Alternatives to God playing Dice

[Anonymous No.11071661]

Why has the mainstream physics community ignored Pilot Wave Interpretation and other non-random quantum models? I feel like these models are the only way we're ever going to get actual scifi technology rather than just shinier iPhones.

What are the actual problems with Pilot Wave? Are Physicists just stuck in the Copenhagen paradigm?

[Anonymous No.11071682]

>>11071661
the mathematics begins to cope by having to become unnecessarily more complex. occam's razor and all that jazz

[Anonymous No.11071715]

>>11071661
It has been shown that any & all "hidden variables" theories are non-local.
This means that the pilot wave exists, independently of space and time. It sounds a bit like God with another name attached to it.
More importantly, how do I measure it ?

Probabilistic QM doesn't have to be really "true" at the subatomic level. It's just a formalism. What matters is that it gives predictions and results.
I am not familiar with the results predicted by the pilot wave, but Copenhagen Interpretation has never been disproved and the formalism is very powerful.

[Anonymous No.11071751]

>>11071715
non-locality exists in Copenhagen too. That's not a good argument against pilot wave.

[Anonymous No.11071760]

>>11071751
QFT is local, Pilot wave isnt even relativistic.

[Anonymous No.11071769]

>>11071751
The point is, Copenhagen gives us a set of axioms and those axioms give us proper results.
I don't think we will be able to develop the tools and senses to understand the subatomic world and explain it. Our job should be to predict and measure it. Doesn't matter if our explanation isn't what is "truly" happening at the subatomic level.

[Anonymous No.11071777]

>>11071760
No quantum theory is relativistic. That's why there's no UToE.

>>11071769
Fair enough, but unsatisfying. If we never delv to understand the quantum scale then we'll forever give up dreams of a lot of scifi technology like Faster than Light Communication.

[Anonymous No.11071803]

>>11071777
I am a mathematician at heart, so for me, it's not really a problem. There are already plenty of unsolved; well-posed and interesting problems in "standard" QM and in the more esoteric QFT.
Maybe one day the QFT experiments will be able to show us the strings of String Theory and, maybe then, QM, QFT will all take the place Newtonian Mechanics have today, a powerful model that we used to investigate and formalise the world around us until we found an even better one.

Physics only progress when we have experimental data to put models on. If you can't confirm your theory, you're doing mathematics (which is fine.)

[Anonymous No.11071810]

https://math.mit.edu/~bush/?p=2679
Somebody said DARPA is using this to control branes with all alternative worldlines
I want to say it's like the champernowne constant where you can make all possible digital sound using analog

[Anonymous No.11071821]

>>11071661
God didn’t play dice. The idea that the quantum world is “probability” based is heavily flawed. It’s the best we can do at this stage in our development as a species, but if we were a lot smarter we could even correctly measure photons and account for the intererence caused by our measurements as well, allowing us to know absolute positioning.

[Anonymous No.11071877]

>>11071661
Pilot wave/hidden var is dead. Copenhagen has been still-birth since inception. Whats left is MWI for pure QM, others for pseudo nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11071878]

>>11071777
QFT is relativistic, it follows the laws of SR and works on curved spacetime.
The problem with GR is that it isnt quantum, thats different from saying that QFT isnt relativistic.

Alnyway, the point was: Pivot wave does not follow the laws of SR, QFT does and is in fact local.

[Anonymous No.11071898]

>>11071661
I can answer your question but you gotta work with me for a minute,
Let's start at the beginning.

In the OP diagram, which experiment are they referencing?
As in
-The name of the scientist that performed the experiment.
The name of the experiment (it's a twin slit experiment, but there were several, the first being "Young's twin slit experiment" etc, performed with light, not electrons)
-the date the experiment was performed.
-who peer reviewed it
-which journal published the paper etc.

Once we have the details of the experiment we can discuss the results ;)

Important questions are
-what did they use as a detector and how were the observations with an observer carried out.

Once we know this it all makes a lot more sense, so we need to know which experiment the diagram is referencing.

[Anonymous No.11071911]

>>11071878
Entangled particles prove that no good quantum theory can be totally local.

