[ 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: 247 KB, 1920x1280, 1_F5DiQTwn8oc4kI_yuf4QJQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15976985 No.15976985 [Reply] [Original]

What are the consequences of our universe not being locally real?

>> No.15976992

>>15976985
Nothing

>> No.15977001

shit's weird broskies

>> No.15977042

>>15976985
i hope you don't believe that the universe is not locally real.

>> No.15977047

>>15976985
oh wow duuuuuuuuude!!!!! omg your like so smart and stuff, maaaaaaannnn!!!! your like totally a philosopher or something and stuff!!! your so deep and stuff, you totally blowing my mind with your intellectuallness and stuff, maaaaaaannnn!!!!

>> No.15977106

Its balanced on fact OP is universally gay

>> No.15977110

>>15976985
Consciousness is one of the consequences. Without quantum entanglement consciousness wouldn't exist.

>> No.15977129

>>15976985
>What are the consequences
No playstation for a week

>> No.15977193

>>15976985
does this mean i didnt really have sex? am i still permavirgin?

>> No.15977215

>>15976985
>locally real
this is such BS

>QuAnTuM pHySiCs PrOvEs ReAlItY iSnT rEaL!
wtf does that mean
also there's nothing incomprehensible about QM
you can model it with pilot waves
some people don't like that because it breaks locality
and it has a hidden preferred reference frame
I don't know if it's right or wrong
but it shows there's at least one comprehensible model that predicts the stuff QM does
>QuAnTuM pHySiCs PrOvEs ReAlItY iSnT lOcAlLy ReAl!

>> No.15977337

>>15977193
Given the size of your dick, quantum effects definitely have to be considered. Quantum tunneling yields a non-zero probability that your dick is tunneling through a girl's panties, though the potential barrier is quite high due to repulsive forces. Therefore you are in superposition of being a virgin and having sex.

>> No.15977603

>>15977193
If you're on this board then you have not had sex. None of us have

>> No.15977619

>>15977215
I believe it's just how it's phrased in the headlines
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
https://news.sciandnature.com/2023/04/breaking-physics-nobel-prize-winner-of.html?m=1

It's referring to the 2022 Nobel prize for physics and how they proved there's no hidden variables in quantum entanglement. So entangled particles seemingly know about eachothers state yet they're not communicating in any way even at huge distances which goes against how local realism says things should work

>> No.15977639

>>15977619
>they proved there's no hidden variables in quantum entanglement
that wasn't proven.

>> No.15977687

>>15977619
Its just gay and misunderstood little experiment. Mainly the problem is scientist cannot understand what conditional probability actually means

>> No.15977704

>>15976985
Im pretty sure it just means that every thing exists in relation to other things. In order to collapse a wave function you need to measure/observe the particle. If there is a universe with only one particle that particle may not be real because there wouldn't be anything to collapse it's wave function.

>> No.15977707

>>15977042
That's an experimentally proven fact, so it's not a matter of belief.

>> No.15977714

>>15977603
The existence of sex is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable hypothesis anyway. It has not been observed except on screen or via self-reporting and both methods don't prove the validy of the concept.

>> No.15977720

>>15977707
no it isn't, lmao

every bell test ever only proved that minimum 1 bell assumption is wrong (unknown which)

>> No.15977998

>>15977720
Didn't three dudes win a nobel prize for proving the universe isn't locally real?

I'm going to appeal for authority here and call BS on you, because I can't possibly believe that a nobody on 4chan would know more than the world's top scientists.

>> No.15978008

>>15977998
Just look how misleading the definitions are in goy science magazine. The article begins with:
>In this context, “real” means that objects have definite properties independent of observation—an apple can be red even when no one is looking. “Local” means that objects can be influenced only by their surroundings and that any influence cannot travel faster than light.
But then says:
>Under quantum mechanics, nature is not locally real: particles may lack properties such as spin up or spin down prior to measurement, and they seem to talk to one another no matter the distance.

I bet real scientists (on this board) are so demoralized by Deepak Chopra ways of interpreting experiments that they gave up on proper explanations and just shitpost now.

>> No.15978035

>>15977047
the universe behaves close to beeing as if it hav limited patricle number, but this is not the case.

