/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 337 KB, 928x1014, 28b46b2800af9870a985b567a423d199[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Oct 18 17:02:09 2019 No.11071449 [Reply] [Original]

List of elementary, settled facts, physics edition:

> Nature is inherently continuous. Discrete theories or theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts are blatant pseudoscience.
> Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random. Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. Probabilities is all that we can predict, and this is not just due to our lack of knowledge or precision, but it is fundamental.
> Nature is inherently local. No faster than light transfer of information or any other effects is possible.
> Nature is inherently non-realist. We cannot speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed. An observer (not to be conflated with conscious beings) is a basic requirement in quantum mechanics.
> "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly pseudoscience. But as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories.
> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity (and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything).
> Cosmic Inflation is likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.
> Conservation of Energy is just a good low energy approximation. Conservation of energy does not globally hold in General Relativity. It is also globally glossly violated in the presence of Inflation, and possibly violated in quantum gravity regime. And there is nothing wrong with this. Also, this does not mean various "free energy" concepts are any less of a crackpottery.

Some of these statements may seem controversial to laymen or even subpar physicists. They are not controversial among actually competent researchers at all.

Thank you for listening.

Anonymous Fri Oct 18 17:30:52 2019 No.11071549

>>11071449
>> Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random.
Lack of a discription of underlying mechanisms does not equal randomness.
>> Nature is inherently local.
According to Mach's principle, this is false.
>>No faster than light transfer of information or any other effects is possible.
This is true.
>> "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly pseudoscience. But as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories.
Neither of these interpretations suffice to explain the self interaction of particles in the DS experiment or the Scarnhorst effect. They are also mutually exclusive with the claim that Nature isn't deterministic.
>> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity (and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything).
String theory is one of several candidate theories that are all equally untestable while making similar predictions. Presenting your pet theory as superior or correct is unscientific, even though I also favor it.
>> Cosmic Inflation is likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.
This is a non-statement as it leaves the reasons for inflation undefined. Did you mean to talk about dark energy, the curvature of spacetime or the cosmological constant?
>> Conservation of Energy is just a good low energy approximation. Conservation of energy does not globally hold in General Relativity. It is also globally glossly violated in the presence of Inflation, and possibly violated in quantum gravity regime. And there is nothing wrong with this. Also, this does not mean various "free energy" concepts are any less of a crackpottery.
Can you provide any evidence for violation of the conservation of energy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 18 17:34:36 2019 No.11071556 >>11071449 >Conservation of energy does not globally hold in General Relativity what the fuck. can you explain?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 18 17:38:59 2019 No.11071565 >>11071449 >We cannot speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed. I would hope so lol

Anonymous Fri Oct 18 17:39:35 2019 No.11071569
File: 962 KB, 500x500, fucktal.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Nature is inherently continuous. Discrete theories or theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts are blatant pseudoscience.
Apart from the fact that there are cool theories of non-commutative geometry which have no points as such, underlying this statement is a weird conviction of "naive" realism. There's no good reason to be biased against the idea that physics models we are able to describe would ever directly correspond to the world. The map (our language, math and theories), doesn't have to be the territory. You can guess that people will never find a physics theory of non-continuous structures and so there would not be a good non-continuous theory - but this doesn't mean that >>Nature is inherently continuous
We may not be able to come up with and word that has a correspondence to nature - just like Force or Temperature are found to be accumulations of smaller scale notions. We may only ever be able to speak in terms of coarse notions. Turtles all the way down.

Surprisingly I don't take offense with your other assertions.
Although in
>Cosmic Inflation is likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.
I'm skeptical that either of those notions are good concepts (from the perspective of some human like physicist and his theories in 10,000 years.)

Anonymous Fri Oct 18 18:11:45 2019 No.11071676

>>11071449
> Conservation of Energy is just a good low energy approximation. Conservation of energy does not globally hold in General Relativity. It is also globally glossly violated in the presence of Inflation
Eeeh, only under a somewhat narrow and restrictive sense of "energy." The Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor provides a perfectly valid and consistent way of restoring a conserved Noether current corresponding to energy-momentum.
GR doesn't really break energy conservation, it just shows that our pre-geometrodynamic conception of energy needed a bit of revising.
LL is the unique construction satisfying the requirements to be in the spirit of GR, like satisfying the equivalence principle and deriving only from the metric.
The rest is based though

Anonymous Fri Oct 18 18:14:27 2019 No.11071685

>>11071449
>string theory is very likely the correct approach
A formalism in physics is only as good as the predictions it gives for the experiments we do.
"naked" Newtonian mechanics are a better description of reality than String Theory in that regard.
ST is beautiful, but right now it's not physics.

Anonymous Fri Oct 18 19:07:48 2019 No.11071824

>>11071449
Based thread, btfo the pseuds but also provocative enough to lead to interesting discussion.

I got two questions:
> Conservation of Energy is just a good low energy approximation

How is conservation of energy related to the energy scale (here: low energy approximation)? I thought it not being conserved in GR was independent of scale.

Seconde question, I only know of Noethers theorem for theories that have a Lagrangian description. Does it also hold for theories which dont admit a Lagrangian?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 18 19:22:48 2019 No.11071862 >>11071449 >Copenhagen interpretation's upgrade >consistent histories You mean quantum Bayesianism. Otherwise you're right, interpretations of quantum mechanics are a waste of time.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 01:30:28 2019 No.11072649
File: 131 KB, 1200x965, 1571385186317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11071449
I'm annoyed by these threads because they are a literal circle jerk to anyone who agrees and a reminder that we are living in an Orwellian nightmare to those who do not.

This is cancerous shit. At least make an argument for your claims.
>Hurr authorities all agree that these statements are facts!
Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 01:32:22 2019 No.11072654 >>11071549 Excellent post, my smile is back and my faith in humanity is restored.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 01:49:14 2019 No.11072691

>>11071449
1.:
> what is quantum mechanics?

2.:
Right, because nature isn't continuous.

5.:
No, they all suck. Copenhagen sucks most, since it tries to impose the concepts you called wrong onto qm.

6.:
Very wrong. String theory is the worst we have so far. It only shifts questions we have to different, less intuitive questions. Example: why are there three generations of fundamental particles? String theory: Because there are 3 odd-dimensional "holes" in the Calabi-Yau manifolds attached to each point in spacetime.
It's also not falsifiable (unless you mean m-theory, which needs SUSY).

7.:
That makes no sense. What came after the big bang cannot have caused it, since our universe is causal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 01:53:04 2019 No.11072699 >>11071549 Energy is a single component of the energy-momentum tensor in GR. As such, it changes for different observers. See for example the Unruh effect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:02:06 2019 No.11072861 >>11071862 Quantum Bayesianism is of course a very valid concept, however not sure I would call it an interpretation. Not to be confused with QBism, which is pseudoscience, along with most other interpretations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:06:33 2019 No.11072865 >>11072691 > what is quantum mechanics? An inherently continuous theory, just quantum. "Quantum" does not mean "discrete", in a sense of there being any pixelation or cells in spacetime on smallest scales.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:11:39 2019 No.11072875 >>11072865 Not spacetime, but energy etc and hence, states of systems. Think for example electron orbits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:13:03 2019 No.11072879 If reality has to be either continuous or discrete, my bet is on discrete.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:16:46 2019 No.11072890 >>11072875 Sure, but that is not what OP is talking about. Just about spacetime being discrete on smallest scales.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:17:20 2019 No.11072893 >>11071449 >Conservation of energy does not globally hold in General Relativity. It is also globally glossly violated in the presence of Inflation false also how can energy be quantized if nature is inherently continuous

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:47:42 2019 No.11072973

>>11071549
Not OP, but:
>Lack of a discription of underlying mechanisms does not equal randomness.
Is this a Bohmian post?

>According to Mach's principle, this is false.
Gödel's rotating universe, one of the solutions to Einstein's equations, violate Mach's principle. Not all the solutions of GR are Machian.

>Can you provide any evidence for violation of the conservation of energy?
Local conservation of energy is still true, but global conservation of energy breaks down because parallel transport is no longer trivial
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:52:41 2019 No.11072985

>>11072893
>also how can energy be quantized if nature is inherently continuous
Look at the hydrogen atom, the quantization comes from the bound states, but when you have sufficiently large energy you go back to a continuous spectrum. That's how you can get a discrete spectrum win a continuous problem: having a potential that has bound states.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:53:26 2019 No.11072987 >>11071556 Dark energy. The universal expansion means that per unit space volume, energy is pumped into it resulting in a net positive energy. Energy is a conserved quantity for time symmetry. However if that is violated, so is energy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:56:52 2019 No.11072994 >>11072890 >Nature is inherently continuous But it's what he said. Otherwise it should be formulated as "spacetime is continuous". Nature isn't.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 04:04:25 2019 No.11073009
File: 84 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11071449
> Nature is inherently continuous. Discrete theories or theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts are blatant pseudoscience.

