[ 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: 44 KB, 509x598, qmpoll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10553165 No.10553165 [Reply] [Original]

Is this the most embarrassing graph in physics? Why is it taking so long to come up with a good answer to a stupid double slit experiment?

What does sci believe in? Is it just the pilot wave after all?

>> No.10553168

>>10553165
of course, it has to be.

>> No.10553184

>>10553165

Pure math guy who has never looked into this. Someone set this up for me in at most 2000 characters. I'm not asking google, I'm asking you.

>> No.10553308

>>10553184
A partial differential equation gives a propability space that agrees with experiments, but poeple are arguing about what each individual variable and operation actualy 'means'.

>> No.10553614

Wasn't Bohm-deBroglie debunked recently by experiment?

>> No.10553625

>>10553308
You can do the same to predict the weather approximately, that doesn't mean the world is made of fucking probabilities and that it's meaningless to talk about air molecules.

>> No.10553643

>>10553625
Except that things like Uncertainty Principle are absolutely fundamental to quantum mechanics. So Nature is probabilistic, we know this for a century, and that is the end of it.

This desire for determinism is merely an artifact of certain lesser human minds, and not a law of nature. One could even say that determinism does not make sense.

>> No.10553646
File: 22 KB, 347x190, hardy-s-paradox-logic-classical[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10553646

>>10553165
>Consistent histories at 0%

You are right, it is embarrassing.

>> No.10553656

>>10553643
The uncertainty principle doesn't rule out determinism. It applies to every wave like system.
De-Broglie is completely deterministic and reproduces all predictions of classic QM

>> No.10553671

>>10553656
Reproducing the predictions of QFT is the goal. Any "interpretation" that fails to do this is inferior.

>> No.10553679
File: 82 KB, 487x650, motlmoazcu[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10553679

>>10553165
>Is it just the pilot wave after all?
There is a reason why no respected physicist believes in pilot waves. It just does not work for any remotely realistic scenario and is very much ad hoc and convoluted.

https://motls.blogspot.com/2016/05/bohmians-self-confidence-evaporates-as.html

>> No.10553713

>>10553679
God damn, I can feel the butthurt

>> No.10553720
File: 22 KB, 218x265, 1510249569844.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10553720

>>10553679
>Both Bohmists and Marxists are very loud and aggressive when they scream what they hate but when they're supposed to show an alternative, all the meaningful activity goes away.

>Sadly, this is not just an analogy. Most Bohmists actually were and are Marxists at the same moment (starting with David Bohm himself) so these two examples of a behavior may be just two sides of the same coin.

>> No.10554611

>>10553165
>calls relative-state interpretation "many worlds"
yeah, it IS embarrassing, as in getting-information-from-science-popularizers embarrassing.

>> No.10554619

>>10553614
No, it's had issues with scattering amplitudes in the past but those were resolved, but the stigma lingers.
I don't know why it's as unpopular as it is. Taking a bayesian interpretation or just saying it has no physical interpretation or whatever bullshit they spout now to avoid being perceived as "woo" is shameful. Pilot waves make a fuckload more sense than that shit.

>> No.10554624

>>10553671
Bohmian mechanics will necessarily disagree with qft at some point since it's explicitly non local. That should make for interesting experiments.

>> No.10554637

>>10553184
Brainlets falling for various retarded shit aggravated by philosophic denialism.

>> No.10554695

>>10554619
As a non-local theory pilot wave is incompatible with special theory of relativity.

>> No.10554699

>>10553679
>a reason why no respected physicist believes in pilot waves
and that reason is the same so many Harvard grads go on to spend a good chunk of their lives doing excel at investment banks: because that's what you're "supposed to do"

>> No.10554767

>>10553165
i dont see how its embarrassing, physics doesnt need to answer "why" fundamental aspects of the universe are the way they are

>> No.10554793

so the choice is allowing some very limited form of FTL to preserve realism, aka not throwing logic out of the window?

>> No.10554795

>>10554767
Yes, they do. Science at its core is about causation.

>> No.10554810
File: 95 KB, 800x556, 800wm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10554810

>>10553165
again, this is a sample of 33 people who were allowed to make multiple answers, and a quarter of the people were not even physicists (math and philosophy tards), and it was probably some random assortment of condensed matter physicists, astronomers, astrophysicists, biophysicists, materials science physicists, etc. and they were probably all continental eurotards. meaningless plot.

>>10553646
consistent histories is patrician, pic related

>> No.10554813

>Quantum Bayesianism
jesus

>> No.10554818

>>10553165
Yes, it is. The fact that b isn't 100% is very embarrassing. Although information-theoretic "interpretation" is tolerable if you're in CS.

>> No.10554824

>>10554818
Copenhagen is not even an interpretation any more. nobody still believes the Bohr interpretation, with his "complementarity" nonsense and I-Ching woo. if you believe in copenhagen you need to define what you actually mean, because if you still ascribe to Bohr's writings, you're a brainlet

>> No.10555460

>>10554824
By Copenhagen interpretation, i mean the postulates of quantum mechanics. Then there's Copenhagen spirit, as per Heisenberg, which is _the_ approach to understanding it. His book is still better than most modern textbooks that overly focus on the wave function and try to sway you into thinking QM is just some classical theory in disguise (teaching from Griffiths is a crime against humanity, as far as i'm concerned).

>> No.10555482

>>10555460
can you tl;dr me on that/your version of Copenhagen then? i don't really have the drive in me to open a dusty old Heisenberg book (which i would assume is poorly translated anyway)

>> No.10555530

>>10555482
>tl;dr
Take your adderall, how did you pass undergrad? The books have adequate translation. For technical reading, The Physical Principles of The Quantum Theory. For nontechnical, Physics and Philosophy.

>> No.10555729

Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics
Sage

>> No.10555738

>>10555530
i don't want a lecture course on your stupid outdated interpretation. i want you to make an argument why it's a good interpretation, because as far as i can see, copenhagen is utterly impotent for many applications in physics. one good example is quantum cosmology (but there are other, more mundane examples too). telling me to read a 90 year old book is not an argument.

>> No.10556549

>>10554824
>Copenhagen is not even an interpretation any more.
shut up and calculate.