>>16554459
There's no wavefunction to begin with. It's just a mathematical tool we use to calculate the distribution of a large number of repeated measurements.

>>16554472
Sure, if we're going full Copenhagen, the wavefunction is just a bookkeeping device for probabilities. But isn't that sidestepping the question of why it works so well? If it’s just a tool, why does it seem to act like a real physical entity when you look at interference patterns or entanglement? How do you reconcile that with the many-worlds or pilot-wave interpretations that treat it as something real?

>>16554459
>What’s the most no-nonsense way to frame it?
Probably Copenhagen if you don't dwell on it too much.
None of the explanations seem elegant when you spend a ton of time thinking about them, but Copenhagen is the most down-to-earth:
1. No magical parallel universes that somehow pop into being out of nothingness.
2. No magical shroud of quantum influence that hovers around particles.
BUT
If you dwell too long on exactly what an observer is, you'll probably start muttering to yourself.

Decoherence puts it in a incoherent superposition, and that is wave function collapse for all practical purposes. It isn't caused by anything special due to observation or consciousness or what have you, it is caused by interaction with a large number of degrees of freedom in the environment or the detailed microstate of the system. There is still a step going from an incoherent superposition to the actual definite outcome observed in an experiment that different interpretations disagree on, but whatever.

>>16554482
Is that it?

The inner monologue?

>>16554477
A: See that plane?
B: Yep.
[...one hour later...]
A: Where do you think that plane is now?
B: Well, knowing what we know about aircraft, I couldn't say for sure, but here's where it could be, with some isoprobability lines drawn in.
A: I'll check FlightTracker. Hey look, there it is. Right inside your distrbition.

>>16554459
Just stop pretending there is some reason that the physical world "needs to be" deterministic at all levels. There can be fundamentally uncertain realizations of physical state changes while still having consistent statistics/moments.

>>16554477
Neither of those interpretations add anything to our understanding or clear up any ambiguity in quantum mechanics. They just replace the mystery of wavefunction collapse with some other mystery, like other worlds we can't observe. I'm not saying there isn't some deeper theory which might explain some of the mystery of quantum mechanics, but I don't think such a theory will include an ontologically real wavefunction.

>>16554486
>Is that it?
>The inner monologue?
All I know is that I talk to myself a lot now, anon.
Yup, I sure do all right!

>>16554503
I get where you're coming from—both many-worlds and pilot-wave theories just move the problem around. But the wavefunction isn't just a mystery in itself, it’s a convenient model that predicts outcomes in a way that works (most of the time). If we're saying it’s not real, then what’s the alternative? What's actually happening when the system goes from a superposition to a definite state? If we dismiss the wavefunction as a real entity, are we just going to accept the same spooky behavior as 'it’s just math' and move on?

>>16554459
>What’s the most no-nonsense way to frame it?
shut up and calculate

>>16554561
>What's actually happening when the system goes from a superposition to a definite state?
You're assuming that the system was actually physically in a state of superposition to begin with. We've never observed this, it doesn't even make sense physically, so there's no reason to assume it's anything more and mathematical and conceptual model.

>>16554565
Fair enough, but if the system isn’t physically in a superposition, then what is the wavefunction describing? If it’s just a conceptual tool for predictions, then what causes the sharp agreement between theory and experimental results? For example, experiments like double-slit interference seem to behave as if superposition is real. If not, what else explains the outcomes without invoking some hidden dynamics?

>Does it happen because of
consciousness
quantum eraser is a good example of it

there is only one mystery in physics: why am i here experiencing things? everything else is downstream from that

>>16554459
I will give you a full list about what we do know here.

>>16554614
Kek. Nice one anon.

>>16554599
Philosophers had a similar dilemma when Newton proposed his universal theory of gravitation. Newton proposed a mathematical rule describing the force between two bodies that had no underlying physical basis. There was no string pulling the bodies towards each other, no substance pushing the bodies towards each other, no mechanism at all behind this mysterious force acting at a distance. Until then philosophers always thought of physical interactions in terms of direct mechanical forces touching each other, so they had difficulty accepting Newton's theory. I think we're in a similar position with quantum mechanics. There could be some underlying mechanism that is yet to be discovered, but it could also simply be the nature of reality we have to accept.

