/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10844507]

There is no locality. Every particle is entangled. When you look at a particle here on Earth a particle on alpha centauri changes its spin.

[Anonymous No.10844529]

>>10844507

Anyone who says the universe is local IS A SCHiZOo!!! REEEEEEE!!!!!

Gibs us funding!!!!

[Anonymous No.10844547]

>>10844507
> When you look at a particle here on Earth a particle on alpha centauri changes its spin.
No, only the probability distribution of the possible outcomes of measuring the spin on Alpha Centauri changes.

[Anonymous No.10844551]

>>10844547
checked; this.

[Anonymous No.10844561]

>>10844547
Exactly! This is what schizos one understand!!!

Its like if you have 4 blocks of different colors, red, blue, green, yellow, and you spread them across the galaxy, and then find a blue block on earth, the probabily of the the other blocks CHANGES instantly!!!! Literally non locality! Everything is connected!!! Anyone who says the universe is local should be in a padded cell!

[Anonymous No.10844562]

Why is the universe so full of illusions? What is this place?

[Anonymous No.10844565]

>>10844561

It also means fast than loght speed (((Einstein))) BTFO!!!! We did it brothers! We proved him wrong! Universe is non local and (((they))) are wrong and we are right!

[Anonymous No.10844568]

>(((
>!!!
Schizo poster is on the loose again

[Anonymous No.10844573]

>>10844561
>Its like if you have 4 blocks of different colors, red, blue, green, yellow, and you spread them across the galaxy, and then find a blue block on earth, the probability of the the other blocks CHANGES instantly!!!! Literally non locality! Everything is connected!!! The blocks literally change colors, instantly, as of by magic, and yet its science! Anyone who says the universe is local should be in a padded cell!

This is the best analogy for nonlocality and entanglement I have ever heard and exactly why we need to be funding greater research into this phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.10844583]

>>10844565
before you go back to >>>/pol/ i'll just remind you that all quantum theories still obey the special relativistic principle of no FTL transfer of information. based Einstein is still the champ

[Anonymous No.10844602]

>>10844573
Spooky (action at a distance)

[Anonymous No.10844603]

>>10844583

No!!!! There is no locality! Quantum entanglement!!!!

Dont you understand???

If you have a left sock and right sock, and throw them at random through the Universe, then you find the right sock, the probability that the other sock is a left sock CHANGES INSTANTLY!!!!! This is why we must spend billions in funding researching this!!!!

[Anonymous No.10844604]

>>10844603
Okay, Einstein, we get it.

[Anonymous No.10844607]

>>10844603
i can't tell your angle here. if you like the bertlman's socks story, that's fine, John Bell was based, but why the anti-science-funding sarcasm?

[Anonymous No.10844610]

>>10844607
Because he's a /pol/lock. He was just putting nazi brackets around einstein's name.

[Anonymous No.10844615]

>>10844583
>>10844603

It is almost impossible to wrap the mind around and yet it is true, the sock literally changes faster than light! Einstein blown the fuck out!!!

[Anonymous No.10844623]

>>10844607

Listen here, pal. Physics can NEVER be unified!!!! Jesus fucking Christ!!!!! My funding is tied to the MYSTERY dont you understand???? If the equation of everything is found then how can I get funding?!??!

It is imperitive that we set traps for any logic leading to unfied physics.

Unified physics requires locality, so we spit in their faces and say its nonlocal. Unified physics demands 1 equation so we spit in their faces and say string theory has found 1 sextillion equations that need to be individually sorted by hand.

Are you fucking getting this??!?@?!!

[Anonymous No.10844633]

>>10844615
>>10844623
can you stop already? jesus christ, what a child

here is an excerpt from a real physicist, Murray Gell-Mann in his book The Quark and the Jaguar

[Anonymous No.10844644]

>>10844633

Exactly (((they))) are trying to unify physics!!! Infact, one of them has even claimed to have done this and has a simulation of the results that that that that people will find irrefutable if they are allowed to see it!!! Jesus Christ!!! What are we to do brother??? We cannot tell them we have been hsing funding for yacht parties ane vacations this whole time!!!! They they they would be furious!!! How can we allow this to happen?

