[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 84 KB, 707x437, quantum mechanics mind body dualism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14531914 No.14531914 [Reply] [Original]

Why does Quantum Mechanics support Mind-Body Dualism?

>> No.14531917

>>14531914
This shit is like when archaeologists with zero background in or knowledge of psychology try to reconstruct the motivations and mental landscapes of people who lived 2000+ years ago solely with archaeological paradigms.

>> No.14531921

>>14531917
What are you talking about?

>> No.14532191

bump

>> No.14533786

>>14531914
It doesn't.
>>14532191
Okay fine I'll explain. K. Barrett is just one of innumerable idiotic "philosopher" hacks huffing his own farts. For example, in OP's imaged paper he quotes Wigner "it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a consistent way without reference to consciousness." Except... Wigner recanted that view and it's premised on flatly not understanding "observer" in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness. Any interaction at all does it, not consciousness.

Right out the gate, Barrett shows he's an inept moron. He quotes an author who recanted that mistake, and in spite of being a "philosopher of physics" seems to have missed the class that explains "observer doe not mean conscious agent". Wigner did not support that paper or view later in life, because unlike J. Barrett seemed capable of learning.

He proceeds to quote Wigner a bunch, add nothing, and never once cites any of the innumerable experiments since. Every single experiment assessing any alleged consciousness effect on quantum mechanics has found no effect. At all. This whole paper is a waste of electricity, and this man should not be allowed to draw an income for writing such trash as a professor.

He wrote an entire paper about a debate from the 1930s-1950s when the answer every single decade since has conclusively shown "interaction causes collapse". Not consciousness. He's a fucking moron.

He does briefly gloss over a thing he calls "dualism" in hidden variables, but gives them no adequate explanation whatever. You'd want to read about superdeterminism: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/12/does-superdeterminism-save-quantum.html

"And that’s how superdeterminism works: what a quantum particle does depends on what you measure." - S. Hossenfelder

No "dualism" required, including his asinine "physical-physical dualism". Read her blog post instead and you'll know a lot more than this dumbass does.

>> No.14533789

>>14531914
Is this about looking at the double slit experiment because that has nothing to do with conciousness with observer they mean something measuring the light or interacting with it

>> No.14534137

>her physical state
Women cannot collapse the wavefunction.

>> No.14534142

>>14533789
Retard. It requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave function. Interaction with measuring devices alone can be erased and the wave function restored as shown in the delayed choice quantum eraser.

>> No.14534145

>>14533786
>Hossenfelder
Do you also have a respectable non-meme source?

>> No.14534154

>>14533786
>>14534145
new anon here. almost nobody has actually read Everett's thesis.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf

>> No.14534172

>>14534142
Meds now, schizo

>> No.14534439

>>14533789
>Is this about looking at the double slit experiment
No
>they mean something measuring the light or interacting with it
This is also not true

>> No.14534444

>>14533786
Most of this post is wrong.

>> No.14534459

>>14534172
That post is true, interaction alone does not collapse the wave function to a definite state

>> No.14534474
File: 206 KB, 1414x1000, UkGYN.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14534474

>>14534172
>>14534459
If interaction alone collapsed the state, then when the particle-wave moves forward and passes through the material that the two slits are cut into, the wavefuction would touch and interact with THAT materiel/wall, and collapse, and not continue to propagate beyond it, would never pass through the two slits and interfere with itself as it continues propagating and then slap into the back wall where we see the interference pattern. It would collapse the moment it hit the original wall that the two slits are cut into.

It is not the case that "interaction" causes collapse, as "interacting" with that wall that the two slits are cut into does not collapse the wave-function. The only thing that causes collapse is a form of interaction where information can be collected/gained by an intelligent or conscious observer that can eventually gain information about the state. It is inherently tied to the gain in information from the experimenter and not tied to that gain in information of any non-specific material or measuring device.

>> No.14534475
File: 60 KB, 440x428, 324234.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14534475

>>14534142
>Interaction with measuring devices alone can be erased and the wave function restored as shown in the delayed choice quantum eraser.
Posts like this illustrate why pop-soi should be banned.

>> No.14534479

>>14531914
Same reason why earth supports flatearthers: brainlets.

>> No.14534487

>>14531914
Schizos support dualism. Quantum mechanics supports materialism.

>> No.14534488

>>14534479
But this is wrong. There's no connection between flat earth and why people think the earth is flat, vs why people think the inherent dualism of the unobservable that is the wavefunction and the observable that is an eigenstate compares to the unobservable of free will and the observable of a brain performing computations etc.

>> No.14534489

>>14534459
>That post is true
Retard. I'm not even reading the rest of your post

>>14534474
Moronic post based on a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

>> No.14534490

>>14534487
This is not true

>> No.14534493

>>14534489
>Moronic post based on a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
No it isn't

>> No.14534494

>>14534488
>eigenstate of free will
That's it, you have to take your meds right now

>> No.14534495

>>14534487
>Quantum mechanics supports materialism.
> In the Standard Model of particle physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because the elementary constituents of atoms are quantum entities which do not have an inherent "size" or "volume" in any everyday sense of the word.
>Due to the exclusion principle and other fundamental interactions, some "point particles" known as fermions (quarks, leptons), and many composites and atoms, are effectively forced to keep a distance from other particles under everyday conditions; this creates the property of matter which appears to us as matter taking up space.
No it doesn't, because matter is not a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. Fields are fundamental, matter is not.

