/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10871295]

>QUANTUM MECHANICS

[Anonymous No.10871302]

>>10871295
>Postmodern physics

[Anonymous No.10873247]

scimagic

[Anonymous No.10874477]

>doesn't believe in god because lack of evidence
>believes in quantum mechanics because well paid university professors tell you so
are you an idiot?

[Anonymous No.10874494]

>>10874477
>Why yes, I believe in both quantum mechanics and God. You cannot have one without the other.

[Anonymous No.10874530]

ITT a bunch of buttblasted brainlets. you guys realize that your computer and LCD screen only work because guys like John Bardeen and Pierre-Gilles de Gennes discovered how to make them using quantum mechanics right? and that if you study physics in undergrad you get to test it yourself in modern physics lab (usually 300 or 400 level). not even advanced; it’s hundred year old stuff at this point

[Anonymous No.10874547]

>>10871295
PhD student in physics here. Bohmian mechanics will eventually take over as the mainstream view among professional physicists... its already starting.
Check out
Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony by J.T. Cushing
and
Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy by several physicists, including one of my professors.

[Anonymous No.10874553]

>>10874547
Part I of the Foreword from 'Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy"
"In an ideal world, this book would not occasion any controversy. It provides the articulation and analysis of a physical theory, presented with more clarity and precision than is usual in a work of physics. A reader might start out predisposed towards the theory, or skeptical, or neutral, but should in any case be impressed by the pellucid explication. The theory, in various incarnations, postulates exact physical hypotheses about what exists in the world, and precise, universal, mathematically defined laws that determine how those physical entities behave. Large, visible objects (such as planets, or rocks, or macroscopic laboratory equipment) are postulated to be collections of small objects (particles). Since the theory specifies how the small objects behave, it automatically implies how the large, visible objects behave. It is then just a matter of analysis to determine what the theory predicts about the outcomes of experiments and other sorts of observable phenomena, and to compare these predictions with empirical data. So long as those predictions prove accurate (they do), the theory must be regarded as a candidate for the true theory of the physical universe."

[Anonymous No.10874556]

>>10874547
Postdoc here. bohmian theory was debunked since local hidden variables can’t work because of Bell’s theorem, and modern pilot wave theory is just dumb since it violates special relativity

[Anonymous No.10874557]

>>10874553
Part II of the Foreword from 'Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy"

"It has to face competition from other empirically accurate theories, and there might be disputes over which of the various contenders is the most promising. But a fair competition requires that all the contestants be judged on their merits, which demands that each be clearly and sympathetically presented. This book supplies such a presentation.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. On certain topics, cool rational judgment is hard to find, and quantum mechanics is one of those topics. For reasons rooted in the tortuous history of the theory, clear and straightforward physical theories that can account for the phenomena treated by quantum mechanics are viewed with suspicion, if not downright hostility. These phenomena, it is said, admit of no clear or “classical” explanation, and anyone who thinks that they do has not appreciated the revolutionary character of the quantum world. In order to “understand” quantum phenomena, it is said, we must renounce classical logic, or amend classical probability theory, or admit a plethora of invisible universes, or recognize the central role that conscious observers play in production of the physical world. Lest the reader think I am exaggerating, there are many clear examples of each of these. The Many Worlds interpretation posits that whenever quantum theory seems to present a probability, there is in fact a multiplicity: Schrödinger’s cat splits into a myriad of cats in each experiment, some of which are alive and some dead. Defenders of the “consistent histories” approach insist that classical logic must be abandoned: in some cases, the claim P can be true and the claim Q can be true but the conjunction “P and Q” be not only not true, but meaningless. David Mermin, in a famous article on Bell’s theorem, asserts that “[w]e now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks.”

[Anonymous No.10874563]

>>10874556
You are NOT a postdoc since you are making a common laymans error. Bell was a PROPONENT of Bohmian mechanic, and it absolutely does not debunk all hidden variable theories, only LOCAL ones. Learn more, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10874565]

>>10874557
Part II of the Foreword from 'Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy"

"These sorts of extraordinary claims should not be dismissed out of hand. Perhaps the world is so strange that “classical” modes of thought are incapable of comprehending it. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And one would hope that such extreme positions would only be advocated if one were certain that nothing less radical could be correct. Surely, one imagines, these sorts of claims would not be made if some clear, precise theory that uses classical probability theory and classical logic, a theory that postulates only one, commonplace world in which observers are just complicated physical systems interacting by the same physical laws as govern everything else, actually existed. Surely, one imagines, respected physicists would not be driven to these extreme measures unless no alternative were available. But such an alternative is available, and has been for almost as long as the quantum theory itself has existed. It was first discovered by Louis de Broglie, and later rediscovered by David Bohm. It goes by the names “pilot wave theory” and “causal interpretation” and “ontological interpretation” and “Bohmian mechanics.”