>> No.15978085

>>15977998
>Didn't three dudes win a nobel prize for proving the universe isn't locally real?
no. that's a bs article title

>> No.15978125

>every single butthurt cognitivist

>> No.15978133
File: 33 KB, 920x733, 69257213_744727062624731_5374123690780786688_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15978133

>>15976985
Last time I checked, it was. Am I missing something?

>> No.15978169

>>15976985
Superdeterminism

>> No.15978175

>>15978169
>I'm a leaf in a hurricane with no self control
Gynecomorphic fallacy.

>> No.15978179

>>15978175
>the universe isn't real bro, trust me
Schizophrenia

>> No.15978200

>>15978179
>the universe decides whether i comb my hair or fuck my asshole with a comb
You

>> No.15978203

>>15978200
Don't bother arguing with him. He is predetermined to disagree with you.

>> No.15978222

>>15978203
>He is predetermined
The leaf in a hurricane analogy makes no sense for determinists as well because it implies that we are something seperate from what's going on. Each thread about determinism overlooks this ridiculous contradiction. Determinism only makes sense if we are the eye of the hurricane.

>> No.15978226

>>15977619
>I believe it's just how it's phrased in the headlines
True. Although "local realism" even without the misparsing by reporters is already a pretty bad phrase. Who invented this term anyway? In the papers I've seen Bell talked about locality in the context of a hidden variable theory or about theories of local beables. Some other people say locality plus counterfactual definiteness.

"Realism" needs a referent; what are we saying is real/not real? The wave function? The wave function doesn't have to be real for Bell's argument to go through. Counterfactual results? It's not clear what it means to consider a counterfactual result real. And if asserting anything to be real makes your model a realist interpretation, then what would a non-realist interpretation look like?

>> No.15978231

>>15978222
>The leaf in a hurricane analogy makes no sense for determinists as well because it implies that we are something seperate from what's going on
We aren't. That's why it's "super"-determinism anon

>> No.15978234

>>15978222
>"The universe" decides whether a determinist chooses to comb their hair with a comb or to fuck the comb up their own asshole
You're just an idiot with a 109 verbal IQ.

>> No.15978256

>>15978231
Then there is no one and no thing that is determined by anyone or anything else because everyone and everything is determining eachother automatically and simultaneously all the time. There's no piano being played by a player because the piano also determines how it's played. If you think that's schizo then you have not thought about it for long enough.

>> No.15978279

>>15978231
no, actually the 'super' was just added by bell to try and make determinism sound more radical and hence implausible, than it actually is. he seethed at the possibility of it being correct.

>> No.15978301

>>15978256
none of that textwall implies the existence of free will

>> No.15978350

>>15978301
Exactly. The opposite of determinism is not free will but indeterminism. Free will and determinism are the same fallacy because they both assume a seperate you.

>> No.15978352

>>15976985
What does "locally real" mean?

>> No.15978371

>>15978350
only free will assumes that, in addition to assuming that that separate self could've chosen differently. determinism only assumes that we couldn't have ever chosen differently.

>> No.15978386

>>15977639
>In this way, Alain Aspect closed an important loophole and provided a very clear result: quantum mechanics is correct and there are no hidden variables
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/popular-information/

>> No.15978397

>>15978226
I think "nonlocality" and "local-realism" might come from the EPR paradox paper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Podolsky%E2%80%93Rosen_paradox

>> No.15978425

>>15978397
Skimming the EPR paper, I see "reality" and "complete theory" a lot (in the sense of a theory that is a complete description of reality), but I don't see "realism" or "realist." Perhaps someone commenting on the paper referred to it as taking a "realist" stance?

>> No.15978427

>>15978226
>"Realism" needs a referent; what are we saying is real/not real? The wave function?
"Real" i believe is just referring to whether or not what we experience is being affected by something unknown. If there's no hidden variables in quantum entanglement and things really are entangled over vast distances with no contact or communication then what else is going on, how do we know what is real and what is being affected remotely

>> No.15978472

>>15978386
that's just wrong. that article is wrong.

>> No.15978541

>>15976985
If you were alone in a universe, with no other matter, what speed are you going?
If you accelerate, what speed are you going?
Would acceleration in such a universe produce the normal effects of inertia?

>> No.15978543

>navel gazing thread

>> No.15978553

Apparently the blame for "local realism" lies in a review paper by Clauser and Shimony in 1978. They define "realism" as follows:
>Realism is a philosophical view, according to which external reality is assumed to exist and have definite properties, whether or not they are observed by someone.
This is a very weak condition. Competitors to "realism" as defined above would include solipsism and certain forms of idealism. It's not clear to me what this condition is adding. What would a non-realist local theory look like?