[Anonymous No.10844650]

>>10844644
yawn.

[Anonymous No.10844653]

>>10844507
Prove it

[Anonymous No.10844657]

>>10844650

B-b-brother you are getting your interest checks for your yacht parties but what about the rest of us??? Like you I also have a "lab" where I work a few hours a year trying to stop (((them))) from unifying physics... but if-if-if they actually do it, then can I have your assurance that I will still be getting my yacht party interest check?

[Anonymous No.10844658]

>>10844561
yeah, but that probability is so fucking low it almost doesn't matter

I bet you spent several hours trying to walk through a wall because you think 'the probability exists that nothing will interact

well you're wrong, you and the wall will always interact because of the sheer quanta of things that can interact. Non interaction is so statistically unlikely that it will never happen, not over the entire lifespan of this universe


you don't understand statistics

[Anonymous No.10844663]

>>10844657
redplil grug optumim thery

[Anonymous No.10844665]

>>10844653

I-I-I dont have to prove it because I h-h-have friends who control the banks and they give me funding and they dont give you funding because a hundred years ago my bloodline went to war to ensure this so fuck you. (((Your))) logic and reason means nothing.

[Anonymous No.10844674]

>>10844562

An hologram, of course.

[Anonymous No.10844701]

>>10844583
He's being ironical, because he thinks entanglement is absurd and somehow conflicts with Einstein. Entanglement is perfectly relativistic.

[Anonymous No.10844705]

>>10844701
Not him
Entanglement is absurd

[Anonymous No.10844707]

>>10844657
I've read your posts, and I understand now. To deny that there is a vested interest would be insane.

[Anonymous No.10844711]

>>10844705
too bad Alain Aspect did a lab experiment and proved it (MGM confirms this in >>10844633)

[Anonymous No.10844719]

>>10844705
Except it's not and being upset about it is really just bizarre.

[Anonymous No.10844731]

>>10844719
Except you can’t explain its mechanism which makes hidden variables just as likely.
Any other answer is religious tier hand waving.

[Anonymous No.10844739]

>>10844731
there is a theorem that says local hidden variables can't reproduce what we've seen in quantum experiments. if you are gonna talk about nonlocal hidden variables then you should understand what that means and why it makes no sense

are you not happy with the murray gell-mann explanation given above?

[Anonymous No.10844741]

>>10844731
>Just as likely
Except no, because non-local hidden variables violate special relativity

[Anonymous No.10844744]

>>10844739

Pilot-wave theory finds a way to do it.

[Anonymous No.10844750]

>>10844744
Do what? Violate special relativity? I guess so.

[Anonymous No.10844758]

>>10844561
>Its like if you have 4 blocks of different colors, red, blue, green, yellow, and you spread them across the galaxy, and then find a blue block on earth, the probabily of the the other blocks CHANGES instantly!!!!
That's sorta true, but not quite right. That's something along the lines Einstein was arguing with Bore.

Experiments testing Bell's inequalities have ruled that explanation out.

Here's the correction you need to make to the green text quote:
"Its like if you have a QUANTUM 4-block of IN A LINEAR COMBINATION OF QUATUM STATES STATES: |4-block> = |r>|b>|g>|y> + |b>|r>|g>|y> +...+ (all perturbations of red, green, blue, and yellow), and you spread them across the galaxy, and then find a blue block on earth, the probably of the the other blocks CHANGES instantly!!!!"

For example: if you measure the block on earth, and find it in state |r>, then that means the quantum 4-block "collapse" to |4-block> = |r>|g>|b>|y> + |r>|b>|g>|y> + |r>|y>|b>|g> + ... + (all permutations where the components take the form |r>...).

[Anonymous No.10844768]

>>10844750

So does the basic Schrodinger equation.

[Anonymous No.10844775]

>>10844758
I meant "permutations"

[Anonymous No.10844785]

>>10844744
>Pilot-wave theory

[Anonymous No.10844792]

>>10844785
Well in his defence you've got 4 options for ontology:
1. Weird consciousness-based phenomena
2. Multiple Universes
3. Special-relativity violating realism
4. Objective reduction
I don't personally agree with him, but I can absolutely see why number 1 and number 2 especially alarm people.