>>16554619
>that had no underlying physical basis.
nigga, he had copernicus' heliocentric ideas, brahe's observations, and kepler's laws to support the conclusions of his model

>>16554624
I think you misunderstood what the other anon said. The prevailing notion was that the motion of objects could only be influenced by mechanical contact. That a strange invisible "force" could have tangible physical effects seemed absurd. That's what he meant by gravity supposedly having no physical basis. The works you quoted of course were evidence to the contrary.

>>16554633
Got it—Newton's gravity challenged the notion of 'contact mechanics' and made people rethink causation. But even if Newton didn’t have an underlying mechanism for gravity, his model still had predictive power. In quantum mechanics, though, the predictive success of wavefunctions relies heavily on the idea of superposition. So if we dismiss superposition as merely conceptual, isn’t it like rejecting the essence of the theory while still using its math to get results? I get that we’re in the same philosophical limbo as Newton’s time, but QM seems harder to just 'accept' without probing deeper—because it challenges intuition at such a fundamental level.

>>16554638
I think we've pretty much reached the limits of our intuition with quantum mechanics. It's really only calculation going forward.

the whole reason wavefunctions are needed is because of experiments showing that when two probability distributions representing the position of particles overlap, they don't just sum up they interfere. collapses occur because when you take a huge amount of parameters in measurements, it's like adding a huge amount of quantum numbers, which is equivalent to leaving the quantum system and returning to the macroscopic system. i'm pretty sure the dirac delta function is what's used here, and that's how you converge to the classical point position probability.

>>16554644
Agreed, intuition hits a wall with quantum mechanics. But doesn’t that raise a deeper question? If calculation is all we have going forward, does that mean we’re doomed to treating quantum mechanics as purely instrumental? Or do you think there’s still value in searching for a conceptual framework, even if it’s just for the sake of coherence?

>>16554603
https://youtu.be/RQv5CVELG3U

>>16554671
That's solid. It shows the bridge between the quantum and classical worlds pretty well. The idea of interference in overlapping distributions is key, but doesn’t the use of tools like the Dirac delta function in this context kind of reinforce the idea that wavefunctions are more of a mathematical abstraction than a physical reality? Or would you argue that the math directly reflects something ontologically real about quantum systems?

>>16554698
she is only "debunking" the time travel not that it doesn't work

>>16554725
So she's debunking the only part of the experiment that was potentially of interest. All that's left is a big fat nothing.

>>16554698
shut up

>>16554734
the point of interest is that the result depends on the measurement, the particles know how you measure them. she admitted that's true.
this "debunking" doesn't actually rule out the time travel. she claims it doesn't erase anything, i'm not sure if she really understands how the experiment works.

>>16554459
Has "it" ever been shown "to happen" under laboratory conditions? No, of course not. It's another "Model" that's never actually been show to be. Every Physics and Chemistry teacher knows this, but they keep teaching it anyway because we STILL have nothing better after all these decades. Not a promising outlook, really, but it's all we got.

>>16554477
>But isn't that sidestepping the question of why it works so well? If it’s just a tool, why does it seem to act like a real physical entity
You are not describing just QM, but all of physics, all of science for that matter.
Welcome to the rabbithole.

I read some reviews about this. What I learned is that nobody fucking knows. People can't even agree whether decoherence can explain collapse, although I was fairly convinced that it can't after reading various papers.

schizophasia thread
spout out all your favorite polysyllabic science jargon so you can feels smug and get dat social media dopamine buzz you crave

>>16554459
Unironically FTL explains it

>>16554803
this is not incompatible with theory

>>16554614
Underrated

>>16554719
it's more about the fact that there is a wave-particle duality. under certain conditions you get particle-like precision. classical, newtonian notions of momentum can hold because you can measure mass and velocity fine without the interference creeping itself. but when you study each particle in isolation, getting momentum measurements leads to absurdities because you can't measure positions accurately. it's not so much tools were a limitation, or our models were a limitation, but that having certainty was a preconceived notion. my understanding is that on the quantum level, elementary particles don't have an exact place in space and time. everything exists AS probability waves. that's just what they are, and when you try to measure with certainty, you get paradoxical results. anytime a paradox occurs it's due to a false premise of some sort, and in this case it's exact energy, position, mass, etc. parameters known to a fixed value.