>> No.14534498

>>14534493
It is, because you think "wave function collapse" is a real thing. Not to mention that you've never studied quantum mechanics and simply write retarded paragraphs based on your retarded popsci knowledge

>> No.14534499

>>14534494
I never said anything about an "eigenstate of free will"
Please learn how to read properly

>> No.14534502

>>14534499
No matter how I read your post, it will never mean anything

>> No.14534506

>>14534498
>It is, because you think "wave function collapse" is a real thing
You will not be able to argue you're correct by simply stating that you believe that there is no collapse.
If you want to believe that all the solutions to the schrodinger equation are actualized somewhere then you can do that but you're just a moron for ignoring reality. Everett is wrong.

>> No.14534508

>>14534502
It has a very easy to understand meaning

>> No.14534511

>>14531914
It's the opposite, quantum mechanics kill all forms of dualism for good: body obeys the Schrodinger equation, and mind apparently follows it, which means mind obeys the Schrodinger equation, which means mind is tightly bound to body, i.e. supervenes on matter.

>> No.14534512

>>14534506
I'm not arguing for "Everett" you moron. What I'm arguing for is the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Yet another demonstration of your retardation.

>> No.14534515

>>14534508
>the wavefunction and the observable that is an eigenstate compares to the unobservable of free will
Lol!

>> No.14534517

>>14534512
The wave-function collapses in QFT

>> No.14534519

>>14534517
This is why we shouldn't let retards use the internet

>> No.14534522

>>14534515
There is no flaw in that sentence.
>>14534519
You're not arguing anything that's correct

>> No.14534525

>>14534522
Hopeless schizo

>> No.14534528

>>14534525
No argument. There is nothing I'm saying that is against QFT or the results of any experiement

>> No.14534530

>>14534498
How do you explain the double slit experiment without wave function collapse

>> No.14534532

>>14534530
Placing detectors near the slits causes entanglement of the particles with detectors and kills interference

>> No.14534542

>>14534532
What a nonsense interpretation, detectors do not cause entanglement

>> No.14534544

>>14534542
>denying basic quantum mechanics
See >>14534525

>> No.14534546

>>14534544
Basic quantum mechanics is Copenhagen, you are talking off your ass from an alternative view, not mainstream view.

>> No.14534550

>>14534544
What is the detector that is entangling with the particle?

>> No.14534551

>>14534550
Rephrase your question more coherently please

>> No.14534556

>>14534551
What is the detector that entangles with the particle, that's perfectly coherent.

>> No.14534560

>>14534556
It's the detector near the slits. I don't know how you could possibly not understand this.

>> No.14534567

>>14534560
Why does the detector near the slits, which is itself a system of particles, entangle with the particle, but not any other system of particles that interact with it? What makes the detector near the slit entangle when it interacts but not anything else (the detector at the slit is not the only thing physically touching and interacting with the particle as it propagates through space)

>> No.14534572

>>14534567
>but not any other system of particles that interact with it?
Who said other things don't? The screen at the other end entangles with the particles too for example.

>> No.14534574

>>14534572
So then why does the particle only lose interference when entangled with the detector, and not any other system?

>> No.14534583

>>14534574
Which other systems are you talking about here?

>> No.14534590

>>14534583
Any and all other particles that interact with the particle as it propagates in the experiment.

>> No.14534602

>>14534590
They too can cause loss of interference on how strong those interactions are. If you throw a baseball through a double slit, it doesn't interfere with itself because of the interactions between the 10^23 particles of the baseball.

>> No.14534603

>>14534602
*depending on how strong

>> No.14534607

>>14534583
Space background radiation, slit wall molecules, unperfect vaccum, graviational waves, electron magnetic fields. Are you telling me all this is unknown until we know about it? What's the point? Like what purpose would it serve for wave function collapse to exists?
inb4 computational optimizaiton
inb4 it just is jezzzzz
inb4 because quantum bible
inb4 wouldn't work'd otherwise! (aka i don't know alternatives yet)

>> No.14534608

>>14534602
So then why do you need the detector to kill interference? Why do you never see a loss of interference caused by the various atoms composing the air or the photons and other particles being showered and interacting with the particle as it moves across the space of the experiment.
Why do you only see loss of interference with this detector? The detector does not uniquely touch or interact with the particles compared to any other system of particles during the experiment.

>> No.14534612

>>14534608
Or even the first wall wherein the double slits are cut into. Why does that not cause a loss of interference? It interacts with the particle just as much as the detector does

>> No.14534616

>>14534607
Meds

>>14534608
>Why do you never see a loss of interference caused by the various atoms composing the air
They do, if these interactions are strong enough. Your premises are all wrong

>> No.14534618

>>14534612
For the purposes of the experiment, the wall can be treated as an infinite potential barrier with two wells corresponding to the two slits. That's how the walls influence the particles

>> No.14534619

>>14534616
>They do, if these interactions are strong enough. Your premises are all wrong
What is the threshold for a strong interaction?