>> No.15978556

Wow, I don't think most people on this board are stupid. But they sure are grounded to their comforting dogma

>"I would have believed Galileo and fight the church on geocentrism!"
Kek

>> No.15978761

>>15978553
>What would a non-realist local theory look like?
If you had two quanta you wouldn't be able to determine the exact property, let's say spin, of one until it was observed. This is the non-real part. Upon observation you could observe the second one, BUT its property wouldn't be knowable until the time it took for the speed of light to get there (or slower). That would be local, i.e. constrained by the speed of light.

As it is now, the non-real part we know is true. This is been done and repeated in countless experiments. But we always thought there was some hidden variable that caused the universe to be local. Now we know the nonlocality of it is also true. Meaning no matter how far a part the quanta are, once you know its spin for example, the other one immediately assumes the opposite.

That was Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" he hated.

So either we are really wrong somewhere and it's not showing up despite our best attempts, or the universe is really different from our mental conception of it. At least on the quantum level. This doesn't mean you can travel faster than the speed of light or time travel by the way.

>> No.15978766

>>15978761
according to https://www.writingtoiq.com your IQ is 86

>> No.15978770

>>15978761
NTA, but pretty good explanation. I never got it before but that makes sense.

>> No.15978774

>>15978766
Are you esl?

>> No.15978798

>>15978761
>If you had two quanta you wouldn't be able to determine the exact property, let's say spin, of one until it was observed. This is the non-real part.
That sounds like you're misinterpreting "realism" as determinism. But Bell/CHSH inequalities rule out local stochastic theories as well.

>> No.15978820

>>15978761
Also I think you're not getting the reason people add "realism" when they say local realism is ruled out by Bell inequality tests. We know there are nonlocal models such as pilot waves that predict the same results as quantum mechanics and are therefore not ruled out by Bell inequality tests. People who add "realism" do so as a hedge because they think there might be a model of what's happening in quantum mechanics that saves locality as the expense of abandoning "realism."

>> No.15978822

>>15976985
Is this real like really exists or real like "the real number line" because if the latter who gives a shit and if the former what the fuck am I doing here

>> No.15978825

>>15978761
Wait, so does this mean I can send a message faster than light?

>> No.15978827

>>15978822
There are cause-effect relationships that are faster than light (but you can't use them to send a message). People who don't like this cope by saying "maybe nothing is real if you're not looking at it."

>> No.15978829

>>15978827
Can I use this physics to go talk to my ex again?

>> No.15978831

>>15978761
>That was Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" he hated.
Lol, so why are we all disagreeing with Einstein? He was a lot smarter than any scientist today. I mean, ok, yeah, he was a Jew, but...

>> No.15978833

>>15978829
I don't get the joke.

>> No.15978834

>>15978833
It's a legitimate question

>> No.15978843

>>15978350
So properly we are stochastic

>> No.15978844

>>15978827
>let me just inhale some slightly different copium
none of the possibilities are good, retard

>> No.15978845

>>15978427
Why do we need to know? Why can't it just be 'things aren't impacting each other from afar'. I don't get why it matters

>> No.15978872
File: 1.33 MB, 979x959, lol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15978872

>>15978761
My nibba Don Hoffman is pretty close on the money with his conscious agent theory here, imo

We see and perceive what we were evolved to perceive as the flesh automatons/sapient apes that we are

Information and matter blur into the same thing below the quantum level (which is the Zero Point entry and key to overunity, or where tail meets mouth), one superholistic movement enfolded within eternity itself - Take the lens (eyes) with which we perceive what we refer to as "the physical universe" out of the equation, and it's holograms and tori all the way down

>> No.15978873
File: 187 KB, 776x1024, lol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15978873

Meant to post this one ackshually but whatevs lol

>> No.15978880

>>15978825
You can't but particle can. How? Don't know. Go to bed

>> No.15978881

>>15978872
>>15978873
Pictures like these kinda put into light how childish and larp esque these cosmological theories actually are

>> No.15979188

>>15978872
>We see and perceive what we were evolved to perceive
>it's holograms and tori all the way down
Ridiculous contradiction.