Lesser intelligent people like to think so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 05:04:14 2019 No.11073107 >>11071449 >List of elementary, settled facts, physics edition >"likely" >"very likely"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 05:19:24 2019 No.11073121 >>11073009 Quite the contrary, brainlets are drawn to discrete theories like moths to a flame. Because at the base level they are so simple that even their brainlet brain can comprehend them. Too bad Nature does not work that way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 13:39:09 2019 No.11073892 bumpity bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 13:52:14 2019 No.11073943 File: 80 KB, 619x902, 77ab2165a13d541cb51b75fe6a3e2b201.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11071449 A /sci/ worthy toll appears.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 16:34:16 2019 No.11074449

>>11071449
>> "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly pseudoscience. But as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories.
They're not pseudoscience you dope, nobody talking about metaphysics has ever claimed it to be science, they've claimed it to be metaphysics. That said, there is no real reason to take one interpretation over the other at this point, so just shut up and calculate

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:58:59 2019 No.11074858 >>11071449 Based and Lubosh pilled

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 06:34:29 2019 No.11076208 >>11071449 more pseuds need to read this

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 06:48:24 2019 No.11076246 >>11071449 >List of elementary, settled facts, physics edition: Newtonian mechanics was "settled" until something else came along.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 06:53:29 2019 No.11076260 >>11071449 >It's a COPEnhacuck pushing his dumb worldview as fact episode.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 06:56:53 2019 No.11076270 >>11076246 And it is still very much valid in it's quite broad domain of validity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:24:45 2019 No.11076339 bell's theorem only says that QM cannot be local AND realist. Local-nonrealist and Nonlocal-realist are both valid possibilities.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:38:54 2019 No.11076365 >>11071449 >Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories. >upgrade Holy shit, motls, buy yourself a working brain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:39:58 2019 No.11076367 >>11076339 Bell's theorem says that if there's no hidden variables, local realism is fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:43:03 2019 No.11076373 >>11076339 except that non-local realism is ruled out by relativity, learn some QFT please local non-realism is the only remaining option

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:52:11 2019 No.11076385 Excellent post.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:54:58 2019 No.11076389 You might want to keep your delusions to yourself. Especially if you ever have to write an entrance exam to a higher institution.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:00:38 2019 No.11076404 >>11076373 nonlocality of the nature required by realistic interpretations of QM is not against relativity, as entanglement cannot be used to transfer actual physical information FTL.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:21:18 2019 No.11076430 >>11076404 >entanglement cannot be used to transfer actual physical information FTL. nothing can, hence why non-local theories are dead for over a hundred years

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:25:11 2019 No.11076434 File: 59 KB, 850x457, DelayedChoice.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Still confusing

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:35:46 2019 No.11076454

>>11076430

nope. entangled particles influence each other's positions faster than light, through the pilot wave. thus the nature is nonlocal and realistic. this picture is compatible with relativity, simply because any entangled particles must first traverse the distance slower than light.

Nature is realistic, nonlocal and relativistic. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:47:31 2019 No.11076478 >>11071449 >doesn't know NP is contained within P. low key b8, m8.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:07:20 2019 No.11076514

>>11072973
>Is this a Bohmian post?
Not necessarily. I literally meant that if we have insufficient information, we cannot claim something as fundamentally true.

>Gödel's rotating universe, one of the solutions to Einstein's equations, violate Mach's principle. Not all the solutions of GR are Machian.
All current 'solutions' to Einstein's equations are partial solutions achieved by zeroing other parts of the field equations to make them easier. No one has ever solved them in totality, that is, no one has found the structure that satisfies them all. This structure would be our own Universe provided that Einstein's formulation was correct. The partial solutions are still useful because they can describe limited cases in the Universe or describe certain extreme scenarios, but the final solution is likely to have all properties our Universe has, including Mach's principle.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:09:48 2019 No.11076519 ITT mind projection fallacy circlejerk, perfect example of the miserable state of physics

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:23:41 2019 No.11076542 >>11071449 >Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. Prove it. I'm curious.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:58:28 2019 No.11076748 >>11076454 >pilot wave into the trash it goes

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 14:42:32 2019 No.11077353 >>11076748 copencope

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 15:05:13 2019 No.11077432 File: 68 KB, 831x1024, 1554676600529.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11071549

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 15:23:51 2019 No.11077476

Im not on your level with any of this and with saying that, I'll add all these notions are the basic in your face blurbs that are thrown around in the media and in articles. In deep context I know it's more substantial but some really do just seem like conjecture and cannot be verified.
And what are some other ones?

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 23:48:26 2019 No.11078782
File: 116 KB, 1110x573, 1558973455207.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is the daily cold war thread.

Platonic idealism vs dialectical materialism

Continuous universe vs discrete universe

Free will vs determinism

Established dogma vs based sperglords

Glow niggers vs Commie bastards

There is a conspiracy, singular, to enforce ignorance about the true nature of the cosmos.
Because knowledge is power.

Disinformation is an extremely effective method of control in this domain.

Take the premises into consideration, and see if you follow the conclusion.
1. There are groups and individuals with motive and opportunity to suppress education in physical science.
2. If the cost of suppression is lower than the profit of exploitation, knowledge is suppressed.
In conclusion, there is conspiracy to suppress education in physical sciences.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 00:14:55 2019 No.11078848

>>11076434
>However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have been detected and the experimenter has had information about them available, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.
literally a meme

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 00:23:14 2019 No.11078866 >>11071449 >Nature is inherently continuous You're preaching to the choir. At times I have found myself arguing this point on this board with brainlets. But yes, this is now settled science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 00:47:53 2019 No.11078928 >>11078866 circle jerk

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 00:55:06 2019 No.11078939 >>11071449 Whatever, you fucking loser. I'll be studying mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 00:56:49 2019 No.11078941 >>11071449 >Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random. Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. > Nature is inherently non-realist. Cringe and Lubosh pilled

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 01:22:57 2019 No.11078989
File: 199 KB, 546x546, earth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11071449
>Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random. Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. Probabilities is all that we can predict, and this is not just due to our lack of knowledge or precision, but it is fundamental.

Only in the realm of mathematics can you understand a prophetic and precise view of the future. Thus: first, we postulate any number of point-dimensions in space. (This is the classic n-fold extended aggregate of n dimensions.) With this framework, time as commonly understood becomes an aggregate of one-dimensional properties. Applying this to the prophetic phenomenon, we find that we either are confronted by new properties of time or (by reduction through the infinity calculus) we are dealing with separate systems which contain n body properties. For the known prophets, we assume the latter. As demonstrated by the reduction, the point dimensions of the n-fold can only have separate existence within different frameworks of time. Separate dimensions of time are thus demonstrated to coexist. This being the inescapable case, our prophet's predictions require that he perceive the n-fold not as extended aggregate but as an operation within a single framework. In effect, he froze his universe into that one framework which was his view of time. This is the hack of the quantum phenomena and allows for a way a round probabilistic reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 03:02:05 2019 No.11079184 >>11078866 But it isn't. Spacetime is continuous, everything else isn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 03:21:49 2019 No.11079215 >>11078989 schizo pls....

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 03:23:54 2019 No.11079220

>>11071449
You made some brainlets and cranks seethe with this one, OP. Great job. Just one tiny nitpick:

>Nature is inherently local. No faster than light transfer of information or any other effects is possible.