The Penrose Interpretation is the correct one

>>16554698
if this is true there is time travel
https://www.stonybrook.edu/laser/_amarch/eraser/index.html
>How this happening? It wouldn't make sense that photon p could know about the polarizer before it got there. It can't "sense" the polarizer's presence far away from it, and send photon s a secret signal to let s know about it. Or can it? And if photon p is sensing things from far away, we shouldn't assume that photon s isn't.
http://strangepaths.com/the-quantum-eraser-experiment/2007/03/20/en/
>At time T0 when D0 is triggered no interference appears, since the which-way information is contained in the system at that time. At time T1, which in the experiment is some nanoseconds later but could be in principle any time later,10 when D1/D2/D3/D4 are triggered, we find interference in the correlated subsets of past D0 records undergoing future erasure of the which-way information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
>Detection of signal photons at D0 does not directly yield any which-path information. Detection of idler photons at D3 or D4, which provide which-path information, means that no interference pattern can be observed in the jointly detected subset of signal photons at D0. Likewise, detection of idler photons at D1 or D2, which do not provide which-path information, means that interference patterns can be observed in the jointly detected subset of signal photons at D0.

the bitch didn't even do minimal research, just repeats what other youtube fags said. thanks for the video, now i know she's a fraud and only good for clickbaits.

>>16554488
"That's odd, flight path indicates it went through the rocky mountains?

>>16554459
It happens because is quantized. All or nothing, whole quanta or no quanta, no fractions. It can't be half here and the other half there. Simple as.
You should be asking why it goes from right to left. Is it a probability distribution or that is just how a position evolves in time?

>>16554477
>what are fields?
>what are lagrangians?
>what is literally all of thermodynamics/statmech?
>what is all physics?
Anon, the list of non-physical things we use to accurately predict the behavior of complex physical systems could fill a textbook, or a few thousand.

Wave functions are just another mathematical formalism that's useful for predicting the behavior of a physical system; and it probably *does* have some deeper meaning to it in-so-far as *why* it works so well, but we don't completely know what that is yet.

>>16554482
>If you dwell too long on exactly what an observer is, you'll probably start muttering to yourself.
isn't it any particle which isn't entangled with the system? when a photon interacts with the entangled system the photon itself is the observer, acts like the observer.
maybe observer is not the best word. interactor? anything that isn't entangled with the system?

>>16554459
If it happens due to decoherence, wouldn't a large enough quantum computer "collapse" the quantum state of the qbits?

>>16554482
>>16554477
the stochastic interpretation is hands down the best

1. its classical and no measurement problem, no wave function

2. its a mathematical formulation so its proven that it works

3. there is a realistic interpetation that quantum behavior comes from particles being pushed around by a background field. there are established classical toy-models using oil droplets bouncing on baths that produce quantum behavior due to a similar mechanism - when the bath is vibrated so that viscous dissipation is countered, the droplets start producing quantum-like behavior that seems non-local

the central mechanism in stochastic mechanics is an absence of dissipation which leads to all quantum behavior

this is far too much of a coincidence to ignore

this IS the correct interpretation of quantum theory but everyone is too stupid to realize

>>16554477
>How do you reconcile that with the many-worlds or pilot-wave interpretations that treat it as something real?
You don't. These (especially pilot-wave), are false interpretations dreamt up by salty materialists.

>>16556367
You must have voted for Kamala Harris if American.

>>16554698
You cannot "debunk" the quantum eraser experiment, because the experiment simply highlights the fact of superposition, which is undebunkable. She only "debunked" the false conclusions that retards drew from the experiment (ie. broken causality)
Causality isn't broken precisely because of the properties of superposition. The particle is non-determined until measured.
Of course Sabine didn't dwell on that inconvenient fact, seeing that she's a QM denier and a pilot-wave heretic.