>> No.14534623

>>14534619
There is no "threshold". As the interactions go from weak to strong, the pattern on the screen changes continuously from a wavelike pattern to a particle like pattern

>> No.14534627

>>14534623
Weak and strong here mean how many particles are being entangled?

>> No.14534629

>Why does x
Fuck you

>> No.14534639

>>14534495
Field is matter. And quantum properties behave the same way as in everyday life: e.g. a cat doesn't have an inherent definite "position", because it has non-zero size, and you can't decide which point of the cat's body is its position, so this concept is nothing new.

>> No.14534647

>>14534627
Not necessarily, what needs to happen is that the relative phases between different positions of the particle needs to be suppressed for the interference pattern to disappear.

>> No.14534648

>>14534639
>Field is matter
How? Because you say so?

>> No.14534652

>>14534647
The detector at the slit does this stronger than the other particles in the system?

>> No.14534654
File: 107 KB, 1280x720, Aho Girl - 02 03.07.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14534654

>>14534506
>Everett is wrong.
Tell me what's wrong with arguing for your position by simply stating your inclination.

>> No.14534659

>>14534652
Yes, because that's what it would be designed to do.

>> No.14534661

>>14534659
What is the design that does this?

>> No.14534668

>>14534648
An object that exists on its own and moves mechanistically, pretty sure that's matter.

>> No.14534670

>>14534661
See https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.3529947
for example

>> No.14534674

>>14534668
Why is that matter? Because you say so?
Also, the field doesn't move at all

>> No.14534699

>>14534619
Factors I can think of:
1. Many microstates corresponding to one macrostate. Coherent state has finite precision, so perturbation below that precision will drown in noise.
2. Signal to noise ratio. Signal can drown in ambient noise.
3. Interaction happening in discrete quanta means weak force may not make it in time to deliver one quant.

>> No.14534711

>>14534639
>Field is matter.
Said no physicist ever
>quantum properties behave the same way as in everyday
There is nothing like quantum entanglement in everyday life for example, is something completely alien to classical physics

>> No.14534722

>>14534674
Looks like matter. What else can it be? Also it's observed as macroscopic objects and those were historically believed to be material.
>Also, the field doesn't move at all
It moves according to the Schrodinger equation that describes change of the field's state over time.

>> No.14534723

>>14534668
Matter has inherent volume and size, fields have no such thing, they aren't matter, other things that are also not matter are for example: dark energy, photons, gluons, gravitational waves and dark matter(dark matter is only hypothetical matter), materialism has no basis in reality because matter is not fundamental.

>> No.14534729

>>14534711
Classical analogy for entanglement is synchronized clocks showing the same time at any time.

>> No.14534730

>>14534723
> materialism has no basis in reality because matter is not fundamental
Too bad materialism has nothing to do with matter

>> No.14534734

The name is quantum MECHANICS. So quantum mechanics is an inherently mechanistic view of the universe.

>> No.14534736

>>14534722
>Also it's observed as macroscopic objects
Electrons don't even have a radius, you cannot ever look at them. Can you show me a macroscopic object that no radius like it happens in quantum physics? Thought so.

>> No.14534738

>>14534730
>materialism has nothing to do with matter
What?

>> No.14534743

>>14534730
Good, then materialism has nothing to do with physics, since you don't have any substance that comes first before anything.

>> No.14534744

>>14534738
Yes

>> No.14534748

>>14534743
I think you should take your meds

>> No.14534749

>>14534723
Pretty sure field confined by volume V has volume V.
>materialism has no basis in reality because matter is not fundamental
You just have crazy definition of matter.

>> No.14534750

>>14534734
Mechanistic =/= material

>> No.14534751

>>14534744
Materialism has only to do with matter.
Materialism is not a philosophy about just any mechanistic entity or object

>> No.14534755

>>14534750
>>14534751
That's just semantics without value

>> No.14534756

>>14534748
Not an argument

>> No.14534759

>>14534755
No it isn't, you're the one using words incorrectly.

>> No.14534760

>>14534749
So define "matter" according to you, go ahead

>> No.14534762

>>14534759
Physics isn't about words, it's about things. If you want to argue about words go to >>>/lit/

>> No.14534765

>>14534736
Electrons have finite size in string theory. Zero size was just an assumption within measurement precision.

>> No.14534770

>>14534760
An object that exists on its own and moves mechanistically.

>> No.14534771

>>14534762
What is a thing?
Just because you are saying "this is what it is because I say so!" Doesn't mean anything.

>> No.14534773

>>14534765
A shame string theory has no experimental evidence to back that up

>> No.14534776

>>14534771
>What is a thing?
It's a composite of the elementary entities in physics.

>> No.14534777

>>14534770
What do you mean exists on it's own?

>> No.14534781

>>14534770
What do you mean exists on its own, all energy is subject to the CMB, they don't exist on their own.

>> No.14534786

>>14534781
>all energy is subject to the CMB
That's not how energy works

>> No.14534794

>>14534776
So then you claim that the standard particles are things, because they exist on their own and behave mechanistically?

>> No.14534795

>>14534773
Because our measurement equipment can't differentiate small electrons and zero size electrons. In any case electrons are waves in the field, so it doesn't make much sense to talk about their size.