Some quantum gravity models predict specific, small violations of locality in the presence of spacetime singularities. Still, this is an exception that proves the rule, and does not invalidate your broader point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 03:32:04 2019 No.11079229 >>11079220 What a fucking retard you are. >some models predict >spacetime singularities >this proves Circle jerking faggots.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 04:15:50 2019 No.11079279 >>11079229 not an argument, seethe more pls

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 04:30:25 2019 No.11079292 >>11071449 >List of elementary, settled facts >Last four aren't even statements of truth and the last contradicts itself Why are you people so fucking stupid?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 04:44:47 2019 No.11079307 >>11079292 Probably something in the drinking water. These fucking normalfags make my entire blood volume vaporize instantaneously with their erroneous reasoning and their blatant unfounded arrogance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 05:01:58 2019 No.11079335 >>11079292 There is no contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 07:16:24 2019 No.11079517 >>11079307 Isnt it arrogant to think that you know better than professional string theory researchers?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 07:43:57 2019 No.11079538 >>11079517 Why would I compare myself to those mongoloids?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 07:46:09 2019 No.11079542 >>11079538 Based and Sabinepilled.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 08:03:59 2019 No.11079563 File: 747 KB, 922x1516, sabine.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11079542 >sabinepilled low IQ detected

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 10:11:48 2019 No.11079751

>>11079538
>mongoloids

Not sure of trolling or a genuine retard.

The truth is very simple. There are two kinds of theoretical physicists. Those who mainly work on stringy topics, and those who are too stupid to work on stringy topics. The third kind, those who understand string theory but choose to work on lesser hep-th topics, basically does not exist.

That should tell you all about who the real mongoloids are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:24:15 2019 No.11080070 >>11079220 >in the presence of spacetime singularities Good to know they aren't present.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:48:32 2019 No.11080115 >>11079751 how about ‘t Hooft and Polyakov? they made major contributions to ST but mostly work on other stuff now

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:45:32 2019 No.11080212 >>11080115 >'t Hooft early stage senile dementia

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 15:31:11 2019 No.11080275 >>11079215 Why? I mean, while saying the word schizo is of course, an iron clad argument and rebuttal of which only the highest caliber debater would use... if you could elaborate, that might be even better!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 18:13:24 2019 No.11080702 >>11080212 he’s only 5 years older than witten and more than a decade younger than weinberg and 5 years younger than gross

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 18:56:30 2019 No.11080814

>>11071449
>> Nature is inherently continuous.
Quantum(discrete) states of energy exist. All thermodynamics is likewise based on these discrete energy levels.
> Nature is inherently local. No faster than light transfer of information or any other effects is possible.
Information has been teleported using entanglement.
>inb4 this didn't happen because reasons

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 18:57:04 2019 No.11080816 >>11080814 >Information has been teleported using entanglement. absolute brainlet

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 06:35:00 2019 No.11081978 >>11080816 this

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 06:52:10 2019 No.11081998

>>11080814
Don't fucking post if you don't know what you're talking about. You are doing no favors by making contradictory statements like that.
Nothing can instantaneously transport across arbitrarily large distances in a discrete universe.
>Information has been teleported
You are either controlled opposition, baiting, or an absolute brainlet.
Fucking normal fags get off my board REEEEE

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 07:02:36 2019 No.11082006 >>11081998 >Don't fucking post if you don't know what you're talking about. This should be written, in capital, golden letters in the sticky

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 07:28:03 2019 No.11082036 >>11082006 >>11081998 not him but the fucking OP is stating his shit opinions like they are facts as well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 07:30:24 2019 No.11082039 >>11082036 No one here is denying that OP is a massive faggot with a bigger mouth than brain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 10:40:33 2019 No.11082343 >>11080814 >Information has been teleported using entanglement. No transfer of information is possible using entanglement.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 13:33:49 2019 No.11082691

>>11082343

yup. but that does not mean there can be no FTL influence. depending on your QM interpretation's answer to bell's theorem, entangled particles could influence each other superluminally (instantaneously). this interpretation is compatible with all observations, even with relativity - because any entangled particles must first travel slower than light and entanglement is a one time trick, measuring destroys it. its as if laws of nature "conspire" to prevent actual superluminal communication even in the presence of superluminal entanglement influence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 13:39:32 2019 No.11082701 >>11082691 You know that is just contrived bullshit, right? Our universe is local.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 13:47:18 2019 No.11082726

>>11082701

opinion, mate... interpretations are experimentally indistinguishable. imho, sacrificing realism on the altar of bell is more contrived than sacrificing locality. especially since the only reason to believe in locality is relativity, which is compatible with entanglement nonlocality, thus there is no actusl problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 13:50:08 2019 No.11082737 >>11080115 >Polyakov A karla trained hood if I ever saw one.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 14:46:54 2019 No.11082896

>>11082726
>opinion, mate... interpretations are experimentally indistinguishable

Again, learn some QFT. Indeed, interpretations are usually indistinguishable. Except for Bohmian bullshit, which is ruled out by the theory of special relativity. Which is why nobody has managed to make it work except for trivial, non-relativistic cases. It should not even be called an interpretation, just a (failed) attempt at one.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:31:34 2019 No.11083288

>>11082896
Bohm failed but that doesn't mean metaphysical realism got btfo.
Glow niggers love to talk shit about bohm because he was a communist who wanted a deterministic theory of everything.
His failures as a physicist and mathematician do not prove his guiding intuition was false.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 19:03:14 2019 No.11083515 >>11083288 super determinism is the best way to hang onto determinism. look up ‘t Hooft’s automata interpretation

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:23:22 2019 No.11084886

>>11071449
heh nice larp mate, but your clearly blowing smoke up your own ass.

Saying "Nature is this and nature is that" is just bunk. What you are really saying is that our measurement regime draws these conclusions, which work for our practical means. There is no definitive conclusion past the measurement. As such your proclamations are "not even wrong", so well done, you're a religious faggot.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 09:19:11 2019 No.11084982

>>11082726
>especially since the only reason to believe in locality is relativity, which is compatible with entanglement nonlocality, thus there is no actusl problem.
But in a non-realist theory entanglement isn't non-local, that's the whole point. True non-locality violates relativity without question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:44:06 2019 No.11085098 >>11071556 https://youtu.be/PUn2izowBkw?t=10m50s

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:15:05 2019 No.11085287 >>11071449 the inability to measure anything faster than electricity does not mean nothing is faster.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:18:38 2019 No.11085296 >>11083288 >Bohm failed but that doesn't mean metaphysical realism got btfo. Not just Bohm, everyone else of the realists failed, too. There is no viable realist QM theory or interpretation.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:21:22 2019 No.11085307

>>11085287
Why in the hell couldn't we measure something faster than electricity?
>Send FTL thing towards detector along with flash of light
>Record FTL thing arriving before light flash
Or
>Synchronize two clocks, place a distance apart
>Measure time of FTL object passing clock 1
>Measure time of FTL object passing clock 2
>Divide distance by time difference

You're dumb, there are a million ways you could measure something moving FTL.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:25:46 2019 No.11085320

>>11085307
show me your directional emitters other than lasers that could go a meaningful distance without being guided by and elctro-magnet. If you move something via an elctro-magnet oh smart boy then tell me the means that give it the higher speed than the electricity of said magnet.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:34:02 2019 No.11085340

>>11085320
Again, you're dumb. Do you know how a synchrotron works? Have particles go around a closed ring, with a magnet in the middle that increases in strength. You can make the magnet increase in strength fast enough such that, according to nonrelativistic physics, the particles should be accelerated to faster than FTL. But they aren't.
OR...
Did you know that, when radioactive isotopes decay, they shoot off particles at high speeds? So what you can do is fire a beam of radioactive particles very close to light speed, and as they decay, some particles will shoot off in front at a higher speed. According to nonrelativistic physics, some particles should end up moving much faster than light speed and you would detect them before light could reach. But you don't.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:41:35 2019 No.11085362
File: 39 KB, 580x528, neck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11085340
>should be accelerated to faster than FTL.
wrong
This is not rocket-science, boy.
I guess you need to take your grade school physics book and look at electromagnets again
>radioactive isotopes decay
show me how you trace "one" of these good luck with that. Plus you are again assuming things without any knowledge you are assuming that the inertia of the particle is additive.

Build your FTL perpetual motion machine and make a ton of money.
My guess is you will not be able to and stay a little idiot.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:47:38 2019 No.11085372

>>11085362
>wrong
In the nonrelativistic physics you claim is right, yeah, they would be accelerated to faster than FTL.
>show me how you trace "one" of these good luck with that.
Accelerate particle beam.
Fire at predetermined time towards target.
Detect when radiation arrives at target.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:51:52 2019 No.11085383

>>11071449
>> Nature is inherently continuous. Discrete theories or theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts are blatant pseudoscience.
I may be dumb-tier but what does the Planck length significate if not the shortest past anything could take? If there is a limited amount of distance then how could nature not be discrete?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:52:42 2019 No.11085388 >>11085372 meant *to faster than light, not faster than FTL lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:55:24 2019 No.11085395 >>11085372 read your own post >11085340 your brain is a sieve

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:55:35 2019 No.11085396

>>11085383
Planck length isn't actually a smallest distance. It's really just a unit of length based on physical constants, at which quantum gravity is expected to be important (because standard quantum mechanics makes the obviously wrong prediction that a distance measurement at this scale would create a mini black hole)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:56:27 2019 No.11085401 >>11085396 no

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:57:34 2019 No.11085406 >>11085395 Where exactly is the inconsistency? If you're talking about me saying "faster than FTL", I meant to just say "FTL."