[Anonymous No.11071913]

>>11071821
No we couldn't. Deterministic theories of quantum mechanics cannot ever give correct predictions for measurement outcomes in certain situations. This is the whole point of Bell's inequality.

[Anonymous No.11071937]

>>11071878
>what are non relativistic qfts

[Anonymous No.11071974]

>>11071911
No they dont, QFT operators commute when they are spacelike seperated and the theory is local in that sense.
Correlations between the states has nothing to do with it, and imo does not mean that a theory isnt local

[Anonymous No.11071981]

>>11071937
we were obv talking about fundamental qft/particle physics and not applications to solid state physics (or the like).
Try to understand the context of the questions next time :)

[Anonymous No.11071999]

>>11071974
>spacelike seperated (sic)

[Anonymous No.11072000]

>>11071981
Speaking of the dangers of taking things out of context, which experiment are these the results of?
Or is this a theoretical experiment?

[Anonymous No.11072006]

>>11071981
>excuses imprecise use of language with appeals to context

[Anonymous No.11072009]

>>11071661
There's nothing wrong with randomness. It makes a lot of sense actually as what you'd find at the smallest most fundamental scales of reality since there are fewer and fewer ways in which a given outcome will be significantly different from any other outcome for a given set of starting conditions. Non-randomness is what builds up as you zoom out, a lot like how in the very short term poker can be random but as you watch more hands play out everything tends towards the predictable patterns players who know what they're doing base their strategies around.

[Anonymous No.11072105]

>>11071661
As long as no one can answer the question "which experiment are these results from?"
I can explain them,
Quantum mechanics is a hoax in its entirety.
These results are deliberately misleading.
The experiment with electrons doesn't look like the experiment in OPs diagram,

When electrons were fired through the twin slits, the technology at the time wasn't able to make an electron gun that could fire individual electrons,
And please people, electrons are electronegative, the self repel and are attracted to anything with a different charge, so because of electrostatic build up in the slits, charging them with negative electrons, as the beam of electrons passed through the slits, the were being interfered with by other electrons and creating a random interference pattern ;)
It's not magic.
It's not quantum mechanics.
It's scientists on the cutting edge of technology misinterpreting results because they didn't understand what they were doing fully.

This experiment was basically a cathode ray oscilloscope,
And if you want proof do some research into the experiment timeline.
The "reciever" wasn't like in the diagram, it's was a convoluted contraption, each time they did the experiment they got different results.
The whole "active observer" thing was because the dynamic nature of the electron interference generated a random pattern.

[Anonymous No.11072210]

>>11072105
And if you want to understand it a little more (and I know you got your arcane esoteric texts from almost two centuries ago ready to reference)
But
Young's twin slit experiment done with light = wave interference pattern
Twin slit with particles ie say you fired a machine gun through two slits = two distinct "shadows" of the slits, particle pattern.
Twin slit done with charged electrostatic particles like electrons = random pattern halfway between wave and particle because the electrons interact with each other.
Wave particle duality is a lie.

[Anonymous No.11072418]

I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you anon, bit Einstein played us all like a little bitch. Is it really so hard to believe that Einstein would lie for a million dollar prize? The guy was a piece of shit, look how he treated his family.
Let's be realistic people.

[Anonymous No.11072423]

>>11071661
Pilot wave has the least support out of all the interpretations. Many say that no interpretation is even necessary.

[Anonymous No.11072444]

>>11072423
How can you interpret an experiment if you dont know any of the details?
Which experiment is OP referring to?
Is this a real experiment?
Or is this a hypothetical thought experiment ?
What experiment is this the results of?

[Anonymous No.11072746]

>>11071661
Because it has been shown to be wrong by experiments:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/

Copenhagen also sucks. Just don't interpret. Use pure math. Then all is well.

[Anonymous No.11072762]

Do you guys wanna hear a story,
So theres this autist right and he decided when he wanted a Nobel prize.
So he did all the things the people that got Nobel prizes did, studied hard, read all the books, went to university etc, all the boring stuff.
And one day while he's in his Bitcoin mining phase and using PGP encryption on all his silk road transactions he reads this random book about cryptography and it had a chapter about how the United states government was trying to ban private encryption services but one day they developed a quantum computer that could crack encryption algorithms almost instantly, and that's why they stopped the ban legislation. So he's all like "I could just run a quantum computer and crack the sha256 Bitcoin algorithms and be able to print my own money"

Long story short, he tried to build a quantum computer, so after about 8 years of full time quantum computing research and development you wanna know what he discovered?