[Anonymous No.10844808]

>>10844792
imho clearly the answer is #2. i prefer the consistent histories interpretation, in which collapse doesn't exist and is explained by natural decoherence. and decoherence is a simple thing you can see in a lab. when you have a superposition state, the two things can interfere with eachother, and you can see that. electron-through-right-slit interferes with electron-through-left-slit. so basically you have two universes that only differ by two electron paths interfering right in front of your eyes. as soon as you start interacting the electrons with a detector at the slits though, you decohere the superposition. same thing with every measurement, just decoherence from interactions that "cut off" the interference we would get from the other "universes"

though whatever, this is just my interpretation and i don't think it's worth arguing about.

however pilot-wave theory is brainlet-tier in the modern world because it introduces a whole lot of bullshit to hang onto a classical-physics picture of what is really going on, but it didn't work out like Bohm originally wanted it to. he wanted a local hidden variables theory, but that got ruled out by bell inequality tests. so now it requires nonlocal hidden variables, and if you think about what that means, it means like a magic set of variables that can instantly link everywhere in space. that is definitely not what bohm wanted, since he wanted something classical like waves and billiard balls, not some magical universal telekinesis like modern day pilot-wave shillers seem to believe in (though i suspect it's just because they don't understand what they're talking about)

[Anonymous No.10844810]

>>10844785
kek

[Anonymous No.10844821]

>>10844792
First one is already ruled out
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-darwinism-an-idea-to-explain-objective-reality-passes-first-tests-20190722/
You may now stop spamming this woo on this board
Many worlds is pretty much bunk as well.

[Anonymous No.10844824]

>>10844758
Thats absurd

[Anonymous No.10844829]

>>10844824
Why?

[Anonymous No.10844832]

>>10844808
I'll be straight, I prefer 1 because I think it'd be cool if it were the case, besides I think (unlike a lot of people on /sci/) that the hard problem of consciousness needs to be solved and it'd probably go some way to showing that it's a soluble problem.
But if you think my opinion is woo-y I've got a dose for you: Some of the newest research I've seen being done on creating a relativistic (lol) pilot-wave model involves people invoking retrocausality. I've even seen people attempt to justify ESP in terms of pilot waves, FTL communication, EM drives. You name it, I've heard it. It doesn't surprise me because Bohm himself was into crazy shit and rubbed elbows with the Fundamental Fysiks Group back in the day.

[Anonymous No.10844835]

>>10844758
I'm starting to think that if the general public wants to understand this stuff, they will all have to become quantum physicists. Bezos, fund it!

[Anonymous No.10844836]

>>10844821
Post a dumb article, get a dumb blog response:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/07/quanta-magazines-anti-quantum-zeal.html?m=1

[Anonymous No.10844839]

>>10844808
>the answer is #2
It's not. Not even the people who work on this think it's that. Many worlds is even more unpopular than pilot-wave

[Anonymous No.10844844]

>>10844832
> pilot-wave theory
This is what hidden-variable theorists actually believe.

[Anonymous No.10844845]

>>10844836
>dumb article
It's quanta magazine. That's as undumb as articles get

[Anonymous No.10844848]

>>10844845
It's a glorified version of New Scientist. It's also wrong.

[Anonymous No.10844850]

>>10844844
?

[Anonymous No.10844852]

>>10844832
yes, i consider that woo. but as long as you stay within physics and don’t fall for the ESP and “quantum qi can cure cancer through meditation” then i’ll let you be until a better theory can settle the matter. experiments need to settle it, if it even can be settled

one thing to point out is that the very respectable Gerard ’t Hooft has an interpretation that says the world is purely classical and settles entanglement through superdeterminism. and he’s smart. so maybe it’s all deterministic after all. whatever, as long as i keep getting published

[Anonymous No.10844856]

>>10844848
I've never seen anything as in-depth in New Scientist as what Quanta does. Right or wrong, as this may be.

