[ 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: 271 KB, 400x326, putin riding a shark.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2317061 No.2317061 [Reply] [Original]

I had an idea about QM. What if it's purely deterministic, but we can't observe that because of shit-grade instruments?
pic is Putin on a shark for adding awesomeness to this thread

>> No.2317076
File: 17 KB, 300x309, Fig_37-3_Two_Slit_Experiment.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2317076

nope.jpg

>> No.2317070

Congratulations you had the same idea they had 80 years ago

>> No.2317093

>>2317061
then free will doesn't exist again.

congrats

>> No.2317111

>>2317093
>He believes in free will
Laughingniggers.heilhitleryo

>> No.2317132

>>2317076
What if that is deterministic too?

>> No.2317143
File: 41 KB, 500x356, 1293846772738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2317143

>>2317132
It is deterministic in such a way that it will yield a probabilistic wave function
or
it is a randomly distributed wave function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

>> No.2317169

>>2317093
Free will exists in the same way water exists.

>> No.2317171

>>2317143
It can be a deterministic pseudo-random. It's actually simpler than implying that there's a real random, so Occam's Razor is against you.

>> No.2317177

>>2317061
OP i took a quantum phys class, and the professor mentioned that there have been experiments done to show that it is TRULY random, not just random when observed.

>> No.2317180

>>2317177
Examples or didn't happen.

>> No.2317184
File: 26 KB, 400x400, wtf.am.i.reading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2317184

>>2317171
>deterministic pseudo-random

>> No.2317186

Sure is ignorance of Bell's Theorem ITT.

If you want determinism you have to abandon locality. Once you know what that means, I find it hard to choose determinism over locality, just by Occam's Razor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

I'll do your homework for you though. You can adopt the Bohm interpretation, but I don't recommend it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
>The de Broglie–Bohm theory expresses in an explicit manner the fundamental non-locality in quantum physics. The velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the wavefunction, which depends on the whole configuration of the universe.

>> No.2317189

>>2317184
Pseudorandom means "looks random, but isn't".

You know the prefix "Pseudo" means "false", right?

>> No.2317204

>>2317186
This isn't homework, this is just an idea of mine.
Why don't you recommend the Bohm interpretation?

>> No.2317212

>>2317204
Because I find discarding locality far more unreasonable than discarding determinism.

>> No.2317239

>>2317212
I don't agree with you, but it's all just oppinions anyway, at least for now when we can't check it in any way becase >lol shit tier instruments.

>> No.2317246

>>2317239
Your opinion on the quality of the experiment results is woefully uninformed. (You don't know what you're talking about).

>> No.2317253
File: 125 KB, 300x275, 1294421676535.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2317253

>>2317239
>shit tier experiments

>> No.2317264

>>2317239
You know, thousands of people hundreds of times smarter than you have been trying to disprove quantum mechanics, and all have failed.
If you want to try and cook up an experiment to prove determinism, then you should go ahead, it's a great thing to do. Do some research on what others have tried.
If you just want to armchair science like a moron educated far beyond your capacity for critical thought, then shut up.

>> No.2317289

>>2317264
try proving intelligence objectively first

>> No.2317293

>>2317289
Nah, you disprove it. I'll go do something useful in the meantime.

>> No.2317302
File: 43 KB, 490x515, Vlad_The_Implier.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2317302

>I assert that X.
>Yeah, go prove X! It will be interesting!
>No, you go prove X.

>> No.2317305

>>2317264
It's simply a technological limitation. Give it 50 years and we may have well proved determinism

>> No.2317317

>>2317305
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

God damn arm-chair scientists from the 19th century ITT.

>> No.2317319

>>2317305
And in the meantime I will not believe in loosely founded conjecture over the tested to death systematic theory grounded solidly in mathematics.
Not impossible that there's an overturn, it's happened loads of times over human history.
But you start believing in possibilities rather than plausibilities and you'll soon end up in stupid land.

>> No.2317337

I think what OP is referring to is super determinism.

And the shit grade instruments would be our inability to comprehend or measure 'hidden variables'

>> No.2317351

>>2317337
>hidden variables
Again, NO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

There are no LOCAL hidden variables. Either there is no hard determinism, or there is no locality. If that last one doesn't bother you, you need to read up on this.

>> No.2317355

>>2317305
We've disproved local determinism. Learn QM before making stupid assumptions.

>> No.2317365

>>2317305
You need to watch some Feynman lectures so that you can hear someone 10x smarter than you mocking you for clinging to determinism in contravention of how the universe actually works.