Quantum computing is a hoax.
It isn't real, it's like time machines or teleporters or warp drives.

But you know what else he discovered?

All quantum mechanics is a hoax.

All you need to do to realise this for yourself is study the twin slit experiment.

The evidence for QM is nothing but smoke and mirrors, you reach for th answers but they are never there.

[Anonymous No.11072788]

>>11072762
Can you please leave this board forever, schizo?
We literally have two quantum computers in our basement.

[Anonymous No.11072799]

>>11072788
Sure you do, I bet you one million internet dollars you can't provide any proof though ;) ;) ;)
What kind of quantum computers?
Are they public or classified?
Who built them?
What do they look like etc,
Let's try who, when, why, where etc?

Please sir, may I have a shred of evidence?

[Anonymous No.11072806]

>>11072788
And you would have said the same thing to Gallileo when he was claiming earth revolved around the sun.
Go back to church where you belong liar.

[Anonymous No.11072822]

>>11072799
>>11072806
MRI quantum computers. I can't go to the lab to get pictures right now, but they successfully ran Shor's algorithm to determine the prime factors of the number 21.
One of them is broken right now, because an idiot brought chisels for maintenance while one of the QCs was running. They have to be cooled down to create an enormous magnetic field of almost 10 Tesla. That field ripped the metal part of the chisel out of the rubber coating and into the cryostate.

They're "public" in that everybody knows about them, but of course restricted in use for the scientific personnel. Built by PhDs obviously.

[Anonymous No.11072828]

>>11071661
Quantum physics interpretations have zero practical relevance and can be ignored 100%

[Anonymous No.11072834]

>>11072799
>>11072822
>what do they look like
Forgot to answer that one. Metal cylinders. Inside are designer molecules that a company I won't name creates specifically for these purposes. These QCs are very small in qubit count obviously and not as powerful as IBM's fixed-frequency transmons or similar technology.

[Anonymous No.11072835]

>>11071661
>Why has the mainstream physics community ignored Pilot Wave Interpretation and other non-random quantum models?

You want the real answer? Because it is total pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.11072838]

>>11071777
>No quantum theory is relativistic

Yes it is. The issue is combining high energy, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Special relativity and QM is already solved long ago.

[Anonymous No.11072864]

>>11072822
I apologise for my hostility, I assumed you were trolling.
I know for certain that upper level PhD physicists know that quantum computing is a hoax. But who would lose their high paying job and elitist position over something so trivial. Also they hand out Nobel prizes like candy for QM, who doesn't want a nobel prize and a million dollars? Men with principles higher than yours or mine could be swayed by that much money and fame.

I'll give you an analogy of what you said.

"I have the arc of the covenant in my basement, I can't tell you where, or take any photos, but no one other than high ranking Cardinals is allowed to touch it,
The other day we summoned an angel with it, God is real!"

That's called an anecdote,
You cannot use anecdotal evidence in a science debate man.
I know the theory on how a quantum computer should work. Where is the scientific paper on your results though?

Or are you doing clandestine QM research?

[Anonymous No.11072871]

>>11072864
It’s really cute how you accidentally exposed yourself as a troll by criticizing other people for not having evidence of your claims but presenting none yourself for your claims of vast conspiracies

[Anonymous No.11072930]

>>11072871
I'm not a troll man, I'm an anonymous whistle blower, I understand how you feel because I used to worship QM like a god.
It was like magic.
But it's not a vast conspiracy, there are only several actual quantum physicists globally, and they all peer review each other's papers, Its a classic circle jerk.
And if I'm wrong, why don't you answer my original question.
What experiment is the OPs post referencing?

But you will evade the question, and try other classic debate techniques to win eg changing the subject, bringing my personal worth into the debate, posting an indecipherable hieroglyphic equations, using a string of nonsensical symbols.
I'm not your enemy man, secretly I'm your friend.
And I think you are cute to ;)
No homo.