[Anonymous No.10844857]

>>10844839
you’re objectively wrong. can i quote murray gell-mann again? he believed in consistent histories (we miss you murray). i can dig up more pages from his book if you like

[Anonymous No.10844862]

>>10844844
Anyway, if you want to dig it up, Brian Josephson, a nobel prize winner who's into ESP and parapsychology (Proving once and for all that nobody is immune from superstition) has written a paper that attempts to justify ESP in terms of the pilot wave.

[Anonymous No.10844869]

>>10844862
and he is considered a quack by most physicists and hasn’t done anything since literally the 70s

[Anonymous No.10844871]

>>10844850
!

[Anonymous No.10844875]

>>10844857
I am not objectively wrong. I am quantifiably right.

[Anonymous No.10844878]

>>10844852
>Superdeterminism
I don't buy it. From my largely lay perspective it seems like the universe would need to be arranged into a bizarre set of coincidences so as to convince us that it's something it's not, so for me it doesn't pass mustard. I think it's just the last refuge of people who wanted to buy into hidden variables but just gave it up after Bell did his thing.

I also think that you're probably right, and that consistent histories is probably something that at least approximates truth. I still think you need to resolve the hard problem though and I don't think that'll be done through emergentism either, but that being said it's arguably outside the remit of physics anyway and consistent histories sounds fairly elegant to me.

[Anonymous No.10844880]

>>10844850
the point is that the original Bohm interpretation was a local hidden variables theory, but that is incompatible with confirmed experimental results. but some idiots who want to perpetuate his ideas (because people like more classical pictures) so they had to use nonlocal hidden variables instead. basically unknowable variables that pervade the universe and link all of space instantly (in particular this violates special relativity) are what is needed to keep the theory alive. it is so far out of common sense that it is laughable, and i am pretty sure the only people who shill it are internet larpers and philosophers/mathematicians who can't into physics

[Anonymous No.10844882]

>>10844869
Well yeah, that's my point, hence, nobody is immune from superstition. My point here though is that there's a lot of silly possibilities hiding just under the rock of the Bohm interpretation that it's advocates are either balls-deep into or are in flat denial of.

[Anonymous No.10844887]

>>10844880
Yeah I know that. I was wondering if you were implying I believed in hidden variable theories, I don't. I was pointing out that hidden variable theorists have more than a few cranks in the ranks, at least as many as Copenhagenists. MWI advocates generally tend to be the most reasonable.

[Anonymous No.10844888]

>>10844875
no you aren't. i would ask you for a source, but i know that there is like only one stupid survey they carried out on like 30 people that noobs like you routinely post. and even there, the pilot wave theory is within the "other" category and loses to MWI. (and mind you, consistent histories is more well-fleshed out than Everett's original MWI).

pilot wave theory is laughed at by most physicists i know, and this is based on years as a grad student and postdoc. MWI is viewed very skeptically, of course, as is the entire "interpretations" debate, since most physicists realize it is just mindless philosophy banter after all, but it is the go-to mental picture for a vast majority of the high-energy theorists and cosmologists i've talked to.

[Anonymous No.10844905]

>>10844887
i think there was a not-the-anon-you-were-replying-to in the mix there. anyhow i am not implying that consciousness-woo interpretations imply hidden variables, local or nonlocal. except they do sort of imply the necessity for new dynamics (not within normal quantum theory) or at least "boundary conditions" to describe """counsiousness""", which itself has a weirdness to it just like bohmian stuff

[Anonymous No.10844906]

>>10844888
Isn't Lee Smolin a pilot wave mark? I've seen him co-authoring a few papers which were associated with the dudes advocating retrocausality. Lee has been, so far as I can see, the opposite of a productive scientist throughout his career but advocating for that kind of fringe thing to rescue the pilot-wave is a new low.

[Anonymous No.10844909]

>>10844888
So you just admitted both MWI and pilot-wave are snarled at by most. Thank you, your contribution to this bored is valued.

