/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15923114]

Copenhagen interpretation is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15923251]

>>15923114
Maybe it depends of your interpretation of that interpretation.

[Anonymous No.15923255]

>>15923114
It's not even memegrade troll, forget it. It's authors don't even understand that speed limit is for bidirectional speed of light.

[Anonymous No.15923264]

Sit down, tell us where these "other worlds" exist physically.

[Anonymous No.15923269]

Sit down, tell us where these "many worlds" exist physically.

[Anonymous No.15923270]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKtwcHD3TEQ

[Anonymous No.15923273]

>>15923269
>we all exist in the same objective world
>we don't exist each in a subject world that happen to share similarities
You first chud.

[Anonymous No.15923279]

>>15923273
>Information transmitted cannot exceed the speed of light
>Therefore waveform collapse that occurs in one universe spawns another universe outside our own.
Meds.

[Anonymous No.15923285]

>>15923279
>Nobel just handed out for quantum nonlocality
>Waveform must have collapsed under light speed
Who forged your transcript.

[Anonymous No.15923286]

the wave function, like virtual particles, is ultimately a math tool based on observation. neither wave functions nor virtual particles literally exist, just as integers or protons or other abstractions (such as your vehicle, or concepts like inflation) do not literally exist.
the purpose of these models is to predict future results. if you take them as attempts to fully describe the world, they fail in their predictions - there are bounds. although both the copenhagen and many-worlds are fundamentally incorrect, at least they aren't retard-tier like broglie. you and i may not like it, but copenhagen is the best we have. copenhagen embraces the fundamental statistical nature of reality and doesn't venture into avant garde bullshit like mw.

[Anonymous No.15923289]

>>15923114
it's the shut up and calculate interpretation.
it's not meant to be the true underlying reality.

[Anonymous No.15923400]

>>15923114
The reason for the Copenhagen interpretation is literally written in its name... Cope

[Anonymous No.15923514]

COPEnhagen is not an interpretation but merely a mathematical formalism. It does not assign any philosophical meaning neither to the ontology of the wave function nor to the nature of its collapse. In order to turn it into a proper interpretation you need to introduce the consciousness requirement for the observer.

[Anonymous No.15923738]

>>15923114
Cope is in the name.

[Anonymous No.15924352]

>>15923114
There is no such a thing. It's the wavefunction, the quantum noise, and a threshold when the event occurs. When the noise adds up with the wavefunction to exceed the threshold, the corresponding event occurs. Which looks kind of like a particle, but there isn't really any.

[Anonymous No.15924369]

>>15923269
Something thing limit points on the surface of a sphere.

[Anonymous No.15924395]

>>15923114
copenhagen interpretation is COPE

[Anonymous No.15924724]

superdeterminism is correct.

[Anonymous No.15924810]

>>15923400
Cope'n'hang'em

[Anonymous No.15924817]

>>15923286
>>15924352
>>15924724
Oops! you're full of shit
>An experiment was done in which virtual photons are transformed to real photons

>R. Stassi, A. Ridolfo, O. Di Stefano, M. J. Hartmann, and S. Savasta, "Spontaneous Conversion from Virtual to Real Photons in the Ultrastrong Coupling Regime",arXiv: 1210.2367v2

>Here is the essence of the experiment:

>"we consider a three level emitter where the transition between the two upper levels couples ultrastrongly to a cavity mode and show that the spontaneous relaxation of the emitter from its intermediate to its ground state is accompanied by the creation of photons in the cavity mode (see Fig. 1). . . . . The Hamiltonian of a realistic atom-cavity system contains so-called counter-rotating terms allowing the simultaneous creation or annihilation of an excitation in both atom and cavity mode. These terms can be safely neglected for small coupling rates ΩR
in the so called rotating-wave approximation (RWA). However, when ΩR becomes comparable to the cavity resonance frequency of the emitter or the resonance frequency of the cavity mode, the counter-rotating terms are expected to manifest"

[Anonymous No.15924903]

>>15923114
>Copenhagen interpretation
Only academic retard name a science paper after a city instead of main function. However, The inner logic of this shit is conclusive. It simple means i like to travel on other peoples costs.

[Anonymous No.15925296]

>>15923514
>It does not assign any philosophical meaning neither to the ontology of the wave function nor to the nature of its collapse.
Heisenberg "Physics and Philosophy" Chapter 3, "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory":

>The probability function combines objective and subjective elements. It contains statements about possibilities or better tendencies ("potentia" in Aristotelian philosophy), and these statements are completely objective, they do not depend on any observer; and it contains statements about our knowledge of the system, which of course are subjective in so far as they may be different for different observers.

>the transition from the "possible" to the "actual" takes place during the act of observation. If we want to describe what happens in an atomic event, we have to realize that the word "happens" can apply only to the observation, not to the state of affairs between two observations. It applies to the physical, not psychical act of observation, and we may say that the transition from the "possible" to the "actual" takes place as soon as the interaction of the object with the measuring device, and thereby with the rest of the world, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function, however, takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change of our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function.

>The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.

[Anonymous No.15925323]

>>15923270
>"Thou Needn't Suicide To Defeat Cophenhagen"
Didn't that kid an hero?

[Anonymous No.15925447]

>>15923114
Every interpretation is retarded in its own way.

[Anonymous No.15925454]

>>15923286
virtual paths maybe youre thinking of which come up in feyman path integrals but most people *believe* are not real

[Anonymous No.15925467]

been thinking about this a lot recently

and I am 100% confident i know the actual correct interpretation of quantum mechanics

its just funny though because its a super unpopular interpretation that no one really thinks about in normal conversations:

the stochastic interpretation

it literally solves all the quantum issues in a common sense way IF you view it the right way

The only real drawback or rather, the only real "BUT" is that it requires a source for the randomness that we observe in particles. But then again I think very few interpretations dont have that issue. Maybe Many worlds (which is fucking stupid) and de broglie the main exceptions.

but I think stochastic interpretation is the only one that would come up with a sensible thesis probably.... the source has to be something about space time itself or comes from the quantum vacuum

[Anonymous No.15925757]

>>15925467
explain how you ruled out superdeterminism.