>>16554565
>it doesn't even make sense physically
No. It doesn't make sense classically. It makes perfect sense quantumly speaking. Upgrade your mode of thinking.

>>16556553
> She only "debunked" the false conclusions
Which were the only reasons the experiment was well known. Without that is it just another example of superposition and nothing new.

>>16556560
Actually it's a quite striking example of superposition, more striking than the double slit IMO.

>>16554459
Here it is. The Impossible Trilemma of our universe.

>>16556583
not bad

>>16556583
Stochastic quantum mechanics is the way, brother.

>>16556583
but locality isn't real ugh

>>16556606
ok heretic

>>16556606
Can you send information faster than the speed of light?

>>16556611
yes, spoopy action

>>16556544
why

>>16556553
quantum eraser experiment is so fucking stupid

there is no mystery to it.

send photon through slit
split into pairs
one goes to signal screen, other goes to idler screen
have choice to put through a beamsplitter so cant tell which slit it went through

ambiguity results in an interference pattern but they literally sum together to make the pattern at the signal screen because literally nothing weird has happened except you have just allowed photons from two different slits to end up on the same screen

there is absolutely nothing bizarre about this unless you are one of those retards who believe in collapse

>>16556690
try actually reading about it instead of watching sabine's retarded debunk videos
>there is absolutely nothing bizarre about this
you are a retard

>>16556690
>unless you are one of those retards who believe in collapse
so you retard have zero idea about the experiment but need to tell everyone your retarded opinions

>>16556696
>>16556693
if you dont believe in collapse there is nothing weird about it at all

and heres the thing thats really funny lol

collapse isnt even a part of quantum mechanics

it was added ad hoc by physicists who were too retarded to realize quantum mechanics is actually a statistical theory rather than one about the mechanics of a single particle like classical mechanics

theres absolutely no reason to endorse collapse

>>16556696
>>16556693
umm i have read SEVERAL papers on it. its pretty clear that its extremely simple to explain

>>16554472
What's this then?

>>16556768
NTA but that is not the wave function itself, that's just the final measurement from where we deduct it acts like a wave.

Why are non-local hidden variables considered a fringe interpretation? If you can't predict a system, it means you are not accounting for every variable, and if you have ruled out local variables, that leaves non-local. It's simple deductive logic.

>What’s the most no-nonsense way to frame it?
Might as well ask what’s the most no-nonsense way to explain consciousness. There is none.

>>16556792
Explaining consciousness is easy: It's an artifact of western thought that is used to label cultures who drew different conclusions as subhuman.

>>16556784
Occam's razor, it's fringe because it's unlikely. Bell's inequality and its experimental confirmation rules out local hidden variables and theories that do not agree with non-locality. You are right that it doesn't disallow non-local hidden variables but it is then a quite a jump to then say that must then be the truth when there is zero evidence to support the idea or any reason for it to be true - it's needlessly complicated.

>>16556800
How is throwing out determinism, a major foundational belief of science, in favor of stochastic reality, a smaller assumption than amending particle physics, a field that is less than 200 years old? Also, the unpredictable behavior of quantum particles IS the evidence.

>>16556768
umm its this

no wave function required

>>16556816
Because we can only base our science on what we observe. And everything we have observed at the smallest scales of reality is not deterministic, and what we believed to be deterministic at the macroscopic scale is simply the statistical average of countless quantum interactions.

>>16555232
Retard.

>>16554459
>I looked in the box to see the cat was dead..
>the cat was dead the whole time..
>the cat was never both dead and alive.
a particle shifting position really fast with predictable location likelihood verses time does not mean that particle is in every possible location at the same time...
Its a complete pack of retarded gaylord bullshittery.

>>16556725
>collapse isnt even a part of quantum mechanics

Based retard

>>16556768
Two superimposed edge diffraction patterns.