[Anonymous No.10874573]

>>10874563
yes i am and you’re the brainlet who has no reading comprehension. i specifically said that bell’s theorem debunks the original bohm interpretation since his original interpretation used LOCAL hidden variables.

the modern versions that use nonlocal hidden variables are psychopathic. do you know what a non local hidden variable would mean physically? it’s stupid

[Anonymous No.10874578]

>>10874556
I'm still an early PhD student, years away from my dissertation... but it's common knowledge to even undergrads that Bohmian is a non-local theory, so Bell's doesn't apply. You sound like you just read the wiki page and are trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10874590]

>>10874573
>do you know what a non local hidden variable would mean physically? it’s stupid
As stupid as X not existing because no one is looking at it?... then suddenly popping into existence when someone observes it? That kind of stupid?

[Anonymous No.10874592]

>>10874578
well if Bohm admitted it was nonlocal, then fine. historical details. at least what Einstein wanted when he was writing about the EPR paradox was a local hidden variables theory, since he believed in locality as a basic assumption for everything.

so you either need to accept nonlocal variables -- which mean basically universal instantanous telekinesis variables, or you go with any of the other good interpretations (like i tend to favor consistent histories) which is LOCAL but quantum (as opposed to einsteinian/bohmian pictures of classical particles surfing some wave in a classical field with some magical unobservable guiding equation.)

the modern versions of bohmian theories are explicitly nonlocal and that is precisely why they are foolish.

here, read this passage by Murray Gell-Mann

[Anonymous No.10874599]

>God is DEAD Christcucks BTFO, the world consists of particles that pop out of nonexistence and of strings that resonate on different QUANTUM lengths.

[Anonymous No.10874609]

>>10874590
>>10874599
gtfo 8ch tourist. i know you guys have nothing to do now since your /christ/ board is down, so i suggest you visit wizchan.org

[Anonymous No.10874614]

>>10874592
The likeliest scenario is that the "wave function" is the only non-local aspect of the system. It's the "hidden variable", a wave in some matrix that we don't yet understand. That interpretation explains the double slit experiment perfectly, BTW... with the particles of whatever (electrons, photons, etc) sort of "riding" on a wave in some matrix.

Looking Glass Universe had some good videos for laymen a while ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbRVnC92sMs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0plv_nIzsQ

[Anonymous No.10874619]

>>10874609
Sounds crazy right? You should study theology. Saint Thomas Aquinas is great

[Anonymous No.10874623]

>>10874614
okay, so then you haven't learned quantum field theory yet. this is why you think you're smarter than Murray Gell-Mann apparently.

did you know that quantum field theory, as developed by Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga, Weinberg, Salam, Glashow, etc. is EXPLICITLY LOCAL?

god, fucking 1st years. read this by Tony Zee, then maybe read chapter 1 on feynman diagrams where they say "the assumption is that interactions are local"

[Anonymous No.10874640]

>>10874614

okay, let me make an aside post on the non-relevant ad hominem feelings i have, feel free to ignore it and we can resume you getting schooled on physics instead:
--------------------------

also let me point out that you claim to be a physics grad student and you are posting -- literally -- Youtube videos.

this is the absolute most brainlet thing a physics person can do and i would disown you if i were your future advisor, immediately, if you ever thought Youtube was a good place to learn physics.

and here i am citing QFT textbooks and citing writings of Nobel laureates... do you see how stupid you look?

[Anonymous No.10874682]

>>10874640
I generally agree with you (in that I think that Bohmian mechanics is wrong and QFT is local). But it should be noted that you can do QFT only asking the observables to be local, not the states or fields themselves.

[Anonymous No.10874701]

>>10874547
Can't contain my laughter. "Pilot-wavist" will be Physicist jargon for "Circle-squarer" within 20 years.

[Anonymous No.10874704]

>>10874590
Literally ontologically preferable to violating special relativity. Einstein laughs at you from beyond the grave.