[Anonymous No.15926023]

>>15923114
The only valid interpretation is "shutnup amd calculate". The model works, it has no physical meaning.

[Anonymous No.15926048]

>>15926023
If it can't be understood, it isn't science.

[Anonymous No.15926333]

>>15926048
If it works it works. The physical implications of a model functioning are completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15926389]

>>15925757
superdeterminism is actually ruled out by the stochastocity. the particle is constantly changing directions randomly so there cannot be any superdeterminism

[Anonymous No.15926435]

>>15926389
explain how you experimentally showed this.

[Anonymous No.15926463]

>>15926435
>>15925757
>>15924724
supertedetminism is sunday cartoon grade time-travel. It's fucking moronic. You are a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.15926577]

>>15926463
ok, now explain how you experimentally falsified superdeterminism.

[Anonymous No.15926610]

>>15926577
No, first you propose a theory on how past can determine the future and future can simultaneously the past, without constantly creating multiple timelines or loops, in any mathematical framework, not even speaking about actual physics. After you do that, I'll entertain your tinfoil fantasy. Retard.

[Anonymous No.15926621]

>>15926435
ha i only realized after i posted that i misunderstood the question. i thought you meant how the interpretation rules out superdeterminism.

but to rule out superdeterminism here you would have to figure out a way to show that particles do have random trajectories.

even someone could say thats not really falsifying superdeterminism.

superdeterminism seems one of those things that are super hard to falsify because of how inherently ridiculous it is in the first place

like many worlds too.

[Anonymous No.15926627]

>>15926621
many worlds works on a logical level. superdeteminism doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15926855]

>>15926627
just arbitrarily positing many worlds is not logical. they are as bad as each other

[Anonymous No.15926861]

>>15926610
but you were the one who claimed to be 100% certain about the truth of qm. i never claimed 100% certainty.

[Anonymous No.15926864]

>>15926621
it's no more or less ridiculous than indeterminism. you can't measure ridiculousness, it's not a scientific parameter.

neither determinism nor indeterminism can be falsified by experiment. and yes, this is a problem.

[Anonymous No.15926868]

>>15926627
present the logical contradiction entailed by superdeterminism.

[Anonymous No.15927085]

Copenhagen is based
It's the "not my problem" interpretation
>How can an electron exist as both a wave and a particle?
>Not my problem

[Anonymous No.15927203]

>>15923114
Yeah it is retarded. Just ignore that measurements are random, take the probability wave as the motion of a fluid. Now particles are defined by topological flows of this fluid. Now you have a theory where everything is light. Particles are like knotted light flows, with their properties corresponding to knot topology. You can always bring measurement randomness back in as a property inherent to measurement, independent of the evolution and interaction of particle fluid flows. That's all just aether theory. Everything since aether theory has been retarded nihilist psyops designed to obscure reality and suppress creativity.

[Anonymous No.15927212]

>>15924724
based, fuck uncertainty

[polyphys No.15927219]

>>15926610
you don't even know what superdeterminism is

[Anonymous No.15927530]

>>15926868
No source of initial symmetry breaking

[Anonymous No.15927541]

>>15926463
>time-travel due to previous delusional theories
ok boomer

[Anonymous No.15927552]

we have a winner

https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10778

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302194

quantum mechanics is stochastic and classical

only a matter of time before everyone sees the truth

[Anonymous No.15927558]

>>15927530
there may never have been symmetry. it is merely assumed.

[Anonymous No.15927562]

>>15927558
So your superdetermism relies on uncaused randomness

[Anonymous No.15927600]

>>15927219
>>15927219
>you don't even know what superdeterminism is
ROLLING ON THE FLOOR, LAUGHING AT THIS FAGGOT

I know what is means. Did YOU mean HIDDEN VARIABLES perhaps? Because I've described the implications of supetdeterminism exactly.

[Anonymous No.15927618]

>>15924724
I reject superdetermism because the boundary conditions of the universe give me no choice

[Anonymous No.15927638]

>>15927562
something past eternal. yes it's random i.e. not based on anything prior.

[Anonymous No.15927640]

>>15923286
Correct.

[Anonymous No.15927641]

>>15927618
yes, that is my conjecture.

[Anonymous No.15928898]

UHH bros

the right answer is QBism

[Anonymous No.15929102]

>>15927203
That's not aether theory. Aether was a specific kind of medium that is not a quantum mechanical field.

It would be like if we knew what we know today and didn't have a name for those things made of protons and electrons, and you wanted to call it an atom. Yes, it's sort of correct for what atomists meant as an atom, but we know they're not truly atomic by that original definition.

[Anonymous No.15930280]

>>15926855
The Copenhagen interpretation is also a Many-Worlds interpretation because it posits many paths up to the moment of measurement. In fact, Copenhagen is strictly inferior precisely because it is the same but with an additional, unnecessary assumption that the other worlds magically disappear at the moment of measurement.

[Anonymous No.15930283]

>>15923114
But half my sci-fi requires it! Think of the writers anon, think of the writers!

[Anonymous No.15930305]

>>15930280
very good point tbf. think i will have to move many worlds up in the rankings given that.

question is if superdeterminism is as bad as copenhagen

[Anonymous No.15930555]

>>15923114
It's the only thing that works when you actually bother to write it down.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201129075651/https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/08/basic-lethal-flaws-of-revisionist.html?m=1