>>16556843
This whole thing is easily avoided if you drop the idea that "the speed of light is the fastest speed matter can move" and replace it with "the speed of light is the fastest speed which we can measure matter moving." Granted, this requires you to throw out a bunch of "physical laws" (which are mostly speculative mathematics pretending to be an empirical science). If you're comfortable with that, all of this requirement of superposition goes out the window. The "quantum effects" then come from the minimum resolvable quantized measurement resolution, not from some literal superposition.

>>16556855
its literally called the collapse postulate

postulate meaning it is assumed

it was never derived as a necessary part of the theory of quantum mechanics

and you dont need it if you just realize that quantum mechanics is about statistics

like why else would you have the born rule where measurements are probabilistic?

its a fucking statistical theory

just truly boggling

>>16556932
NO... it can switch states very quickly and be intermediately between flipped orientations.. BUT it can NEVER be both orientations at the same time.

>>16556830
I think we're just gonna have to disagree here until large quantum systems are achieved. I predict that a noticeable dip in unpredictability will occur at some point as part or all of the hidden variables incidentally find themselves captured within the system. Like, if particles from 3 feet away are causing unpredictable behavior within the quantum system, then their influence will cease when the size of the system interior exceeds 3 feet and encompasses them.
In other words, I predict the inconsistent output of a quantum system scales based on the ratio of external surface area to internal volume.

>>16556958
> until large quantum systems are achieved
They already exist. Everything you see around you is one. Everything is quantum but you only see it acting in a very particular regime of scale. There's nothing special about that. After all, until recently people thought temperature was something fundamental until thermodynamics came alone and we learned it was just a statistical aggregate. Our day to day deterministic existence is no different.

>>16556946
You have really poor reading comprehension. The whole point of what I was writing is that we don't need physical superposition if it's only the measurement process which makes it appear as if it's superimposed.

Consider, as an example, a sinusoid that oscillates at 1 Hz, which you then bin such that you have negative 1 if the sinusoid's value is positive, and -1 if the sinusoid's value is negative. If you are sampling once every 2 seconds, you'll get not only the oscillation but aliasing if you were to ever try to reconstruct this thing.

It would, with the presence of imperfect sample timing, appear as if you were seeing something that was simultaneously -1 and 1. The truth is just that it goes faster than you can measure (which, in this case would be limited by the speed of light).

>>16556942
>isn't even a part of
>never derived as a necessary part of

Time to put on your special needs helmet and go move some more goalposts with your tard wrangler, be careful not to drool on yourself too much this time.

>>16554472
It brings me great joy to see this as the first post.
The model is NOT the phenomena.
Math is not physics. Math is one way to model physics.

>>16554477
You exhibit every aspect of a midwit. You clearly think you're way smarter than you actually are.
>Why it works so well
It barely works at all, you just have very very low standards and clearly don't do any experimental work.

>>16556961
I mean quantum systems that we're outside of, smartass. The universe as a whole doesn't exhibit small scale quantum behavior, so there must be a phenomenon whose influence accumulates in systems isolated from particle interactions with the surroundings, causing them to appear erratic until they rejoin the surroundings.

>>16556965
>if it's only the measurement process which makes it appear as if it's superimposed.
Yeh thats what I said twice, shit for brains.
Try saying something original, shit troll.

>>16557002
> The universe as a whole doesn't exhibit small scale quantum behavior
No shit. Because it's not small. It exhibits large scale quantum behavior: i.e. classical physics.

>>16556553
Wait, she supports pilot-wave? You're fucking with me right?

>>16557090
She's a superdeterminist, so she supports whatever the leading interpretation for that is. You should have expected this from a fucking German.

>>16557094
When is the last time she said that though? How long ago? Might have changed her mind in the meanwhile.

>>16554751
The measurement loads/shunts the particle
>>16554750
fucking idiot
>>16555195
Why does he discuss previous experimental methods, then he himself use a laser?
>shoots off a continuous laser stream of coherent photons, claims equivalence of a single photon interacting only with itself...

Ask me how I know you're a faggot.

>>16554472
at a fundamental level the only way to define something is the rules that express its behavior

Not that the rules align with what the thing is, but

The rules ARE the thing. The thing is the rules

and even with the probability aspect of it they're still rules in a sentence and even if our current models don't accurately define the rules as best as they accurately could still doesn't discount that there is a model, set of rules, set of constraints on how a thing will manifest as best as possible could.