[Anonymous No.11072944]

>>11072864
>>11072864
PhDs in what?
The only valid criticism I've heard about is that QC may not be able to accelerate computations for practical problems the way it was promised. For example in finte element analysis, there was a scheme proposed that theoretically yields exponential speedup, but if you take into account you have to repeat the computation for a statistical significant result, you'll end up with "only" quadratic speedup.
The million dollars of a Nobel prize are tied to your research, btw. It's only used for new lab machinery or personnel.

Personally, im a theoretical physicist and only worked together with the people who built those QCs I talked about for my thesis. They look roughly like the one on the bottom of this page:
http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~msteffen/nmrqc.htm

I won't link my paper or their's obviously, but the implementation they used was based on this one:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1935

[Anonymous No.11072967]

spoiler 1: quantum mechanics is a true model of reality but it doesn't account for everything

spoiler 2: it's possible to break down quanta into smaller quanta indefinitely, the quantum theory of fields hints at this. The next quantum theory will be based on harmonic forms and hodge theory.

[Anonymous No.11072989]

>>11072967
>spoiler 2
What is the fractional quantum hall effect?

[Anonymous No.11073018]

>>11072944
And here I was thinking you were going to evade the question "what experiment is OP referring to?"

The first link is a picture of a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer, it has nothing to do with QM,

Second link
"Using quantum mechanical systems as computational
devices may be a possible way to build computers that
are qualitatively more powerful than classical computers"

Keyword "may" as in it doesn't work yet.

Bullet points
- avoiding the question
-posting irrelevant links
-posting links that support my argument
-posting irrelevant image

Let the cognitive dissonance wrap around you like a warm blanket.

There is no evidence that light is ever a particle, the proof is in OPs post.
Fraudulant misrepresentation of data, and taking advantage of hive mentality.

No, I'm sorry, we are not holographic simulations of consciousness in the event horizon of a black holes data collapsing waveform experiencing ourselves as interdimemsional hyperdimensional entities in a simulation.

How is this a debate. Sorry I'm not in a wheelchair but I guess you have to take my word for it haha.

[Anonymous No.11073085]

>>11073018
Sigh...
NMR spectrometer is needed to read out the qubit states. Saying NMR isn't quantum is just outright wrong.

The "may" in that article refers to the fact that classical computers were well capable of getting the prime factors of 21 at the time of publication, but wouldn't be able to factorize larger numbers in useful time. QCs may be able to do this is what they're saying. Of course, you're too deep into the conspiracy theory to see that. Still, they got Shor's algorithm to work on an NMR QC which is what disproves your claims, and you are the one changing the subject attacking strawmen arguments here. Practice what you preach.

>- avoiding the question
>-posting irrelevant links
>-posting links that support my argument
>-posting irrelevant image
Fantastic discussion skills you've got there. I bet you have plenty friends.

[Anonymous No.11073099]

>>11071661
THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS AND I'M SICK OF IT

"observer interacts" means introducing another source of interaction from photons, so it's not just electrons interacting with electrons anymore
it's not some magical spooky shit that needs to be explained by a new theory

It's as if a normal man was observing two pingpong players bounce balls for 10 minutes without flaws. The conclusion is they are two equally good players.
Then you introduce a blind man. The blind man takes is white blind man's tapping stick and he starts to swing it randomly over the table, hitting balls and players alike for another 10 minutes and your conclusion being, blind man doing the observing magically and spookily turned them into worse players.

"seeing" is eyes detecting photons scattered off of things, just like the blind man is bouncing his walking stick stick off of things.
in order to see the slit, you need to shine light there, just like the blind man needs to wave around his stick.
electrons and photons can interact with each other, just like the blind man's stick and pingpong ball.
that's what the "observation changes the outcomes" means

[Anonymous No.11073111]

>>11073018
> There is no evidence that light is ever a particle

https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/EINSTEIN-1909-P.pdf

[Anonymous No.11073125]

>>11073111
Can you copy and paste the evidence?

[Anonymous No.11073133]

>>11073125
>I don’t know what the photoelectric effect is

https://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/gap/Compton/Compton.html#compton1

Electromagnetic radiation must be quantized.
These quanta are called photons.