[Anonymous No.10844916]

>>10844905
Yeah I'm not denying it's about as weird as Bohmian stuff, and like I said I think it's a weaker candidate than consistent histories, but so far as I can see Von Neumann-Wigner doesn't try to take a wrench to special relativity, which makes it a half-step above Bohmian mechanics as far as I'm concerned.

In the end it's just philosowanking until someone develops an experiment.

[Anonymous No.10844920]

>>10844906
Lee is all kinds of weird. He tries to communicate to the plebs but fails every time.

[Anonymous No.10844923]

>>10844909
That's not what he said at all, he basically said that most physicists aren't fans of the debate in and of itself, i.e. they're shut-up-and-calculators but that ultimately the mental picture they default to is actually MWI, i.e. they're more in favour of that if they have to go for anything at all.

[Anonymous No.10844926]

>>10844920
Lee is a pleb.

[Anonymous No.10844931]

>>10844923
They're not though.

[Anonymous No.10844935]

>>10844909
you need better reading comprehension. what is snarled at by real physicists is engaging in the conversation about interpretations, since it is not really a productive conversation. but if you press them about explaining Bell's theorem or something (which is not at all what most high-energy theorists or cosmologists or even condensed matter people or AMO people focus on, since it is a 40 year old topic by now and the book is shut as far as real physics goes) they usually will invoke some consistent histories or MWI type argument. copenhagen does not seem to be what they resort to, since my feeling is that most people view that as the undergrad/1930s way of understanding it instead of an actual realistic thing, because the assumption of unitarity in quantum theory is so central, but collapse breaks unitarity. i mean, unitarity appears all over in HET/cosmo/pheno physics journal articles, as a basic assumption for a lot of things, and nobody ever goes "but unitarity doesn't exist according to my undergrad QM book", which i think basically shows high-energy and cosmology ignores Copenhagen altogether

[Anonymous No.10844936]

>>10844905
> i think there was a not-the-anon-you-were-replying-to in the mix there.
Yes, he's confusing you with me.

I'm >>10844844

And other anon posted >>10844850.

I was about to clarify my comment, when all of the sudden a whole bunch of people replied to >>10844850

Now, in clarifying my comment, I'll answer >>10844887
I was just making fun of pilot wave theorists in general since you did bring them up in your statement. Wasn't saying you were one.

[Anonymous No.10844939]

>>10844936
Seriously if someone brings up pilot waves just mention that Matt Leifer is developing a retrocausal explanation to save them from violating special relativity as we speak. Hidden variable theorists are that fucking desperate now. Causality has to go into the trash to save the locality of their picture.

[Anonymous No.10844940]

>>10844935
What is this unlikely story you're weaving? Copenhagen is still dominant.

[Anonymous No.10844974]

>>10844940
maybe copenhagen is still "dominant" in terms of how profs teach undergrads, or how experimentalists think practically, or maybe brainlet biophysicists never think about it beyond Griffiths QM 101, but i already explained to you.

look up cosmology articles by e.g. Leonard Susskind or Stephen Hawking or Juan Maldacena or Ed Witten or etc. etc. with the keyword "unitarity" or "unitary". it is as common as dirt that they say something like "we assume the theory is unitary, and preserves probability". it is a reasonable assumption, basically equivalent to saying "we assume the evolution is dictated by the schrodinger/dirac/klein-gordon equation". what they're sneaking in there, which people like you don't realize, is that this means collapse is excluded from their theory. because collapse is non-unitary. in undergrad QM terms, collapse is a non-unitary process -- this means that your schrodinger equation works except for at discrete breaks when collapse happens (which depend on when "it is chosen" that a measurement be performed), so at certain discrete times you break the schrodinger equation. even just practically, this makes the theory unwieldy, and it sort of breaks the "sum of probabilites=1" conception.

if you don't believe me, then fine, but from personal experience i know that unitarity is a basic building block for high-energy and cosmology theory physicists, and it is a fact that if you assume unitarity, then collapse is prohibited

[Anonymous No.10844976]

What's wrong with accepting the smallest part of reality is stochastic and that grows out into pseudo-deterministic processes?

[Anonymous No.10844982]

>>10844976
Nothing really. People just don't like it because they think it implies weird phenomena.