And there is nothing that you can define that is more accurate than that set of rules. No matter how hard you look, so if you are to say a thing is this the only thing that you could choose is the model of the thing.

>>16557108
retarded sabine simp doesn't understand how the experiment works
cry more bitch science denier

>>16557196
>I can not refute, so I'll REEEEE like a girly faggot instead.
ok

>>16557113
You can plot GDP as a curve on a cartesian plane, but you would never claim that GDP *is* a curve on a plane. That's just a mathematical model we use to conceptualize GDP. GDP in the real world is money, goods and services changing hands between people and businesses. Based on this mathematical model, we can say things like "GDP is going up", meaning that the curve is going in an upward direction when the plane is viewed perpendicular to the ground. But you would never conclude from this that GDP in the real world is going up. It's completely nonsensical to imagine that economic activity is going up. What would that even mean? Every time I give money to a cashier, I float up into the air? You can see that conflating real world phenomena with the mathematical models we use to describe them leads to incoherent understanding of phenomena. It's easy for us to avoid this error with phenomena which are accessible to our senses, like economic activity, but when we delve into more inaccessible phenomena, like the behavior of elementary particles, we become victims of attributing misplaced concreteness to abstract models all too easily.

>>16557368
I disagree with almost every aspect of this post.

All my statement was pointing at was at some level the idea of concreteness as someone would inuit it breaks down and the only things that survive are sets of rules/models. So if you were going to say anything is a *thing* you would use those models to define it.

So when you say an abstract thing doesn't make sense to say its concrete, yes, that is the point. But it still is a thing. so if you are going to say its anything what about the thing that defines it.

Additionally it's not nonsensical to say "GDP has gone up" you are talking about the output of a model that has many inputs. Saying the output has gone up while having trouble to pinpoint or attribute where the input has caused it is just fine.

Everything in all of existence is a set of systems sitting of the scaffolding of other systems. All consist of some state and how this state changes. And when I say state i mean at all levels of abstraction. How this state changes is our understanding, our rules, how physics works, how you interact with your toaster, how you converse with a friend, how your mind renders your room. A model is the way we express these rules.

If you don't think so tell me of something you couldn't fundamentally define as a system with an abstract set of rules expressing them. But if everything you find is still this, is it wrong to say that the description for the model describing the system is the closest we will get to seeing the thing bare and naked in front of us?

>>16557368
I would like to add, i don't mean all models are accurate pictures of a thing in all perspectives. I would say GDP is only an outline. Its only describing a thin perspective, thin aspect of a much more complex system. Its like to describe the height of something, then saying the height has gone up perfectly reasonable when describing that thin property/narrow aspect of the system. But that's as close as you a human can reason for some things. Doesn't mean there isn't a model that does describe it best.

When something is abstract it sits upon the shoulders of other systems, so it's easier to give a full definition as long as you stay above that layer.


Last thing i will say is everything you think of concrete is really just an abstraction. A system sitting on countless other systems. It still has semantics to it, it still has meaning to it, it still has a model describing it from the outside.

>>16557492
The last two paragraphs do sound like they contradict, but it was my pour attempt at express there is nothing truly concrete. The concrete is simply the layer of abstraction that our minds have evolved to sit on. It is the domain that our eyes react to. The wavelengths they become illuminated by.

I honestly like thinking of the level of abstraction a wavelength and the concrete is simply visible light.

>>16557476
It's true that we can only describe particulars in terms of universals, or concrete things in terms of abstractions. But that doesn't mean that every useful abstract model necessarily describes the actual phenomenon. It can simply be a practical tool for extracting useful real world information. For instance, the general equation of motion for a spring has imaginary components. We use this equation to extract real world information about the system, but there's no physical reality to the imaginary components of the equation. Because we have a physical intuition about how springs behave, we can avoid attributing misplaced concreteness to the imaginary components of the equation. In quantum mechanics, we lack this physical intuition, so we more easily fall into the trap of believing the mathematical model accurately describes reality.