>> No.14534800

>>14534786
What do you mean "exist on their own"?

>> No.14534801

>>14534794
>standard particles are things?
You mean the particles in the standard model? Of course

>> No.14534803

>>14534800
I wasn't the one who said that, I was just pointing out that you don't understand physics

>> No.14534811

>>14534777
Independently from human mind, souls, schizos, observers and other astrological things like that.

>> No.14534812

>>14534801
Why? Because you say so?

>> No.14534814

>>14534786
Energy came from the big bang, the cmb confirmed that, it is how energy works.

>> No.14534820

>>14534803
I also wasnt the one who said anything about energy. I asked >>14534777 which you didn't answer
>>14534811
This is not a definition, you're just claiming that you have a delineation called "exists on their own" and you're defining it based on another thing called "does not exist on their own" without making up a difference.
What evidence do you have that the particles of the standard model exist on their own? Because you assume they do? (there is no experimental evidence that can be used to argue that they exist on their own)

>> No.14534822

>>14534812
Uhhhh wtf, every physicist agrees that they're things

>>14534814
That's not how the big bang works, that's not how energy works, that's not how the CMB works, that's not how science works

>> No.14534824

>>14534444
checked
dab on the materialists

>> No.14534827

>>14534820
You asked "what do you mean by X" when I hadn't even stated X. By clarifying that, I did answer your question.

>> No.14534828

>>14534154
Nobody on sci has read it either. So they don't know why you linked it despite how topical it is, kek.

>> No.14534829

>>14534822
>Uhhhh wtf, every physicist agrees that they're things
You claimed that particles exist "on their own" without an observer but all physics says the opposite of this

>> No.14534832

>>14534822
>That's not how the big bang works, that's not how energy works, that's not how the CMB works, that's not how science works
Saying "nuh uh" is not an argument

>> No.14534836

>>14534829
Looks like you have to (re)learn physics

>> No.14534837

>>14534836
I don't. You're stating that you take it true that particles exist "on their own" with no evidence of this

>> No.14534841

>>14534832
>>14534837
The level of retardation in your posts is simply too high for anyone to have rational conversations with you. I'm done here.

>> No.14534843

>>14534795
>In any case electrons are waves in the field
Electrons are also particles it makes sense to talk about their size, since size and volume are everything for matter but electrons have no such thing, materialism is false.

>> No.14534844

Because infinity is the analytical pedagogy of a set in general. Data is observed. Consciousness is the only thing that learns. The only thing that can be measured is real materials. Real material is not fake material. Just move the not sign and return the same business logic for the content of the multiple points in a space, that is a specific measurement, not anything else. Anything else starts with you. You qua the points of quantum mechanical identity are an unobserved function on a dataset determining a point in multiple scenarios (business logic determination through conditioning). Maybe because your brain is immeasurable and psychology is pseudoscience. Or because quantum mechanics is pop sci for anon- a distraction to the newfaggots. The newfaggots not being acquainted with the Freud comics being printed on the site determining the object state of the observer, which is manifest and concrete, rather than not being so. So my philosophical question is: is time a straight line to the observer, is this chronology random at best with respect to randomhood? What are the layers of consciousness, in their heierarchical structure? How does being an algorithm produce an unknown outcome? I think we know the answer to that. Maybe because the conscious data has to take up space and is at the center of this infinite universe, always fluctuating in this concrete form. Then why can't it simply be shadowed by a superior function in a general category? That is, we emit our shadows all the time as traces, and have an unconscious collective account of this basic id and it's derivatives. The human expression as one as factual. It is nothing more than a probing. We are nothing but an instrument of the universe, a hand of a body of this thing we cannot observe, but describe (as a body). We have a specific task and it's context is life. Because that's the nature of qualia in the dimensions of the cave, communicable in whatever form it takes (perceptions-finite universal variety).

>> No.14534851

>>14534841
Not an argument, leave /sci/ and never comeback you obviously don't belong here

>> No.14534857

>>14534851
Yes, since /sci/ is filled with schizos now, that would be ideal for me.

>> No.14534858

>>14534841
I haven't said anything that is against any theory in science. There is literally nothing I'm saying that's contradicted by any experiment or theory.

>> No.14534863

>>14534857
You are clown for the simple fact of bringing up a concept like "materialism" which is purely philosophical concept and has nothing to do with science or math

>> No.14534864

>>14534844
'it doesn't happen' 'failure to communicate'
'origins'
Origin of speech, e.g.

>> No.14534867

>>14534863
I'm not interested in your schizophrenia >>>/x/

>> No.14534869

>>14534867
Show me a peer reviewed scientific paper that says materialism is science or true, you won't find any, materialism is not science and math, retard.

>> No.14534871
File: 105 KB, 1280x720, Aho Girl - 03 10.33.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14534871

>>14534820
Ultimately precise definition is quantitative definition. A quantitative definition of, say, electromagnetic field, is given by quantum electrodynamics.
>Because you assume they do? (there is no experimental evidence that can be used to argue that they exist on their own)
Because this assumption is consistent with observation. One evidence is inability to create a pile of gold by sole power of imagination.

>> No.14534873

Why do the anons who can't define what they're saying consistently or defend their side call other people schizos?