[Anonymous No.10844985]

>>10844974
So many words for so little outcome to change the fact that Copenhagen is still dominant.

[Anonymous No.10845003]

>>10844985
reading comprehension again anon, sheesh. “unitarity is a basic building block” for the big time theorists i listed—does that not mean anything to you? if you are confused then please ask a real question or make a reasonable comment/argument

[Anonymous No.10845007]

>>10845003
Well not him but I think if you pressed Witten on the issue (And maybe Susskind too) they'd probably be more reluctant to admit that they're MWI or Consistent histories advocates than you're insinuating. We know Hawking was an MWI guy though.

[Anonymous No.10845013]

>85 replies
>13 unique IPs
Sad.

[Anonymous No.10845014]

>>10845007
sure, but that’s because interpretation issues are mindless banter for guys trying to get results (apparently unlike us right now). but the unitarity assumption is sneaking in no-collapse under the rug. they may argue it is just for convenience or theoretical utility, but the implication is clear

[Anonymous No.10845016]

>>10844974
And more pointless words. Doesn't change Copenhagen's dominance.

[Anonymous No.10845031]

>>10845016
>Copenhagen's dominance
anon, really. you don't have a source on that besides the one meme survey they did on 30 people in germany like 10 years ago. which included philosophers and mathematicians who can't into physics in addition to physicists (we don't know how many of each).

i gave you a way to test this theory: go look at physicists you trust to know their theoretical physics and see how many of them assume unitarity in their theories they've published. try it out. instead of being a stubborn parroter of crap information you read in posts from normies

[Anonymous No.10845033]

>>10845014
>But the implication is clear
But there's also an implication to their not clearly sticking their colours to the mast right? The truth is those guys aren't sure. I think Susskind favours an Everettian interpetation, but from what I've read even he's been reluctant to fully endorse it. Witten is even worse than this, asking Witten an ontological question usually gets a non-answer, for instance he's a fully-fledged Mysterian when it comes to consciousness. He thinks we'll never solve that problem, he might think we'll never get a hang of the interpretation of QM either.

[Anonymous No.10845049]

>>10845031
The source is literally everyone. You're just trying to troll this insular board, and it's not working. You are a failure both in life and in the virtual world.

[Anonymous No.10845052]

>>10845049
Dude he's right. Most working physicists veer towards MWI right now. It's mathematically elegant so that should be no surprise.

[Anonymous No.10845059]

>>10845052
He is not right. You and he are both trolling. Good night.

[Anonymous No.10845060]

>>10845033
sure, i agree to that. i mean, if i were not an Anon right now, i for sure wouldn't be shilling any particular interpretation, because scientists aren't supposed to say dumb shit they aren't absolutely sure of. so when it comes to philosophical or woo-ish topics, like this, it is better for serious people not to try and push their own subjective opinions. and interpretational issues are just that, "yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man."

but on 4chan i can happily post all my personal thoughts without people finding out 5 years later that i'm an ideologue for some debunked idea. so hooray for /sci/

[Anonymous No.10845069]

>>10845060
Lmao at least you aren't a Von Neumann-Wigner guy. If it turns out my favoured interpretation is right it opens the door wider for ideas like Idealism and dualism to come into the mainstream. I'd be surprised to find out I was right at all.

At least neither of us is a hidden variable shill though, that's a fate worse than death.

[Anonymous No.10845082]

>>10845069
>At least neither of us is a hidden variable shill though, that's a fate worse than death.
so true

[Anonymous No.10845120]

>>10844507
Both quantum mechanics AND relativity are wrong at every level.
Newton had the right idea about God putting everything in place just right so that we could enjoy our stable and comfortable orbit around our Sun. Natural science should have stopped there. All we're doing at this point is just trying to break apart the universe and make sense of the nonsensical and now we're wasting time talking about probabilities, extra dimensions, "other" universes, and what-have-you because we started peering too deep into how things behave at scales so small that they don't even have meaning anymore.