[Anonymous No.10874707]

>>10874623
Based Consistent Histories advocate.

[Anonymous No.10874738]

>>10874682
well, the idea of perturbation theory using feynman diagrams requires interactions to be local. i don't see any other way to interpret feynman diagrams except that when you have a vertex, it means particles are hitting each other, and being as though they are point particles, that means they're interacting _locally_ i.e. at a point in space where they meet

[Anonymous No.10874895]

>>10874704
>bringing philosophical contexts like ontology here
>bashing them in Einsteins name

I don't even know what or who's suffering anymore

[Anonymous No.10874985]

>>10874609
>gets challenged for his believes
>gets mad
You're as NPC as they get.

[Anonymous No.10874990]

>>10874985
that dude literally had no comeback besides “muh catholic saint from before newton” after i called him out for being an 8ch/christ/ innumerate. no comeback needed

[Anonymous No.10875012]

>>10874990
You don't need a comeback when you already have an upper hand, he merely suggested more intelligent reading instead of that nonsense you keep spouting.

[Anonymous No.10875031]

>>10875012
>QM is nonsense
>mug favorite catholic saint isn’t
i tend to agree with empirical facts as opposed to “muh beliefs”, sorry

[Anonymous No.10875046]

>>10875031
Did you actually measure these empirical facts yourself or are you just a believer? Have you read a single word by the ''mug catholic saint''?

[Anonymous No.10875094]

>>10874599

[Anonymous No.10875101]

>>10875046
yep i already posted about how in undergrad 100 year old QM experiments are typical coursework for a physics undergrad:
>>10874530
among others, i personally tested the Franck-Hertz experiment, the classic photoelectric effect experiment, and the stern-gerlach experiment as an undergrad.

stay butthurt 8ch/muhsciencedenial/ fag

[Anonymous No.10875126]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1744

[Anonymous No.10875165]

>>10871295
Sup

[Anonymous No.10876235]

>>10871295
>DARK ENERGY

[Anonymous No.10876258]

>>10875126
Fuck off, I hope you neck yourself after you realize that you won't get a postdoc after your shitty non paid PhD you weeb fuck

[Anonymous No.10876267]

>>10875126
things like this article are literally waste of data storage

[Anonymous No.10876296]

>>10874738
Do the particles have to directly touch? Or can the interact via electromagnetic field? I believe that would constitute a sort of non locality as there is action at a distance. Although not instantaneous action at a distance.

[Anonymous No.10876311]

>>10876296
well the electromagnetic field interactions are mediated by exchange of photons in QED the electrons shoot them and get hit by them, otherwise they don't see eachother. you could wax philosophical about how loop processes correspond to "off-shell" photons which you might argue are better to think about in terms of field instead of particle, but when it comes down to it fields are particles and particles are fields (this is the essence of quantum field theory) and in perturbation theory you still calculate loop diagrams by writing photon propagators and local interaction vertex terms, so in that mathematical context it's still just electrons shooting and getting hit by photons locally

[Anonymous No.10876354]

>>10876311
We can also write non local lagrangians. Perhaps a theory based on those could go beyond the standard model and qft. Do you know of any observations out there that standard model does not explain?

[Anonymous No.10876365]

>>10871295
Is Sasuke opening his Sharingan to try and see particles on an atomic scale?

[Anonymous No.10876471]

>>10871295
>MULTIVERSE THEORY
>ETERNAL YOUTH
>OMNIPRESENCE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
>PANCREAS DENIAL THEORY

[Anonymous No.10876496]

>>10876258
>weeb
Shouldn't you be hanging out in r/anime right now?

[Anonymous No.10876596]

>>10876354
there are quite a few, not only the obvious ones like dark matter and gravity but also the muon g-2 anomaly, b-physics anomalies, proton spin anomalies etc etc. going nonlocal is stupid though, as the above murray gell-mann excerpt explains

[Anonymous No.10876606]

Can an Omnipotent being just pop into Earth and tell everyone to shut the fuck up already

[Anonymous No.10876610]

>>10876606
>yfw it's an insufferable one

[Anonymous No.10876667]

Stop interpreting quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.10877865]

>>10876667
Just don't look at it.

[Anonymous No.10877867]

>>10874477
>The computer I send this message on depends on principles of QM to work.

woo

[Anonymous No.10877878]

>>10877867
Which depend on Gods will, what's your point?