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:57:38 2019 No.11085407 >>11085396 >a distance measurement at this scale would create a mini black hole By which magic? >>11085401 Please do elaborate

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:00:12 2019 No.11085420

>>11085401
yes
>>11085407
There obviously wouldn't ACTUALLY be a black hole created. Naive application of standard quantum mechanics, by application of the HUP, predicts an uncertainty in momentum large enough from such a measurement that a black hole would be created, from so much energy in a concentrated space.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:03:01 2019 No.11085428 >>11073121 What about continuous automata? Discrete automata are just approximations of continuous ones that are easier to compute.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:04:06 2019 No.11085432 >>11085407 >By which magic? black holes are created through dividing by zero.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:05:10 2019 No.11085435 >>11085428 >continuous automata The ones that actually work well enough to be worth mentioning are QFT and GR

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:05:51 2019 No.11085439 >>11085435 state applications?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:08:56 2019 No.11085449

>>11085420
But when Planck wrote his theory, that wasn't much about how much observation would need a velocity but rather how temperature growth shouldn't be placed on a continuum to be mathematically coherent. Hence the need to describe a step by step motion. Hence the deduction of his multiple constants.
Then, again, why?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:11:32 2019 No.11085456 >>11085439 >Semiconductor physics >Photonics >Spintronics >Quantum chemistry >GPS >Electron microscopy >NMR spectroscopy

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:12:39 2019 No.11085461 >>11085456 trusting in wikipedia as a quality source of information. I pity you fool.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:13:34 2019 No.11085464

>>11085449
>temperature growth shouldn't be placed on a continuum to be mathematically coherent.
That's the thing, there's no reason it shouldn't be placed on a continuum in classical physics. There's no classical justification for Planck's modification of the blackbody radiation law.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:14:36 2019 No.11085469 >>11085461 >If he knows things, he's just reading from wikipedia Kek

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:14:48 2019 No.11085470 >>11085461 just curious if you believe wikipedia is completely useless, even as a jumping off point for further research?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:16:29 2019 No.11085475 >>11085470 not completely. A lot of information on there is "popular science" or completely outdated.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:18:17 2019 No.11085479 >>11085469 let me give you a little hint elctron microscopy look who invented it then think if he would have used gr or qft.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:18:48 2019 No.11085480 >>11085464 I thought the methematical expression wasn't coherent when he first thought about a continuum model. And also that's why he admited he failed even if his calculus was true when corrected to a discrete model.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:30:27 2019 No.11085509

>>11085479
I don't see your point. Electron microscopy depends on principles of QM, which are a special simplified case of QFT.
>>11085480
The ultraviolet catastrophe is a natural consequence of basic principles of classical physics. The number of available modes increases with frequency, and in classical physics all frequencies have the same energy density per mode, so equipartition would assign all thermal energy to arbitrarily high frequencies and all thermal energy would be radiated at once.
Planck introduced a correction to the blackbody law that produced the correct result, which involves discretization and increase in energy with frequency, which are totally non-classical. That's why Planck thought it had to be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:31:33 2019 No.11085511 >>11082726 FTL is not compatible with relativity, also see delayed choice experiment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:32:36 2019 No.11085513 >>11085296 Many worlds, the only viable one, actually.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:34:38 2019 No.11085516 >>11085509 a christcuck could make the same arguement since everything is made by god the theory of creation explains everything and everything is evidence of the theory of creation. You just made a creationist argument. Amen

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:35:59 2019 No.11085523

>>11085509
>Planck introduced a correction to the blackbody law that produced the correct result, which involves discretization and increase in energy with frequency, which are totally non-classical. That's why Planck thought it had to be wrong.
Then is there a failure of some sort somewhere for it not to be of "continous" nature?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:39:22 2019 No.11085533

>>11085516
Electron diffraction cannot be explained classically. This is what's known as "experimental evidence."
>>11085523
Precisely, the failure lies in the assumptions of classical physics. Quantum physics makes assumptions which are more consistent with reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:40:38 2019 No.11085537 >>11085533 >Quantum physics makes assumptions which are more consistent with realit So the first statement of OP is debatable? Right?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:44:28 2019 No.11085552

>>11085537
The OP is a bait post, obviously. It's a common opinion among physicists, based on assuming that modern physical theories are the most accurate representation of reality we have (which IMO is a good assumption), but it is an opinion, not a fact.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:46:43 2019 No.11085560 >>11085537 Continuous nature means that there's no precision limit. Quantization is on a continuous spectrum, see Zeeman effect.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:50:36 2019 No.11085568 >>11085560 Yes, that's right. Wasn't sure what the anon you're replying to meant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:52:45 2019 No.11085578 >>11085407 It's a characteristic threshold. Planck length is wave length of a photon equal to its schwarzschild radius. Similar how Planck constant is a characteristic threshold for quantum effects.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:55:02 2019 No.11085582 >>11085513 Many worlds is a meme. Copehagen or consistent histories is where it is at. Or maybe shut up and calculate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:56:12 2019 No.11085588 >>11085533 whooosh this is my point going over your head.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:57:36 2019 No.11085594

>>11085552
Thank you for your explainations (and the time you kinda wasted on a dumb person). Are you a doctorant?

>>11085560
Well, I see that this is related to spin (and I'm certainly not expert in that field) but isn't precision related to measurment? So if there is a finite let's say "threshold" on precision wouldn't it equal to consider it limited "by nature"?

>>11085578
So it implies that everything beneath that threshold is "terra incognita" or negligeable?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:02:58 2019 No.11085615 >>11085594 >beneath Meant below. Sorry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:11:48 2019 No.11085629 >>11085582 Copenhagen is incompatible with special theory of relativity, so it's thoroughly bunk. CH is pretty much the same as MWI.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:18:16 2019 No.11085653 >>11085629 but what if god forbid GR is wrong?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:22:03 2019 No.11085666

>>11085594
>but isn't precision related to measurment?
Nature itself lack precision limit, because it's fundamentally the field, energy moves through this field and wouldn't be able to move through discontinuities similar to how sound can't move through vacuum.
>So it implies that everything beneath that threshold is "terra incognita" or negligeable?
Well so far nature leaked as fuck, people even take detailed pictures of molecules so who knows.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:23:06 2019 No.11085673 >>11085653 if then

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:25:21 2019 No.11085683 >>11085653 Copenhagen also has contradictory axioms and undefined measurement. It actually doesn't pass internal criticism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:26:44 2019 No.11085687 >>11085683 but gr at its base is just a cheap exercise in falsifiable circular logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:27:46 2019 No.11085690 >>11085687 *unfalsifiable

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:36:48 2019 No.11085722 >>11085687 Contradiction between axioms is independent from GR.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:39:11 2019 No.11085730 >>11085629 >Copenhagen is incompatible with special theory of relativity Copenhagen isn't realist, so not it's not

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:40:43 2019 No.11085736 >>11085594 Lol no not a doctor, just some autodidact with a decent amount of formal education

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:51:01 2019 No.11085779 >>11085475 yeah gotta agree with the outdated bit

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:12:18 2019 No.11086002 >>11085730 Copenhagen isn't even a systematic theory, it's a sketch of a recipe that requires additional ad hoc decision how to apply it in every situation. If the situation is intuitive.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:24:14 2019 No.11086038

>>11086002
In many-worlds, the probability of any outcome occurring across all branches is 1. In order to come up with meaningful observable probabilities, you have to only evaluate probabilities relative to one specific branch at a time. This is an additional ad hoc decision that isn't derived from the Schrodinger equation, and is really the same as Copenhagen's measurement problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:25:19 2019 No.11086042 >>11086038 I should say, the probability of any POSSIBLE outcome occurring across all branches is 1.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:34:37 2019 No.11086060 >>11086038 Born rule?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:37:14 2019 No.11086072 >>11086060 The problem is, Born rule applied to what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:46:58 2019 No.11086093 Daily reminder that there are people that spend their lives trying to prove proton decay. One of them might be lurking this thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 17:08:02 2019 No.11086144 >>11085362 Die you even read that post? Goddammit people really stuck at reading these days.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 17:12:17 2019 No.11086151 >>11085362 >show me how you trace "one" of these good luck with that. Bruh what https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiscokCGOhs

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 00:23:27 2019 No.11087179 >>11086038 >meaningful Probabilities are not intuitive. And according to theory of probabilities itself they are not observable due to bayes formula: whatever happens, happens with probability 1. And schrodinger equation confirms that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 00:40:47 2019 No.11087210 >>11086038 And copencucks can't event reason about decoherence, they only suggest to not think about it, cope this massive can't be taken seriously.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:02:22 2019 No.11088354 >>11086038 Well said. Many worlds is really just Copenhagen with additional philosophical baggage tacked on top.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:02:54 2019 No.11088358 >>11087210 >And copencucks can't event reason about decoherence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:52:52 2019 No.11088835

>>11080816
>>11081978
>inb4 this didn't happen because reasons
I was wrong, obviously, you're so fucking dumb you couldn't even give any reasons to back up your claims.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/ynu-rti062519.php
>>11081998
>>11082006
>Don't fucking post if you don't know what you're talking about.
This should apply to you two faggots all the more so.
I understand that there are differences of opinion about whether quantum entanglement can transmit information. But it clearly can, so you have been proven wrong.
>controlled opposition
???
What planet do you live on?

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:15:11 2019 No.11088886

>>11085340
>According to nonrelativistic physics, some particles should end up moving much faster than light speed and you would detect them before light could reach. But you don't.
>Ergo Relativity is right.
Unfortunately, this is not a logical conclusion. If, as we observe, particles get heavier as they approach the speed of light, or are otherwise impeded in their travel, then we would expect to see the same kind of retardation (and yes, I use this word in respect to you also) in the emitted particle. As yet there is no scientific proof of the claim that the path of the particle is retarded (like you) by relativistic effects and there could just as easily be some other effect responsible for this, including but not limited to an increased drag from passing through space, the ether, the higgs field (call it what you will and I'll still call you a niggerfaggot), and therefore we cannot legitimately claim at this stage that relshitivity is right or that you are not a collossal illogical faggot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:19:47 2019 No.11088900 >>11088835 >whether quantum entanglement can transmit information. But it clearly can absolute brain let double-downing on his microcephaly

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:21:49 2019 No.11088904 >>11088900 the expression is doubling down you mong. t. not him

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:24:03 2019 No.11088907

>>11088904
meh, i don't play blackjack

anyone who argues that you can instantly communicate because of entanglement is not only denying special relativity but is also revisiting popsci shit that got debunked in the early 90's. it's like discovering a strain of a brain prion that has been eradicated for 20 years

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:25:50 2019 No.11088912 >>11088907 or someone who reads eurekaalert.org and thinks it's not on the same level as buzzfeed. fucking human garbage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:27:53 2019 No.11088915 >>11088912 oh okay mr. ad-hominem. good argument. you get upgraded from preteen-level to apprentice-level /sci/ pseud

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:41:38 2019 No.11088936

>>11088835
Having read that article all that has to be made clear is this
Quantum teleportation =/= FTL transmission of info by entanglement
The only way you can tell that there was any teleportation is by checking at both locations of the teleportation, which requires subluminal speed obviously. The information that you teleported doesn't exist to anyone until they've made subluminal contact between both points.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:45:34 2019 No.11088940

>>11088936
was this idiot talking about quantum teleportation? everyone with half an IQ knows that quantum teleportation requires the transportation of the entangled particles at subluminal speeds. it really should be called "quantum cloning" because that's more like what it really is, i think they picked this bad name because the "no-clone" theorem stole the terminology -- either that or they wanted to capitalize on memey sounding words

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:10:38 2019 No.11088988

>>11088900
Still no reason given. Like I said
>I understand that there are differences of opinion about whether quantum entanglement can transmit information.
I would argue that this proves that it can be done:
>https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/ynu-rti062519.php
Even if I am wrong, there is no legitimate way to prove that it can't be done, unless you try everything in the book and fail miserably, which as the above experiment proves is not the case. Fancy mathematics, of which there are none in this field, can also be proved wrong when faced with legitimate observable facts.
I get the feeling that you are a relatashit and that entanglement scares you.
>>11084982
> True non-locality violates relativity without question.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:17:05 2019 No.11088999

>>11088936
Interesting. But flawed. If I send a piece of information from my desk in Berlin and it arrives in Hiroshima. The person will recieve the data instantly. They can observe it's appearance, note the time and see that it travels FTL. Simple.

The really amusing thing about this is that another anon made the exact same argument, as I have just done, in order to prove that FTL is impossible, >>11085307. All of which lends credence to the idea that relashitivity is bullcrap and that even those who advocate for it don't understand it, or even attempt to.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:17:11 2019 No.11089000

>>11088988
for an opinion of a nobel laureate in physics, see here:
>>11086778
for an opinion of someone who has really thought about this see this:
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Non-Locality-Relativity-Metaphysical-Aristotelian/dp/0631186093

for not being a brainlet, let me just school you:
entanglement only causes "superluminal" correlations between measurements made on observations, or series of observations (like, e.g. measuring the spin of photons as 0 or 1 in a long string of 0s or 1s where one might hope to decode that string of 0s and 1s into a message) that are inherently random. the measurers only record a random string of 0s and 1s -- this random string encodes nothing, and only after traveling subluminally to one another can they confirm their measurements had a correlation. nothing in their measurements encodes information.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:18:40 2019 No.11089005

>>11088999
i don't even see an argument here. you're contradicting yourself. instantaneous communication is definitely impossible and denying special relativity is /pol/ tier bullshit that is debunked billions of times per second every time the LHC does its thing

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:21:09 2019 No.11089010 >>11088999 The quantum teleportation event itself doesn't give the receiver any information. Information must be sent about the result of the sender's measurement in order to know anything new about the particle's state.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:22:44 2019 No.11089016

>>11088999
>The person will receive the data instantly.
The change in the quantum state will happen instantly, but they won't know what data you sent until you tell them what you did at your end to make that change. Watch the delayed choice quantum eraser episode on PBS Spacetime and the challenge question that goes with it. They explain why you can send winning lottery numbers to the past, but nobody will realise they were sent until after you've done your bit to send them backwards.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:29:08 2019 No.11089029 >>11071449 at the smallest level the universe is totally a cellular automata, but we'll never be able to probe that small to prove it :(

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:31:53 2019 No.11089033

>>11089005
>every time the LHC does its thing
See >>11088886
>>11089010
>Information must be sent about the result of the sender's measurement in order to know anything new about the particle's state.
On what grounds?
>>11089016
>they won't know what data you sent until you tell them what you did at your end to make that change
Again on what grounds?
> why you can send winning lottery numbers to the past
If they are saying this, then they are basing their entire opposition on the assumption that relativity is correct, rather than looking at the evidence staring them in the face and capitulating.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:39:38 2019 No.11089044

>>11089033
On the grounds of how quantum entanglement works; the information is encoded by the correlations between states at both ends, which requires looking at both ends of the experiment. Watch the PBS Spacetime episode, where SR makes no appearance and is not needed.
I'm 95% sure you're just trolling anyway since you KNOW we will keep replying if you keep denying. I could go into why >>11088886 is a shit argument but it wouldn't matter.

