspective is probabilistic. this is because the universal wave function contains branches corresponding to each thing we might see with nonzero probability, and we don’t know which branch we will end up in

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 19:32:41 2019 No.10543217 >>10543096 Dang. Anon, where did you learn all this? Uni?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 21:28:44 2019 No.10543731 Feels good being a hidden variable CHAD.

Anonymous Wed Apr 10 21:40:05 2019 No.10543774

>but that fate is unknowable as prediction is imperfect to degree measurement is imperfect
why is it that determinists will assert that the brain and every other system is deterministic, but the moment proof is required its "out of our capacity to measure"? Furthermore the idea of stochastic systems seems to be out of their grasp.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 21:44:16 2019 No.10543791 >>10536571 >delayed choice there are tons of experimental flaws with the delayed choice experiment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 22:25:41 2019 No.10543913 File: 45 KB, 846x435, Fischer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Apr 10 22:44:20 2019 No.10543981

>>10543791
are there? i asked in a prior thread if anyone knows what kind of photodetectors they used, since in the papers i looked at they never said details of the actual apparatus, (all conceptual stuff and no details of whether it was PMTs, HPDs, or what). i’d be interested in any details you know

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 22:56:29 2019 No.10544033 >>10543981 Oh sorry i thought we were talking about the neurological delayed response experiment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 23:07:49 2019 No.10544067 >>10543981 It definitely isn't mentioned in Kim et al, but given how commonplace they are it's reasonable to assume the detectors are photomultiplier tubes mounted on stepper motors to scan the x axis.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 23:11:35 2019 No.10544073 >>10531474 Unpopular opinion: Pilot waves are the simulation being created before we arrive at the moment of universal measurement.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 23:24:49 2019 No.10544116 >>10544073 Hyperposition argument: Consciousness is observable because Optimum Theory is pushing back against the pilot wave simulation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 23:50:55 2019 No.10544201 >>10544116 Meta-superposition: The universe exists in superposition. If Optimum theory isn't observed by the public, the universe will never be created.

Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:04:36 2019 No.10544245

>>10544067
i'm not sure if i buy that. PMTs are hot wild things. if the idea here is that you can do a delayed-erase then i feel that e.g. the power consumption of the "idler" PMT would decohere the thing.... i bet it needed to be something like a SiPM or something more "digital" so that there's less thermalization and power consumption going on and so that you can erase that one "bit" of info you get.... or am i making a mistake in my understanding here?

the delayed-choice quantum eraser is basically the only QM experiment that my consistent-histories way of looking at things doesn't make totally transparent

Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:10:51 2019 No.10544264

>>10544245
The idler photon's detection is outside the light cone of the other photon's detection, so the thermalization is irrelevant.

I think that DCQE makes total sense in the framework of consistent histories. Basically, the history you observe at the first detector must be consistent with the history of which detector the idler photon strikes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:12:10 2019 No.10544267 >>10544264 hmph. maybe i just need to reread the paper. expect to see a thread about it in the next few days :-)

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:16:22 2019 No.10544284 >>10531474 >A lot of needless confusion thats the point! lots of reality to think about...

Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:17:33 2019 No.10544287 [DELETED]

>>10531477
Like many others, Bohm was recruited by J. Robert Oppenheimer as a graduate physics student at the University of California, Berkeley to become a part of the Manhattan Project. Bohm would never make it to Los Alamos though, as General Leslie Groves flatly denied him a security clearance. Bohm's history with radicalism--he was a regular attendee of Berkeley Communist Party meetings and at one point dated the future Betty Friedan--caused too much of a risk in Groves's mind. As such, it was impossible for him to directly contribute to the Manhattan Project. Yet his graduate thesis, written on the collisions of protons and deuterons, was deemed pertinent to the project, and was classified. Lacking the proper clearance, Bohm was barred from accessing his own research. No less than Oppenheimer himself had to testify to the university that Bohm had adequately completed his degree. The charges of radicalism would continue to follow Bohm after the war. After refusing to testify about his Communist ties before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), he was eventually arrested in 1950. Though he would be acquitted for contempt of Congress soon after, he decided his career would benefit from foreign citizenship. In 1951, he left the United States to do research in Brazil, before eventually settling in the United Kingdom. There he would have a distinguished career as a physicist.
Maybe why. He was also into wholeness.

Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:18:34 2019 No.10544290

>>10531477
>Like many others, Bohm was recruited by J. Robert Oppenheimer as a graduate physics student at the University of California, Berkeley to become a part of the Manhattan Project. Bohm would never make it to Los Alamos though, as General Leslie Groves flatly denied him a security clearance. Bohm's history with radicalism--he was a regular attendee of Berkeley Communist Party meetings and at one point dated the future Betty Friedan--caused too much of a risk in Groves's mind. As such, it was impossible for him to directly contribute to the Manhattan Project. Yet his graduate thesis, written on the collisions of protons and deuterons, was deemed pertinent to the project, and was classified. Lacking the proper clearance, Bohm was barred from accessing his own research. No less than Oppenheimer himself had to testify to the university that Bohm had adequately completed his degree. The charges of radicalism would continue to follow Bohm after the war. After refusing to testify about his Communist ties before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), he was eventually arrested in 1950. Though he would be acquitted for contempt of Congress soon after, he decided his career would benefit from foreign citizenship. In 1951, he left the United States to do research in Brazil, before eventually settling in the United Kingdom. There he would have a distinguished career as a physicist.
Maybe why. He was also into wholeness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:22:05 2019 No.10544296 >>10544290 based leslie

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:32:25 2019 No.10544334 >>10543774 >"out of our capacity to measure" godels incompleteness theorem, you can't get an outside or total perspective. you also cant prove that freewill is ultimately free. compatibism werks

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:33:32 2019 No.10544339 >>10543774 >"out of our capacity to measure" godels incompleteness theorem, you can't get an outside or total perspective. you also cant prove that freewill is ultimately free. compatibilism werks

Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:38:03 2019 No.10544349

>>10543774
>"out of our capacity to measure"
godels incompleteness theorem, you can't get an outside or total perspective. you also cant prove that freewill is ultimately free. compatibilism werks.
actually you can almost prove that freewill exists using logic if you assume that all is born from an creative force or mind with the notion that the universe and beyond will not just loop forever and will be forever novel to some degree, because do you really think it will loop forever once it has passed through all iterations. or can it create novelty beyond that? like the digits of pi.

Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:45:55 2019 No.10544368
File: 87 KB, 668x509, unitcell2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10531577
>just totally gets shat on by occam's razor.
as opposed to quanta having wave particle duality which is obviously the simplest thing and way simpler than some totally classical idea like pilot waves.

Actually, I showed that local hidden variables are always allowed, and there was an oversight in the original formulation of Bell's Theorem.
>On Bell's Inequality
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1312.0173

>>10534207
>The cat is not both dead and alive at the same time.
nice opinion.

>>10534660
I like this book. I've read the first half of the first chapter a few times.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 00:50:18 2019 No.10544387 >>10544368 jon, this thread is out of your league. you literally admitted you couldn't even get through the first chapter of Zee. think about that. also, reminder: the masses of the W and Z are not 0

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 13:52:49 2019 No.10546830 >>10542214 We end up in all worlds deterministically, that's why many worlds. We are just positions of particles, as long as particles are in place they are we.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 14:17:45 2019 No.10546958 >>10531474 My Thesis is about this shit, I'm quite annoyed about the text format, I tried 12 size and Arial font, but it just looks gay and not filling enough ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 15:03:08 2019 No.10547190 >>10546958 try comic sans size 360

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 15:25:16 2019 No.10547338 >>10534155 >>10534161 This doesn't just apply to physics but literally everything. There is no 'what is' or 'truth' because these are dependent on the human mind, the very act of conceiving of something negates its realness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 15:28:10 2019 No.10547371 >>10547190 xD lol, how to upvote ?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math