Are we going to spend the next thousand years asking weird questions and getting increasingly weird answers from a universe that hasn't even decided how it really works yet? Or are we going to instead focus on how to stop filling our humble paradise with the rotting corpses of our neighbors so that maybe, just maybe, we might one day deserve to ask those questions in the first place?

Oh imagine a world where mankind's greatest intellect was dedicated not to working out the nature of a ferm-ion, wave funct-ion, or gravitat-ion, but instead to compass-ion and salvat-ion. If there's any goodness left in us, let such a place be found among your many worlds.

[Anonymous No.10845135]

>>10844785
what's wrong with that? it obeys everything except some autistic shit in GR

[Anonymous No.10845150]

>>10845135
Hidden variable theory has been debunked for over 4 decades. It's like the people who kept holding onto the ether theory after the Michaelson experiment debunked it.

[Anonymous No.10845159]

>>10845150
>idden variable theory has been debunked for over 4 decades
who the fuck said that??
I just made a 50 pages research paper on why it could be the best idea in QM, gimme your arguments

[Anonymous No.10845167]

>>10845159
A fate worse than death indeed.

[Anonymous No.10845171]

>>10845167
what in the world could debunk a hidden variable theory? it passes every single test ???

[Anonymous No.10845177]

>>10845120
>Both quantum mechanics AND relativity are wrong at every level.

I have bad news for you sunshine.
https://www.space.com/supermassive-black-hole-gravity-einstein-relativity.html

[Anonymous No.10845179]

>>10845171
I thought it failed avery single test. I don't care about your research paper.

[Anonymous No.10845180]

>>10845177
people say whatever they feel like on this board
none of it corresponds with reality
i suppose that's the fun of "trolling" although i've never done it and i have no idea why some people find it so enjoyable

[Anonymous No.10845183]

>>10845179
>I don't care about your research paper
I hope you get rectal cancer your brainlet cunt

[Anonymous No.10845185]

>>10845183
Fortunately all of my rectal cancer tests came back negative, much like the results of your hidden variable theories.

[Anonymous No.10845187]

>>10845185
Based

[Anonymous No.10845189]

>>10845179

back to >>>www.thunderbolts.info

[Anonymous No.10845195]

>>10845159
> I just made a 50 pages research paper
I'm sorry about your loss.
But John Bell proposed an experiment which tests his inequalities, which if violated, would falsify hidden variable theory. This was done during the 1960s. Then in 1982, AlainAspect actually performed an experiment that tested Bells hypotheses. Many more experiments had followed showing the same results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments#Aspect_et_al._(1982)

[Anonymous No.10845198]

>>10845195
damn
i wish i were alexander graham bell

[Anonymous No.10845202]

>>10845195
Bell was based. supposedly they were going to give him the Nobel but he died an untimely death just a few months before.

Aspect was based too. CERNbro FTW

[Anonymous No.10845206]

>>10845195
I spent 5 straight days reading about their stuff you retard, and you understood it all wrong

The experiment was to validate the separability or not of the Quantum theory
It's quite complicated to easily explain the experiment that Aspect did, but the result was that Quantum theory validates separability

And this doesn't object at all with Hidden variable theory

[Anonymous No.10845210]

>>10845206
To be more presice, the Alai-Aspect experiment has elimated ONLY local hidden variable theories, like the deBroglie theory, but the theory of Bohm which is a modification of deBroglie theory stands out and isn't affected by the non locality

[Anonymous No.10845215]

>>10845210
we already covered why no local theories are retarded. see:
>>10844808

[Anonymous No.10845220]

>>10845215
*nonlocal not “no local”

[Anonymous No.10845230]

Since everyone's throwing out their own ideas, I thought I might as well do the same.

Infinity doesn't exist. There are a finite number of particles and space. The universe isn't infinite but is so big it appears infinite. There are a finite number of possible particle arrangements and quantum states for every potential arrangement. A new universe created for every possible arrange, hence the multiverse.