>>11089029
Russell's teapot

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:41:56 2019 No.11089046

>>11089033
i didn't even read your post but i can tell you are some sort of anti-science troll. please fuck off. if you deny science then i encourage you to never take any vaccines and keep smoking vapes and walk in radiation areas and use your redpilled understanding to drive through red lights/stopsigns and do kratom and shoot yourself in the head because "quantum suicide implies you will live"

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:43:16 2019 No.11089047 >>11089000 this faggot again? >appeal to authority incarnate >theory makes no testable predictions >literally a useless fairytale >thinks it's insightful an hero

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:44:18 2019 No.11089048 >>11089047 >appeal to authority is wrong >trust 4chan anons on physics, not real physicists, that makes you based and redpilled

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:45:43 2019 No.11089050 >>11089047 >an hero Is this an old meme now? Haven't seen it in ages

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:46:54 2019 No.11089053 >>11089050 that meme is ancient. an hero and suicide are like 2004 tier

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:47:39 2019 No.11089056 >>11089048 I rub your nose in it but you take a big whiff and asks for seconds. lmao

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:48:58 2019 No.11089062

>>11089000
>opinion of a nobel laureate in physics
Not sure if this is an appeal to authority, but if it is it is surely misplaced in the drivel you linked.
>flapdoodle
ffs
>measuring polarisation and spin
In the case of the article you linked, no such measurement is taking place. The photon itself is being teleported. But even if it were not so, there is reason to think that spin could be used to send information, as I will demonstrate, by way of demolishing the arguments of Mr. Flapdoodle here.
>a particular branch of history
>on a different branch of history
This seems to be suggesting that if a photon is measured with spin up then its entangled particle, no matter where it is in space or time (i.e. millions of years in the past) must therefore have spin down. This is ridiculous for obvious reasons, so he must instead be talking some other statement about relativishit. This is of no value to the debate, if the observed effect 1. casts doubt on relashitivity itself or 2. disproves it completely.
>Bertlmann's socks
Only a joomer could have written this. Imagine if I were to come on here and try to prove anything scientific by way of analogy to a pair of mismatched green and pink socks. My God, this is what passes for intellect in nobel terms?
>yet no signal is propagate from one to the other
Now have the grandpa switch his socks from one state to another in morse code and what happens? A message is sent.
>Hence the limerick:
This passes as scientific proof?
>wank about precogs
I'm done. Go fuck yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:50:06 2019 No.11089063 >>11089056 good argument bro, though you still stay at apprentice-tier /sci/ pseud. jon was active earlier tonight. try asking him for pseud mastership tutorials.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:51:01 2019 No.11089066

>>11089044
>which requires looking at both ends of the experiment.
No shit. I've written this message. I've sent it to a server, you recieved it. The information is seen at both ends, the time the message took to get to you can be calculated. Same goes for the experiment I sights, albeit over a much smaller distance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:52:05 2019 No.11089068 >>11089046 You are a moron.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:54:08 2019 No.11089072 >>11089066 >No shit. I've written this message. I've sent it to a server, you recieved it. It's not a message though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:54:15 2019 No.11089073 >>11089062 >Only a joomer bruv I need to know what the fuck is a joomer it's not listed on urban dictionary please tell me it's the jew version of the *oomer meme, please

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:56:03 2019 No.11089075

>>11089062
okay, first of all you are a fucking retard trying to argue with a nobel laureate in physics. do you see why you are probably wrong?

okay, now then
>The photon itself is being teleported.
wrong and retarded.
> there is reason to think that spin could be used to send information, as I will demonstrate, by way of demolishing the arguments of Mr. Flapdoodle here.
oh okay, Doubling Down

> This is ridiculous for obvious reasons,
no, it's absolutely not, and you are retarded for saying that.
>Now have the grandpa switch his socks from one state to another in morse code and what happens? A message is sent.
no, he didn't change his argument, it is perfectly consistent. and no, no message is snet.

please learn undergrad physics before you think lurking r/holofractal makes you smarter than the guy who invented the quark model and made many Nobel-level contributions to physics. this may be a serious challenge to people with a 88 IQ but trust me, you will benefit from tackling these average-IQ tier problems

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:57:05 2019 No.11089076 >>11089068 oh how refreshing, mr. ad-hominem with his super great arguments again. logical fallacies BTFO

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:57:21 2019 No.11089078 >>11089062 Or maybe the reason why nothing can exceed the speed of light is because relativity is correct. The data doesn't support your assertions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:58:00 2019 No.11089080 >>11089072 If it is possible to alter the spin of the photon intentionally then you can transmit data. If you can teleport a photons from one place to another then there are a myriad of ways that you could encode information into said photons.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:59:09 2019 No.11089082 >>11089073 >please tell me it's the jew version of the *oomer meme, please If you say so. ;)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:01:48 2019 No.11089086 >>11089075 >makes appeal to authority >>11089076 >accuses others of ad hominem >>11089075 >>11089075 >>11089075 >>11089075 LOL! U are fucking retarded!!! :)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:03:37 2019 No.11089088 >>11089086 LOL SO HIGH IQ, LOGIC AND REASON BTFO

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:03:57 2019 No.11089089 >>11089075 >>A message is sent. >No message is snet. REEEEEEEEEEE

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:06:20 2019 No.11089094 >>11089088 >LOGIC AND REASON BTFO I'm glad that you finally admitted your actual intentions posting on this board. Lol.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:06:36 2019 No.11089095 >>11089089 empirically no message can be sent. fact

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:07:26 2019 No.11089098 >>11089080 >If it is possible to alter the spin of the photon intentionally then you can transmit data. Sure, but it isn't possible. Also, it's not actual teleportation but you already know that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:07:38 2019 No.11089099 >>11089094 no i was mocking you. violations of special relativity imply violations of causality, which violates reason

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:33:01 2019 No.11089371 >>11089080 >If it is possible to alter the spin of the photon intentionally It isn't. >If you can teleport a photons from one place to another You can't.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 01:05:34 2019 No.11089510

>>11071449
>> Nature is inherently continuous.
Aye.
>Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random.
Nay.

Here's one for ya.

>There isn't even a hint of extraterrestrial life. The odds of such an event are so dismally low that not even an infinite universe -- if it is infinite -- mean that this event can happen more than once. Or more than zero, for that matter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:11:27 2019 No.11089833 >brainlets in seething mode again, good job, OP

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 08:42:48 2019 No.11090084 >>11076404 >as entanglement cannot be used to transfer actual physical information FTL. Why the hell not?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 08:45:13 2019 No.11090087 >>11090084 just read a fucking book

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:09:37 2019 No.11090113 >>11089833 yup. this thread keeps on giving. repost worthy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:12:29 2019 No.11090116 File: 721 KB, 1600x1066, 1543449692140.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11071449 >facts >elementary

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 10:29:03 2019 No.11090265

>>11071449
>inherently continuous
>probabilistic/random
Doesn't probabilities require at least pixelation of time. If your only prediction is that something will or will not happen, without a time limit, (and often also a spatial or relational frame) how is that ever useful?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:08:43 2019 No.11090788 >>11089095 If it is a fact then you should have no problem providing the evidence, yet some 15 comments later and nothing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:10:25 2019 No.11090794 >>11089099 Or, more logically, non-locality violates relativishity. Therefore, relativity is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:18:51 2019 No.11090808 >>11071449 > No faster than light transfer of information or any other effects is possible. thats wrong. light cant traver faster than information. causality is the actual speed limit.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:18:52 2019 No.11090809

>>11089371
>>If it is possible to alter the spin of the photon intentionally
>It isn't.
https://phys.org/news/2013-03-affect-atom-adjusting.html
>Next, the team measured the polarization of the emitted photon and found that the observed polarization determines the effect of measurement on the spin. This suggests that an observer can influence the collapse of superposition just by adjusting the orientation of his photon-polarization measurement apparatus.
>The reason for this "action-at-a-distance" is that the spins of the measured atoms and the emitted photons were entangled. That is, even after they were separated, a measurement of one of them instantaneously affected the other.

>>If you can teleport a photons from one place to another
>You can't.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/ynu-rti062519.php

> Once the two pieces are entangled, meaning their physical characteristics are so intertwined they cannot be described individually, a photon which holds quantum information is applied and the electron absorbs the photon. The absorption allows the polarization state of the photon to be transferred into the carbon, which is mediated by the entangled electron, demonstrating a teleportation of information at the quantum level.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:58:37 2019 No.11090899 >>11090809 They assume that it's instantaneous, but didn't verify it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:59:49 2019 No.11090902 >>11088999 >The person will recieve the data instantly. That never happened. Take your pills, shizoretard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 18:43:01 2019 No.11091385 >>11090899 Quantum entanglement is instantaneous. Or are you a science denier?