>>16556973
umm why cant you come back with an actual technical rebuttle instead of ad hominems?

fucking fool

>>16556690
>unless you are one of those retards who believe in collapse
>>16556725
>rather than one about the mechanics of a single particle like classical mechanics
>theres absolutely no reason to endorse collapse
I think this board should ban people who doesn't have a grasp of the fundamentals of modern physics.

>>16556816
Because non-local hidden variables violate Special Relativity and thus causality.

>>16558157
Not every chronology-breaking event violates causality.

>>16558160
I'm responding to this guy: >>16556784
You break causality if you violate special relativity with FTL, which is what is implied with non-locality.
Most physicists simply prefer relativity, a so far proven physical theory, to determinism, a philosophy.

>>16558162
>You break causality if you violate special relativity with FTL
Why? Doesn't it just lead to atypical ordering of world lines, not necessarily ones with paradoxical self intersection?

>>16558162
>You break causality if you violate special relativity with FTL
not necessarily, as long as information isn't transmitted.

>>16558206
If information isn't transmitted it's not FTL at all. Quantum entanglement isn't FTL, because it's instantaneous and no info is transmitted. Special relativity isn't violated by quantum entanglement, but it *would* be violated by non-local hidden variables, which would break causality.

>>16555232
based physicist

>>16556816
Determinism isn't a fundational belief of science. It's a philosophy preferred by 19th century leftist materialist philosophers like Marx and 20th century Jewish scientists like Einstein.

>>16558369
>and no info is transmitted
information is transmitted to the entangled particle retard-kun

>>16559025
No information is transmitted between the entangled particles. You cannot transmit information instantaneously with quantum entanglement.

>>16559036
Unsupported dogmatic belief. If one particle affects the other, information is being transmitted.

>>16559127
if you add the time from entanglement it's never faster than light right? particles have to be close to be entangled? once separated even if the collapse is instant overall with time since entanglement it doesn't go past speed of light. there could be some weird mechanism which "acts instantly" but be different than information

>>16558369
There are ways to have actual time travel in physics without violating causality(self-consistency). What is the supposed issue here?

>>16559167
>in physics
don't you mean in imaginary physics?

>>16556583
Nothing in that image is real.

>>16556843
>I looked in the box to see the cat was dead..
Some scientists will say that it was their observation that caused the live cat/dead cat duality to collapse. I say that is pure egotism on their part. The system continues in a state of duality, with one version of the scientist finding a dead cat and the other finding a live one.

The wave function doesn't collapse until the janitor comes in that night and finds either a dead cat in the garbage. Or a scientist sitting there full of cat scratches.

>>16559127
>Unsupported dogmatic belief
Well established modern physics. No information is being transmitted.

>>16559136
There's no "speed" to speak of. Speed is Distance/Time. Time in quantum entanglement is zero. You cannot divide by zero.
You seem to be talking about local hidden variables. That's been completely disproven, refer to the image>>16556583

>>16559451
Some intepretations have subjective collapse instead of objective collapse.

>>16559451
when you copy the observer the whole world is in superposition, and can collapse one of two ways, continue as original or continue as clone. you only know after you have been copied

>>16559451
>>16560000
It frankly doesn't matter what anyone believes. Not a single interpretation can be proven to be correct. The only thing that is proven is that the math works, that's it.

>>16559127
>Unsupported dogmatic belief. If one particle affects the other, information is being transmitted.
No. Entanglement doesn’t mean you can send info between particles. You measure one, yeah, you know what the other will be, but that’s not "sending" anything. It’s just correlation, not communication. It's like rolling two dice—one might show a 6, the other shows a 1, but you’re not communicating anything between the dice. Same with entangled particles. The results are simply correlated, very strange, but no FTL messages, no breaking causality.

>>16559127
>one particle affects the other
it doesn't.
If you do anything to one, it disentangles.

>>16560008
>continue as original or continue as clone. you only know after you have been copied
I'm the original. The other guy is the clone.

As time progresses, any event in the whole world resulting in superposition would suggest a further copy of the world. We're gonna run out of stuff with which to make copies pretty quickly (toner and paper?)