>> No.14534874

>>14534869
Look dumbfuck, you are not qualified to talk about science and math since you don't know how energy works and have made absurdly stupid comments about it ITT

>> No.14534880

>>14534874
If materialism is science or math why you can't provide peer reviewed scientific papers about it, ah right you can't because materialism is only philosophical.

>> No.14534882

>>14531914
No. even the biggest proponent of it, Wigner, denounced it later in life. it's just anthropocentrism.

>> No.14534883

>>14534880
Tell that to OP who started a thread about "dualism" you schizo

>> No.14534889

>>14534475
>pop sci pleb hasn't heard of von Neumann Wigner interpretation

>> No.14534890

Why did this thread devolve into a debate about materialism or whatever?
The question about why the detector is the only thing that entangles with the particle remains unanswered (the paper linked as an example of the continuity of the devolution from an interference pattern didn't answer the question).
The materialism argument isn't what this thread is about

>> No.14534892

>>14534889
More like misinterpretation of basic quantum mechanics

>> No.14534894

>>14534883
Materialism doesn't have evidence to support it vs. dualism

>> No.14534896

>>14534843
Expecting arbitrary physical properties just because you slapped an arbitrary word "particle" on it is semantics. But semantic tricks can give you anything too, they are meaningless.

>> No.14534898

>>14534890
>The question about why the detector is the only thing that entangles
I already said that it isn't. Why do you insist on repeating this stupid and uneducated statement of yours?

>> No.14534899

>>14534890
It started because some retard said quantum mechanics "supports materialism" which is something blatantly wrong

>> No.14534900

>>14534890
I noticed that too, I'm not sure asking will have the same effect as reporting would (in a more ideal 4chan).

>> No.14534901

>>14534898
Then we should never see an interference pattern with or without a detector

>> No.14534902

>>14534892
>COPEnhagen pleb doesn't even realize the incompleteness of his interpretation
Many such cases. Sad.

>> No.14534906

>>14534901
Explain why. With math. I know you won't be able to, so your post is irrelevant and wrong.

>> No.14534908

>>14534896
They are particles because that's what QED says and QED is the most succesful physical theory in existence after General Relativity, is not because I arbitrarily slapped the word "particle" into anything

>> No.14534909

>>14534902
Your trump references stopped being funny 5 years ago. Grow up

>> No.14534910

>>14534890
The detector is the only thing that entangles with the particle.

>> No.14534911

>>14534908

"They are because my ideology says so" is not a valid answer. If your theory was any good it would explain the why.

>> No.14534912

>>14534906
Because the particle is entangled with every other particle in the system, the detector isn't special.

>> No.14534917

>>14534910
oops, not the only thing

>> No.14534918 [DELETED] 

>>14534912
No it isn't. You don't know what entanglement is. You don't know what quantum mechanics is. You're just repeating words you don't understand. Take your meds.

>> No.14534919

>>14533786
Take this (You) as a token of gratitude for the sumery and spitting straight facts.

>> No.14534920

>>14534918
What do you mean "no it isn't"? The particle only entangles with the detector? Why is the detector special vs. all the other particles in the experiment? Because you say so? Take your meds

>> No.14534922

>>14534911
QED is not an ideology is an empirically tested theory in physics
>it would explain the why.
Do you have a theory that explains this "why" you are talking about

>> No.14534924

>>14534920
Define entanglement for me then, retard.

>> No.14534928

>>14534908
They are particles in a sense they are quantized waves in the field, not in sense you want them to be.

>> No.14534935 [DELETED] 

Because the adolescent shadow is a troll. :)))))) A trollet and doesn't even knot it. We can never know succ things.

>> No.14534939

>>14534920
Your time's up. You failed to define entanglement.

>> No.14534944

>>14534939
>Your time's up
Not in my frame of reference.

>> No.14534947
File: 62 KB, 1280x720, Aho Girl - 05 03.36.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14534947

>>14534901
With detector many thing are entangled with the particle including the observer, so the observer doesn't see an interference pattern. Without detector only the screen in entangled with the particle, so the observer sees an interference pattern.

>> No.14534948

>>14534924
Any interaction between two particles that effects their state
>>14534939
You define entanglement in a way that privileges the detector over any other particle in the system.

>> No.14534954

>>14534944
epic physics joke lolol

>>14534948
>no mention of hilbert spaces
>no mention of tensor products
>reference to irrelevant (to the definition of entanglement) things like interactions
>schizophrenic accusation towards others
Wrong answer. You fail

>> No.14534956

>>14534954
>>no mention of hilbert spaces
>>no mention of tensor products
>>reference to irrelevant (to the definition of entanglement) things like interactions
>>schizophrenic accusation towards others
Because all of that applies to all particles in the system.
You have yet to explain why the detector is privileged vs all other particles in this formalism.

>> No.14534960

>>14534956
>uhhh because... *schizo rambling*
How predictable and boring

>> No.14534962

>>14534922
Tests currently don't differentiate between small particles and zero size particles. And I bet QED tests are consistent with QFT, where electrons are waves in the field.

>> No.14534968

>>14534954
The Hilbert space bullshit is trivial when talking about QM. Just saying that entangled states are represented with tensor products is a non-answer. It's the formalism but it doesn't tell you shit about what an entangled state actually IS or how you get particles entangled.