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 18:46:35 2019 No.11091392

>>11090902
See >>11090809
> which is mediated by the entangled electron, demonstrating a teleportation of information at the quantum level.
Lack of accurate reading comprehension is indicative of schizoid tendencies, which you have in abundance my friend. Wipe the cheetoz dust off your fingers and get out of your mom's basement.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 19:03:11 2019 No.11091447 >>11091385 >>11091392 You don't even know the basics of quantum mechanics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 20:39:16 2019 No.11091669 >>11091447 You don't even know what the basics are and yyou are denying the existence of more advanced concepts to prop up relashitivism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 20:45:01 2019 No.11091678 >>11091669 Only you don't know what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:51:43 2019 No.11091850 >>11089046 Kratom and vapes have more science supporting them as healthy alternatives than cigs or heroin.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:25:00 2019 No.11092378 >>11072649 Someone get the defibrillator! This nigga OD’d on red pills!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:32:16 2019 No.11092382 >>11091385 Science begins with acknowledgement of facts, and the fact is that this instantaneous shit is assumed and wasn't verified. Unverified assumption still may or may not be true, but it's still unverified assumption.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:50:40 2019 No.11092398 >>11076514 We can't claim ANYTHING is fundamentally true in physics. We can only say what is true about our measurements and predictions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:52:17 2019 No.11092402 >>11077353 Copenhagen is just quantum mechanics. Everything else is neckbeard cope.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:57:15 2019 No.11092408 >>11071449 How does "very likely" = "settled fact"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 03:10:38 2019 No.11092423 >>11092402 Copenhagen is self-contradictory, it's antiscience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:16:22 2019 No.11092482 >>11092378 >redpills Get on my level scrub, I eat secrets and shit out redpills. The blackest pill in the darkest reaches of the cosmos is still too weak for my level of tolerance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:16:25 2019 No.11092483 >>11090794 good thing that no non-locality is possible then we knew laws of physics are local for over a hundred years, and it ain't changing relativity deniers do not belong on /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:19:47 2019 No.11092490 File: 1.20 MB, 1920x1080, QAB0Ea8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This thread has been visited by the council of the skinned chickens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:25:27 2019 No.11092498 >>11090794 >the second best tested theory we have is wrong Revoke this guy's posting license, please.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:26:41 2019 No.11092499 >>11092498 You're the faggot for putting your faith in something which has never been proven true, and which has been contradicted by countless experimental observations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:44:13 2019 No.11092528 >>11092499 Violations of relativity weren't observed. They are assumed by copencucks, into the trash their assumptions go.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:54:03 2019 No.11092545 >>11092528 Relativity proposes that the mechanism which causes the phenomenon of gravitation is the, and I quote, "curvature of space and time." Sounds like a whollatta HOOPLAH

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 05:08:38 2019 No.11092563

>>11071449
>nature is inherently continuous
Impossible to prove
>nature is inherently probabilistic
Impossible to prove
>nature is inherently local
Impossible to prove
>nature is inherently non-realist
This fact is precisely why the above are impossible to prove
>"Interpretations of Quantum mechanics
The only true interpretation of any physical model is it's predictive ability.
>likely
>likely
>Conservation of energy
maybe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 05:15:24 2019 No.11092573 >>11092563 >>nature is inherently non-realist >This fact [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 05:20:01 2019 No.11092579 >>11092573 Ok, you got me, I'm a mathematician. The last physics I took was college EM like 4 years ago lmao.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 05:28:46 2019 No.11092589 >>11092579 You're the real winner because you are open to the idea that you may be mistaken. I swear, my deepest desire and most desperate fantasy is to talk with someone who can show me why I am wrong. Still waiting, much to my dismay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 05:38:19 2019 No.11092596 >>11092589 Would you agree that if it is a fact, then my logic is correct?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:45:02 2019 No.11092639 >>11092596 That's a big if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_solipsism#Criticism_of_metaphysical_solipsism

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:38:39 2019 No.11092688
File: 416 KB, 623x527, 3alwhwj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11092639
It's odd to me that more people are not aware of the debate between realism and idealism in physics.

I should think that more people would be concerned about a debate between two conflicting schools of thought with implications that are nothing short of all encompassing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:42:28 2019 No.11092692 >>11071449 >Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random even in macro scale? lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:43:01 2019 No.11092694 File: 8 KB, 321x157, index.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11092563 >impossible to prove Except that it is proven, lol.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:45:28 2019 No.11092699

>>11092688
>It's odd to me that more people are not aware of the debate between realism and idealism in physics.

The debate was conclusively solved sometime in 1920s, with naive realism being disproven. Get with the times, grandpa, and learn some QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:46:51 2019 No.11092701 >>11092692 It is true even in macro scale, however often the probabilities approach or even reach 100%. Fundamentally it is all probabilistic, tough.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:53:02 2019 No.11092706

>>11092694
This art style and format are exquisite. So refined and so expertly applied I am genuinely enthralled.

However.
Not every true claim will be falsifiable.
If I say that the universe is discrete, there is literally no way, even theoretically, to falsify that claim.
Same goes for claiming that the universe is continuous.
Now, one of those claims must be true. I think we can all agree on that much.
However, your balls would be hard pressed into oblivion if you had to prove or falsify either claim.

Theories are only valuable if they can be applied to solve an engineering problem. If there's a non-realist theory describing the cosmos that can be applied to solve an engineering problem, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:59:47 2019 No.11092713 >>11092563 Where do I learn to be this astonishingly based.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 08:02:36 2019 No.11092717 >>11092706 >If there's a non-realist theory describing the cosmos that can be applied to solve an engineering problem, then I'm a monkey's uncle. Quantum mechanics?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 08:04:20 2019 No.11092718 >>11092699 Lmao >The debate was conclusively solved sometime in 1920s Please tell me more. [citation needed] >counterfactual definiteness Why would you direct me to that wiki article when it literally has no relevance?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 08:16:57 2019 No.11092732 >>11092706 >one of those claims must be true Are you claiming that it is impossible for the universe to be continuous in some areas and discrete in others?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 08:17:53 2019 No.11092734 >>11092499 No. It's definitely you. >proven true Holy kek, you really have absolutely no clue about science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 08:23:47 2019 No.11092743 >>11092732 Where would these hypothetical areas be located and how would you differentiate them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 08:25:26 2019 No.11092746 >>11092717 Quantum mechanics isn't non realist, only a few retarded interpretations are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 08:48:16 2019 No.11092761 >>11071449 Fail.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 08:50:07 2019 No.11092764 >>11071449 >>List of settled facts, There is matter.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 09:33:52 2019 No.11092827

>>11092746
Quantum mechanics is non-realist for sure. There are basically two attempts to interpret it in a realist manner. Bohmian mechanics, which fail to even recover QFT and violate relativity, so they just blatantly do not work at all. And then many worlds interpretation, which is bullshit because it merely ignores the question of how the universe splits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 09:37:50 2019 No.11092837 >>11092827 Relativity violates reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 09:42:04 2019 No.11092850 >>11092837 >relativity denial What a sad state crackpots ultimately reduce into..

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 09:42:24 2019 No.11092852 >>11092764 kek "stuff occurs"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 09:43:40 2019 No.11092854 >>11092699 You don't know what you are talking about, the old notion of realism in 1920s was newtonian model, not naive realism, and not general realism. Newtonian model doesn't work, but it says nothing about realism. Fix your education.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:06:21 2019 No.11092891 >>11092706 Discontinuities exist, but they are gaps between universes, so logically they aren't part of the universe, everything else in the universe is continuous, because otherwise there would be no motion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:07:24 2019 No.11092896 >>11092706 >Theories are only valuable if they can be applied to solve an engineering problem. That's the reason right theories are valuable: wrong theories are unlikely to solve anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:10:20 2019 No.11092900 >>11092827 The universe splits through decoherence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:13:08 2019 No.11092906 Quantum mechanics is such bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:17:35 2019 No.11092911 https://youtu.be/ISQxPyJ3bAg

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:21:14 2019 No.11092922 >>11092852 Show anything without matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:25:23 2019 No.11092931 >>11092922 does the hilbert space where the universe's wavefunction resides contain matter?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:26:41 2019 No.11092936 >>11092911 fuck off schizo

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:28:05 2019 No.11092940 >>11092891 [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:30:43 2019 No.11092952 >>11092891 >the universe occupies a discrete volume >the universe is continuous which is it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:39:04 2019 No.11092979 >>11092931 Show anything without matter. Matter and energy are the same thing. Matter can not be destroyed or created it can only change form. Everything is matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:40:01 2019 No.11092982 >>11092940 [brain needed] >>11092952 Are they incompatible? Define discreet volume.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:42:19 2019 No.11092991 >>11092979 Energy is a motion integral of matter, not matter itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:56:36 2019 No.11093032 >>11092991 Einstein disagrees and so do I. Energy is matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 12:48:59 2019 No.11093244 >>11092900 >The universe splits through decoherence. Yep. Even the OP mentions decoherent histories as the best interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 12:51:50 2019 No.11093253 >>11071449 >Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random Stop gaps aren't finished product. COPEnhagen is not a scientific interpretation, its a psychological/anthromorphic interpretation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 12:57:18 2019 No.11093266 >>11071449 >I come to these conclusions by stirring my shit around in the toilet and reading it like tea leaves Or >It's a slow day on /b/ but I'm still on the clock to shill Why did you even make this post OP? just to grind some gears?