[Anonymous No.10845231]

>>10845215
>we already covered why no local theories are retarded
I forgot the name of the physicist that I will quote, but in this matter he said :
If you refuse non-locality you have 4 options :
-Refuse reality
-Believe in the Everette interpretation
-Accept that go backwards in time
-Reinterpretation of relativity and causality

I've also found that he's right about this, so you choose which one, and please don't tell me you're one of those Shizos

[Anonymous No.10845232]

>>10845230
>Infinity doesn't exist.
That's where you're wrong, pal.

[Anonymous No.10845238]

>>10845231
i also covered this already. damn, do people even read threads any more?
>>10844808
i went on a long series of posts about consistent histories. please read them if you want to go beyond me just quoting myself from an hour ago

[Anonymous No.10845240]

>>10845206
> The experiment was to validate the separability or not of the Quantum theory
What are you talking about? I don't recall reading anything like that anywhere.

[Anonymous No.10845245]

>>10845238
I'm on my bed using phone before sleep, I'll read all the thread and shitpost tomorrow

for now, goodnight sweet prince

[Anonymous No.10845254]

>>10845231
>-Refuse reality
Keep in mind that "reject realism" doesn't mean "whoa dude, like, the universe isn't even real." What it actually means is "properties (e.g. momentum, position, etc.) can have inherent uncertainty," which is a very reasonable position to take given experimental evidence.

[Anonymous No.10845256]

>>10845240
>What are you talking about? I don't recall reading anything like that anywhere.
separability means that two particles seperated in space ==> The element of reality of the first particle is independent from the other

read the EPR article

[Anonymous No.10845263]

>>10845230
I believe in the multiverse. I'm flip-flopping on infinity. But considering the number of universes in the multiverse is probably finite, this would suggest something finite. On the other hand the multiverse is an analogue of what we considered the Earth to be: a finite object. Upon further consideration, it might seem more probable that existence has no bounds. How could one imagine such bounds had they not been arbitrarily defined? Why should all that exists be bounded? It's almost self-contradictory.

[Anonymous No.10845268]

>>10845256
okay, so you're saying separability means something about locality. good. i agree.

but quantum mechanics implies that nonlocal correlations exist. the consistent histories interpretation takes care of this by saying that these can be explained by the branching of possible histories at the event where events with non-definite (quantum uncertain) outcomes may occur. do i need to quote myself again? read the pic here:
>>10844633

[Anonymous No.10845272]

>>10844658
Is there any reading about this specific subject? Not that I doubt you, I'm just interested in the numbers

[Anonymous No.10845282]

>>10844633
Holy based excerpt

[Anonymous No.10845294]

>>10844835
>quantum physicists

[Anonymous No.10845306]

>>10845294
quantum physics professionals

[Anonymous No.10845562]

>>10845120
Yes, we should go back to our respective caves and stare at the shadows on the wall there.

[Anonymous No.10845587]

>>10844583
>look mom!
>I told the nazi to go back to /pol/!!!!1!

[Anonymous No.10846137]

>>10845254
This.
I dont get why people make such a big deal out of it. It literally just says "the universe's fundamental building blocks exist in a probability density that, when you take billions and billions of them, converge to an expected value". It's just physicists have this weird hard on for determinism so they make up literal magical non local fields that go backwards in time in order to try to get away from this very simple and pretty result.
Anyone who says that non hidden variables to an uncountable set of universes is more sensible than just "it's stochastic" should be seen as someone who is taking ideology and metaphysics before physics. They're guys who don't want to let go of determinism.

[Anonymous No.10847416]

cryptochromes

[Anonymous No.10847498]

>>10846137
superdeterminism doesnt go backward in time tho

[Anonymous No.10848737]

>>10845587
tell mommie the older boys are picking on you again

[Anonymous No.10848818]

>>10845254
That would be just indeterminism, not rejection of realism. Traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics puts realism into question in a more fundamental level than just the rejection of determinism. Though I don't see how that would save locality.

[Anonymous No.10848829]

>>10844507
Even Optimist threads created to mock go to the top. We the Kanye West of this shit senpai. Thats why we sign off with ~ cuz we wavey

Lit unified physics fammmm

[Anonymous No.10849102]

>>10844507
> Every particle in my brain connected to everything
> think about something that changes particles in woman's pussy
> actually touching pussy
> later virgins