>> No.14534969

>>14534960
That's not schizo ramblings. You have yet to explain why the detector entangles with a particle to the point where it loses interference but all the other particles do not.

>> No.14534970

>>14534968
>Just saying that entangled states are represented with tensor products is a non-answer.
Wow you sure showed me with this completely wrong definition of entangled states. Any more wrong statements about basic physics you have to offer?

>> No.14534976

>>14534970
> Any more wrong statements about basic physics you have to offer?
"The speed of light is constant"

>> No.14534977
File: 703 KB, 320x240, 1654029087281.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14534977

>>14534899
>>14534890
>>14534863
>>14534869
>>14534844
>dude what does the language of quantification (math) have to do with materialism (the belief that there are discrete countable units that control the underlying principles of nature.

It's really self explanatory, that is if you know what math even is or what it's used for.

>"quantum" has nothing to do with materialism!
>"quantum"
>which means...

Fill in the blank someone, what does quantum mean? I actually don't know myself since it's used mostly as a buzzword in conjunction with other words that actually have meaning and refer to something.

>> No.14534978

>>14534969
It's a result of the Schrodinger equation.

>> No.14534986

>>14534978
Where in the Schrodinger equation does the detector become privileged over all the other particles in the system?

>> No.14534988

>>14534986
This guy (>>14534978) is not me (>>14534960) btw. I have already given up replying to you.

>> No.14534990

>>14534986
The detector is the operator in Schrodinger equation

>> No.14534993
File: 76 KB, 850x400, quote-i-think-that-modern-physics-has-definitely-decided-in-favor-of-plato-in-fact-the-smallest-werner-heisenberg-41-28-00.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14534993

>>14534977
>Fill in the blank someone, what does quantum mean?
I don't know let's see what the creator of quantum mechanics has to say about

>> No.14534995

>>14534988
>I have already given up replying to you.
Because you can't answer the question.
There is nothing in the formalism of qm that causes the detector to entangle with the particle over all the other particles in the system.

>> No.14534996

>>14534970
I did not post a definition and nothing I said was wrong. Keep seething, kid.

>> No.14535000

>>14534986
When it interacts with the particle.

>> No.14535004

>>14535000
All the particles in the system interact with each other.

>> No.14535005

>>14534996
I do not know who you are but I can guarantee that 100% of the posts you've made on /sci/ ever are wrong.

>> No.14535008

>>14534977
Oh.

So sup(data) is the small thing, unfit for analytical topology- that carry of the analytical function with measurable universe/'a small part of infinity.' It is the smallest part of the universe, 0. The smallest part has multiple emergences and does nothing and that's why it's not used typically to describe matter (the upper bound, which is the silhouette of that determination-probably).

>> No.14535018

>>14535004
They interact in different ways, and different interactions have different results.

>> No.14535028

Reminder that Wave function collapse always happens, this is the Copenhagen view, everything else is alternative trash.

>> No.14535033
File: 25 KB, 1200x1200, Mathemeticians Hate Him!.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14535033

>>14534993
>No it's not matter it's ideas that have a smallest unit!
Worse than I though. Materialism applied to what is known not to be material.

>ideas which can be expressed umambiguously only in mathmatical language
Yeah, except the simplest triangle that exists or any other expression which is abused.

>>14535008
>The smallest part
So materialism

>> No.14535036

>>14535028
No, copenhagen is trash. Cope and hang.

>> No.14535037

>>14535028
Wrong and uneducated about basic quantum mechanics.

>> No.14535042

>>14535018
>they interact in different ways
How do the particles of the ion beam that the detector is built out of interact with the propagating particle in a different way from all the other particles that interact with it do?

>> No.14535047

>>14535036
>>14535037
Both of you are wrong and coping
There is nothing about "basic quantum mechanics" that is against copenhagen retards. Imagine actually trying to argue such a position.

>> No.14535049

>>14535033
Things don't have a radius in quantum physics, therefore materialism is false, idealism won.

>> No.14535051

>>14535042
The beam has shorter distance to the particle. Also it's not just beam, the detector amplifies this interaction to macroscopic scale.

>> No.14535052

>>14535047
What's wrong is that you don't understand copenhagen or quantum mechanics. Stupid larping drone.

>> No.14535056

>>14535051
>The beam has shorter distance to the particle
So do many other particles in the system that interact with the particle as it moves

>> No.14535060
File: 55 KB, 732x373, sheeeit2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14535060

>>14535047
Copenhagen doesn't even define observation, it's inherently trash due to that alone. It also can't model all meaningful situations.

>> No.14535067

>>14535056
They don't work in the same way, the detector works in a different way from other objects in the system, it has different structure.

>> No.14535069

>>14535060
Not that retard, but you're retarded too
>doesn't even define observation
It's not anything special
>It also can't model all meaningful situations.
Name one

>> No.14535075

>>14535067
What structure does the detector have that causes it to kill interference when it interacts with the particle that the other particles don't have?

>> No.14535086

>>14535069
>It's not anything special
What's relevant is absence of definition.
>>It also can't model all meaningful situations.
>Name one
EPR experiment, delayed choice experiment, Wheeler's friend experiment for starters. Specific things vary depending on what ad hoc hypotheses you come up with for other things.