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:10:48 2019 No.11093305

>>11093266
Thread was likely made to enlighten you assorted plebs about what actual physicists, especially those clever enough to contribute to modern research in hep-th, actually think. There is plenty of other content on the internet where various bohmian, many worlds, world-is-deterministic and FTL pseuds are aggressively pushing their unexamined ideas. Nice change of pace for once.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 15:19:51 2019 No.11093629 if nature is continuous then why are electrons quantized

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 16:20:55 2019 No.11093777 >>11093305 Excuse me what the fuck. You're going to ignore all of reddit like it doesn't even exist are you fucking kidding me? This is not your safe space kiddo. If you don't like arguing with based spergs, this is the wrong website for you.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 16:24:05 2019 No.11093791

>>11093305
Go have your circle jerk where the democratization of ideas has already eliminated all forms of descent, where you can be sure that anyone who disagrees with you will be banned, and you will get 1000 upvotes from defending the infallible all knowing god known as science from the hideous and evil menace known as fourchan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 16:34:48 2019 No.11093833 >>11093032 No he doesn't, brainlet. Holy fuck you're dense. E=mc^2 doesn't mean they're the same. It means mass contributes to total energy even at rest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 17:37:58 2019 No.11094046 >>11092743 The universe becomes more continuous as nearby observes decrease.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 18:39:30 2019 No.11094202 >>11093833 It can not be destroyed or created it can only change form. Matter and energy are the same thing. We observe this every day.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 20:14:26 2019 No.11094392

>>11071449
>stochastic
>adjective
>having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely

1. Define ""precisely""
2. Post proofs of said ""true randomness""

oh wait, you're saying it's unfalsifiable?
dang.

Ciao.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 27 03:56:17 2019 No.11095282 >>11092706 >If I say that the universe is discrete, there is literally no way, even theoretically, to falsify that claim. Discrete space breaks Lorentz invariance. This can be measured.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 27 03:57:53 2019 No.11095286 >>11094202 No we don't. As said, you're wrong and neither Einstein nor anyone else said anything like that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 27 06:30:28 2019 No.11095498 >>11093629 If the reals are continuous then why are the integers a subset of the reals?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 27 06:36:31 2019 No.11095514 >>11095498 hah, got'em

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 27 08:53:05 2019 No.11095765 >>11095282 This.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 27 17:36:04 2019 No.11097012 bumpity bump

Anonymous Sun Oct 27 18:23:46 2019 No.11097177

>>11071549
Here is a brain fart if speed is limited what would be the effective limits of energy potencials we know that gravity waves propagate whit the speed of light but its potencials pull is felt 《 instantly》.
So is the ripple a result of the suddent potencial energy change and if so then there has to be some sort of medium that enables that ripple to propagate. You have to have water to have waves argument

Anonymous Sun Oct 27 19:17:53 2019 No.11097342

>>11078782
Literally nothing you're saying is right.
You can have a discrete but probabilistic universe, or a continuous deterministic universe, and platonic idealism vs materialism has nothing to do with theories of the economy.
The universe being continuous and stochastic (which it is, you fucking stupid moron) doesn't have anything to do with communism or capitalism or platonic idealism vs materialism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 27 19:26:20 2019 No.11097374 >>11083288 Just because you WANT the universe to be deterministic because you falsely believe that it somehow is necessary for communism, doesn't mean the universe is deterministic. It's not deterministic and this has nothing to do with communism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 27 22:41:05 2019 No.11097934 >>11097342 It would sure be convenient for you if everything I said is that easily dismissed but that's not an argument, you're just saying nuh uh. Keep it up bud, having an easy target like you around is great for me.

Anonymous Sun Oct 27 22:45:45 2019 No.11097940

>>11097374
I'm not a communist, I hate niggers too much to share with them. I'm just pointing out the motivation for the absurd amount of glowniggers constantly shitting up metaphysics threads.
I arrived at the conclusion that the universe is deterministic through logical deduction years ago. It wasn't until that many worlds fag started shilling his incredibly retarded bullshit that i noticed the connection to politics, and looked it up. You're just putting words in my mouth that make it easier to combat my argument, classic kike technique you fucking glowing nigger.

Anonymous Mon Oct 28 11:14:27 2019 No.11099068

>>11097934
But the only argument IS "nuh uh" because you're literally just saying bullshit.
There is no connection between idealistic or materialist philosophies or determinism or interpretations of quantum mechanics. You're making up bullshit and postulating a conspiracy theory that doesn't exist. And trying to defend it makes you sound like a fucking retard.
>>11097940
Shut the fuck up retard. Your logical deduction doesn't work against contradictory empirical observation. EMPIRICALLY the universe is not deterministic. Saying "I've logically deduced it years ago!" Isn't an argument and you're wrong and a retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 28 11:27:32 2019 No.11099112 if conservation of energy does not hold in GR, why cant free energy devices be constructed, at least in principle?

Anonymous Mon Oct 28 12:17:54 2019 No.11099225

>>11099112
Conservation of energy doesn't hold unless you include gravitational energy. This is a tricky thing to pin down in GR, but the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor provides a satisfactory answer and restores energy conservation. This even works for dark energy, so that the increase in total vacuum energy of the expanding universe is balanced by a corresponding decrease in another component.
You can have two distant objects accelerating apart by dark energy, but in order to extract work from the acceleration, you have to somehow bring them together again which takes work against the accelerating expansion of space. Or if you have a long spring, it'll be stretched, but re-compressing it would require doing work because the spring's equilibrium length is really just changing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 28 13:21:38 2019 No.11099387 >>11099068 All empirical observation so far was in favor of schrodinger equation, and schrodinger equation is deterministic. So determinism is pretty natural conclusion.

Anonymous Mon Oct 28 13:51:56 2019 No.11099456

>>11099068
>the only argument IS "nuh uh"
Retard alert.
>There is no connection between idealistic or materialist philosophies or determinism or interpretations of quantum mechanics.
False and cringe.
>You're making up bullshit and postulating a conspiracy theory that doesn't exist.
I'll just take your word on that I guess, since you have offered no arguments.
>And trying to defend it makes you sound like a fucking retard.
Well if I'm right that would mean you're mistaken, so of course you think that. Again, not an argument. I've been called a retard on 4chan once or twice, do you really think that's going to deter me?
>Shut the fuck up retard.
lmao no faggot.
>contradictory empirical observation.
[citation needed]
>Saying "I've logically deduced it years ago!" Isn't an argument
You've taken that completely out of context and presented it as if it is my argument in favor of determinism, but that's false because it isn't.

Keep seething brainlet, maybe you will get comforted by some of the other assblasted normalfags on this board.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 28 14:10:29 2019 No.11099491 >>11099387 No, empirical observations are in favor of squared amplitude of wavefunction being the probability. Schrodinger equation alone does not cut it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 28 16:43:47 2019 No.11099847 >>11099387 >I never measure my states

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 07:31:41 2019 No.11102007 >>11071449 I agree with all this but > Cosmic Inflation is likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang. There are indications that string theory is incompatible with simplest inflation models.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 07:43:30 2019 No.11102017 >>11102007 okay so let's modify inflation models to fit with hottest string model.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 13:11:18 2019 No.11102537 >>11099491 Your "does not cut" is just hand waving against quantitatively verified dynamic equation. >>11099847 You can always project the state to a basis, where the state has norm 1, then measurement doesn't make any difference.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 15:19:49 2019 No.11102870 >>11078989 I concur Doctor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 17:17:23 2019 No.11103081 >>11102537 So how do you decide which basis to use for the measurement before the measurement?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 18:09:05 2019 No.11103207 >>11071449 Go to a bar or club man this shit is endless. GR can't solve the fucking definition of distance.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 30 00:36:17 2019 No.11104257 >>11103081 It doesn't matter. Properties of the state are provided by wave function exhaustively and objectively, this is yet another fact copencucks can't cope with.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 30 04:43:41 2019 No.11104676 >>11071449 What function did yoy graph here?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 30 04:46:36 2019 No.11104680 >>11104257 The fuck are you rambling on about? Measurements are inherently nondeterministic, that's a fact independent from interpretation.

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 ]