[Anonymous No.11073161]

>>11073133
Yeah I know, shine light on a metal, electrons are emitted. No one can reference how the actual experiment was done.
Yet another link to a long post, where you know the evidence is there, it's just you can't copy and paste the paragraph with the proof, because if you make a story long and confusing enough, no one reads it.
So "when you shine a light on a metal it emits electrons proves there are infinite dimensions and quantum computers are real"
I have heard people talk about the Bible to win arguments, I know how dogma works.

[Anonymous No.11073164]

Also I got proof that light is a wave, it's called Young's twin slit experiment. Done by Thomas young, late 1800s, proved light was a wave, not a particle,
What was your proof light was a particle again? Something involving electrons? No reference, quick subject change...

[Anonymous No.11073165]

i want bohmian retards to leave, this is a science board

[Anonymous No.11073166]

>>11073161
>I can't concentrate on more than a paragraph so everything more complex must be wrong.

>when you shine a light on a metal it emits electrons proves there are infinite dimensions and quantum computers are real
Absurd. You're distracting from the subject again. You asked for proof of the particle nature of photons. It was given to you. Now you twist the result into this surreal mixture of different physics topics.
Are you trolling or insane? I cannot tell.

[Anonymous No.11073168]

>>11073164
If you haven't even understood Yang's double slit experiment, why are you trying to discuss even more advanced topics?

[Anonymous No.11073170]

>>11073165
Science doesn't involve using unteferenced, fabricated experiments as data ;)
I ask again, what experiment is OP referencing ? Or is it not peer reviewed and anecdotal? What's that ? It is :0

[Anonymous No.11073175]

>>11073161
>No one can reference how the actual experiment was done.

There’s YouTube videos of it.

> Yet another link to a long post, where you know the evidence is there, it's just you can't copy and paste the paragraph with the proof, because if you make a story long and confusing enough, no one reads it.

Why are you trying to argue when you won’t even read research papers?

[Anonymous No.11073184]

>>11073175
Link me to the research paper that OPs paper references.
My original point.
Before we tangented and went off topic.

[Anonymous No.11073187]

>>11073175
There are animated interpretations of it.
As a desperate attempt to explain the inconsistencies.

[Anonymous No.11073189]

>>11073111
This paper is in German, this is an English thread ;)
Yet another example of posting links and assuming people don't have time to read them and they will slip through the cracks.

[Anonymous No.11073191]

>>11073184
OP isn't referencing anything. His pic is from a pop sci magazine which itself refers to Young's double slit experiment.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1802.0004

Here are some modern versions:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8343

[Anonymous No.11073194]

>>11073175
There are some pretty convincing YouTube videos that show queen Elizabeth is a shape shifting reptilian.
You gotta have evidence, QM has no evidence.

I got evidence that light is a wave though, I got evidence for days.
I will now refer to it
Young's twin slit experiment,
Performed by Thomas young,
If you want to replicate it by a laser pointer and and interferometry slit on eBay ;)

Try to do the same with light is a particle theory ;)

Or you could link me to a paper in another language and hope for the best.

[Anonymous No.11073195]

>>11073187
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0nwZb1fjvQQ
You can even do it at home if you're a schizo who doesn't trust anyone.

[Anonymous No.11073197]

>>11073191
OP is referencing the results of an experiment.....

[Anonymous No.11073199]

>>11073194
You just can't comprehend anything, can you?
The solution to the wave-particle duality is that light is neither wave nor particle. It's a quantum particle that in certain circumstances behaves like the classical concept of waves and in others like the classical concept of particles.

[Anonymous No.11073203]

>>11073197
Read the post you quoted again, brainlet. It's only a paragraph so you should be able to follow what is being said.

[Anonymous No.11073220]

Guys I gotta go to bed, for it is late.
Honestly though I'm just trying to help.
See you all tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.11073234]

And I hope you all have a good day :)

[Anonymous No.11073458]

>>11071974
Spacelike separation implies non locality

[Anonymous No.11073591]

>the true interpretation must be local!
>fuck Mach's principle!
Local realism is a cancer on physics.