>> No.14535092

>>14535075
Probably one connected with amplification of interaction.

>> No.14535103

>>14535086
>What's relevant is absence of definition.
Why? Do you think it's newtonian mechanics job to define what a house is?
>EPR experiment, delayed choice experiment, Wheeler's friend experiment for starters.
All these are trivially modeled. The only possible problem with copenhagen is maybe that it's not straightforward to apply it to the universe as a whole

>> No.14535116

>>14535086
>EPR experiment
kek, Bohr won the debate

>> No.14535135

>>14535116
It wasn't a debate moron

>> No.14535136

>>14535092
So it comes down to increasing the number of particles in the system, or bosonic quantum excitations are privileged for some reason?

>> No.14535151

>>14535052
You haven't said a single thing that is relevant in this thread

>> No.14535152

>>14535103
>>14535086
Anyway, my last word on the topic is "there is no "collapse" in the copenhagen interpretation". People who think that there is, whether they are using it to attack it or attack other interpretations, are all uneducated morons. You can now continue to flood this thread with your schizophrenia.

>> No.14535159
File: 70 KB, 1280x720, Black Bullet - 08 10.26.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14535159

>>14535103
A house can be reduced to its parts and newtonian mechanics will still model it objectively, exhaustively and consistently. Observation has primary relevance to modelling, because it causes collapse - objective phenomenon, not having a model for this phenomenon means copenhagen doesn't model reality and you have to resort to an ad hoc hypothesis about reality, because copenhagen doesn't tell anything about it. But if you have to guess reality from pure abstract thought, then your theory is trash.
>All these are trivially modeled.
What? The first two give trashy results and the third is undecidable.

>> No.14535170
File: 63 KB, 1280x720, Bofuri - 01 10.28.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14535170

>>14535136
see >>14534699 for possible reasons. Nothing is privileged, the result of the Schrodinger equation is a stupid mathematical quantitative function of what happens in the system.

>> No.14535173

>>14535159
>A house can be reduced to its parts and newtonian mechanics will still model it objectively, exhaustively and consistently.
How? The ensemble of particles organized together into what we would call a house can't be derived from first principles or purely from the particles and their interactions or which molecules they form etc.

>> No.14535192

>>14535170
>1. Many microstates corresponding to one macrostate. Coherent state has finite precision, so perturbation below that precision will drown in noise.
This is just trying to draw a line between quantum and classical objects
>2. Signal to noise ratio. Signal can drown in ambient noise.
What is the difference between a "signal" and "noise" from the perspective of nature? All things are signals, there is no noise.
>3. Interaction happening in discrete quanta means weak force may not make it in time to deliver one quant.
This makes the most sense, but again you're basically just trying to say that by stacking up more and more particles you increase the chance that the weak force can make it in time to deliver a quant. So it's about the number of particles in the system again.

>> No.14535193

>>14535173
It does: reductionism.

>> No.14535196

>>14535193
Just saying "reductionism" doesn't prove that reductionism is true, and doesn't mean you can derive a house from first principles or the interaction of matter. All you're doing is saying "reductionism". That doesn't mean anything.

>> No.14535199

>>14535159
I said >>14535152 was my last word, but...
>A house can be reduced to its parts and newtonian mechanics will still model it objectively, exhaustively and consistently
Yes, and quantum mechanics can do that too and it's still not obligated to give any definition of "house", which is nothing other than some silly human convention. The same holds for "observation".
>collapse - objective phenomenon
Not really, this is just a popular misunderstanding

>> No.14535200

>>14535199
The particles that you're defining and ascribing behavior and properties to via the formalism of QFT are also just silly human conventions.

>> No.14535204

>>14535152
there is collapse of the interference pattern. There is still a pattern but its disturbed basically. And its not two blobs as frequently depicted.

>> No.14535205

>>14535200
Some aspects of their definitions are just conventions but that does not mean the particles and the associated fields themselves are conventions

>> No.14535218

>>14535205
>that does not mean the particles and the associated fields themselves are conventions
Why not? They are mathematical conventions used to describe the results of an experiment that we can't model with perfect accuracy.

>> No.14535236

>>14535218
>Why not?
What do you mean why not? Why would they be?
>an experiment that we can't model with perfect accuracy
That's not the case. The quantum mechanical model is assumed to be perfectly accurate

>> No.14535240

>>14535236
>What do you mean why not? Why would they be?
Because that's what they are. You are making up a convention called QFT and you're using conventions in math and conventions about your ideas of objects in this theory.
>I assume it to be perfectly accurate therefore it is perfectly accurate
what?

>> No.14535253

>>14535240
QFT is just a particular class of quantum theories which are known to not be the full story anyway. The framework of quantum mechanics itself is more general. I don't know why you're so hung up on QFT in particular.
>what?
Yes, unless you believe in hidden variables (which are not taken seriously by most people), what I stated is true. There is no evidence of there being a "more accurate" description than the quantum mechanical one.

>> No.14535257
File: 40 KB, 1164x655, 1653422812214.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14535257

>>14534142
>le quantum eraser
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U

>> No.14535258

>>14535253
I'm hung up on QFT because it has the best prediction power.
You also inherently do not have access to a complete description of the system in QM so it can't be perfectly accurate. There not existing a more accurate description means that there is no such thing as a truly accurate description of the system.

>> No.14535263

>>14535258
Disproven assertion

>> No.14535267

>>14535263
What do you mean "disproven assertion"? That's just accepted qm

>> No.14535268

>>14535192
>This is just trying to draw a line between quantum and classical objects
It's a quantitative description why perturbation drowns in noise. It's observer's macroscopic state which is entangled with the particle, so distinction is relevant.
>>2. Signal to noise ratio. Signal can drown in ambient noise.
>What is the difference between a "signal" and "noise" from the perspective of nature? All things are signals, there is no noise.
The difference is that a system can't react with a directed macroscopic tendency as a reaction to noise. Not sure what can be done with low s2n ratio, it's often assumed to be fatal, LIGO manages to cancel some forms of noise, but has to eat others.
>more particles you increase the chance that the weak force can make it in time to deliver a quant
Or reducing distance. The detector additionally amplifies interaction, so maybe reducing distance alone is not quite enough or we could have nonamplifying detectors.

>> No.14535271

>>14535196
The result is quantitatively the same with and without reductionism. I guess it means reductionism is true.

>> No.14535276

>>14535258
>I'm hung up on QFT because it has the best prediction power.
This is just meaningless reply to what I asked
>You also inherently do not have access to a complete description of the system in QM
The wavefunction is the complete description.

>> No.14535278

>>14535268
>It's a quantitative description why perturbation drowns in noise. It's observer's macroscopic state which is entangled with the particle, so distinction is relevant.
So you think there is a difference between classical systems and quantum ones. Why?
>The difference is that a system can't react with a directed macroscopic tendency as a reaction to noise. Not sure what can be done with low s2n ratio, it's often assumed to be fatal, LIGO manages to cancel some forms of noise, but has to eat others.
No, there is no such thing as a "reaction with directed macroscopic tendency" because there is no separation between classical "macroscopic" objects and the particles that constitute them.
Noise doesn't actually exist in this universe.

>> No.14535281

>>14535271
>The result is quantitatively the same with and without reductionism
It isn't

>> No.14535285

>>14535199
I use definion of copenhagen with collapse. I don't know what copenhagen without collapse means.

>> No.14535286

>>14535276
So the complete description inherently lacks information about the system and can't be used to make predictions about where the particle will end up deterministically

>> No.14535297

>>14535286
Yes, it is complete in the sense that it is mathematically complete. This need not be the same as "deterministic for human purposes".

>> No.14535308

>>14535297
>This need not be the same as "deterministic for human purposes".
I define "complete" to mean "state S_n+1 can be deterministically predicted by state S_n for all states S_n by an external observer O given a sufficient amount of knowledge k of the system S_n"
If you have a reason to disagree with this, why?

>> No.14535326

>>14535278
>So you think there is a difference between classical systems and quantum ones. Why?
Because they behave quantitatively different. Learn coherent state.
>Noise doesn't actually exist in this universe.
Then learn signal processing science.

>> No.14535332

>>14535308
The state is predicted by the evolution operator, not by observer.

>> No.14535335

>>14535308
S_n isn't the time function

>> No.14535345

>>14535286
Only according to dumb copeniggers. In reality the wave function contains all information about the system.

>> No.14535354

>>14535332
So the evolution operator doesn't have a complete description of the system

>> No.14535393

>>14535257
Said the woman from the country that needs literal "what are the woke implications of this" lines in every study about physics kek
Is this confirmed deboonked?

>> No.14535538

>>14531914
Haven't even looked at this paper and I know this conclusion is BS. Science & Math is metaphysically agnostic, but you can put metaphysical interpretations/presuppositions into scientific theories to get some very interesting metaphysical conclusions.

Most people think scientific theories rest upon boring metaphysics (physicalism, materialism, causal reductionism, mechanism, behaviorism, and often determinism) but this simply isn't the case.

>> No.14535554

>>14534474
>where information can be collected/gained by an intelligent or conscious observer
Right so if the photon/electron passing near detector would trigger detonation of nuclear bomb without human knowing beforehand, will it detonate?

>> No.14535562

>>14534487
Both schizos and quantum scientists support this, it's shitfest of delusions triggered by overflow of scientist EGO working at CERN, while including occasional crack smoking sessions and DMT intakes triggering extremely "self-verified" fantasies about the real world.
You all do this so there is no one to verify you, that's the problem.

>> No.14535569

>>14534734
That was the original idea, just look standard model and "quants", it was supposed all to be more precise edition of classical physics.

Nowadays it's mental house of scientists, go ask them at which of evolution we became "conscious observers" and watch them sperg out with diarhea because they don't deny evolution either.

>> No.14535577
File: 30 KB, 328x487, 41etrsWVUPL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14535577

Quantum mechanics is perfect example of jewish "circular proof" method explained in Mein Kampf

>> No.14535667

>>14535326
>Because they behave quantitatively different. Learn coherent state.
"quantitatively different" just means there are more or less. What number of these particles are needed to make it behave as a detector?
>Then learn signal processing science.
This is about how us humans can interpret a signal. Nature doesn't interpret signals, it just evolves according to the wavefunction.