"durr it disproves causality", so it's usable in basically any argument to deny a conclusion. someone's been insisting to me it's "scientifically proven" and linking to a wiki page that links to a hundred other pages with a hundred more apparently relevant links.
can /sci/ please summarize it so i can get over these people.
dude quantum mechanics lmao
dude randomness lmao
dude spookyness lmao
dude magic lmao
>>7684587
>lmao
lmao
>so it's usable in basically any argument to deny a conclusion.
No.
It's a theory of mechanics of thing in the world. It's applicable to a very particular realm of things and it's a mathematical framework in the first place, which physicists use daily. And it has applications for microscopic chemistry or also solid state physics.
Too tiresome to give a general summary - you'll just have more questions than gain, if you're so vague.
long story short... neither of you know a damn thing about quantum mechanics, and neither do most people who talk about it on the internet.
>>7684585
A hidden variable driving entanglement hasn't been discerned yet. That's a lot of the problem. Discovering what about the universe affords it the ability to be what it is and do what it does. What about the universe FORCES it to?
I highly doubt it's non-causal. Things are just so strange and hard to evaluate on that scale, people are given room to interpret that ambiguity as whatever they want. A probabilistic nature and non-causality just happens to be one popular side.
The you have neat, but dumb shit like "many worlds". That's what most popular science is centered around. And 12(?) dimensional coils everywhere in string theory.
>>7684589
tell me if causality still works.
>>7684597
You don't know what you're talking about, anon. Maybe it's time you stopped posting.
The reality is I'm not up my own ass at all, I AM my own ass. How can I be up myself?!
>>7684585
We don't know enough about it to say for sure yet but yes it actually may allow for some things that are without cause.
>>7684641
so what do we fucking know about it
>>7684651
We know that on the quantum scale things seem to behave in a fundamentally different way than we're used to.
We can plot the path of a baseball or the orbit of a planet with a high degree of accuracy. It would be tempting to think we can just apply those same models to electrons, they should be just like tiny negatively charged baseball's right? Well experiments say wrong.
You can make probabilistic predictions about the electron but you cannot chart its path around the atom.
This runs deeper than the statistical mechanics we're used to in thermodynamics for example, thermodynamics argues things are chaotic, in quantum mechanics we observe some things that seem to be truly random.
>>7684661
>truly random
Just like a car veering off the road and smashing into someone because the driver was up 3 days straight and fell asleep, was "random"? Just like measuring atmospheric conditions, or radioactive decay, can provide good random seeds for whatever software application?
I just don't see what's so special. You say "truly" random as if it's somehow suddenly more meaningful. As if it suddenly means anything other than "insufficient access to information to allow consistent and accurate prediction". You can't know what the driver is going to do. You don't know enough about the earth as a whole to know in advance what that sensor is going to register. That doesn't make these things "truly random".
Something must afford the means for perceived randomness, and drive outcomes. The claim of quantum events having the "true" randomness also seems wishy washy and unsubstantial. Summarized, can you, or anyone, explain why I should take these garbage claims seriously? People acting near certain about THE REAL RANDOMNESS!? Guize it luks random therefore it is random!
EXPLAIN. SOMEONE, MOTHERFUCKING EXPLAIN. IT SEEMS HIGHLY UNLIKELY ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST DELUDING THEMSELVES OR OUTRIGHT STUPID, AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND SOONER THAN LATER. WHY.
>>7684599
Yes it still works.
And yes, the theory is "proven", if you're a realist. I'd say "the mathematical framework is well applicable", if you're a little more pragmatic about physical theories.
>>7684651
Basically every force in the universe is tied to a particle.
Things on the quantum scale are so small that they're smaller than those force carrying particles so they don't reliably interact with them.
>>7684666
you've created the least informative post in this thread
>>7684664
>Insufficient access to information to explain it
Hidden variables. This is the common argument against the randomness of QM. Here's the problem, we can't find them.
We've tried and tried to find information that will let us predict for example the outcome of an entanglement experiment. Nothing has worked. No matter what measurements we make before hand, no matter how sensitive our equipment, we cannot predict which entangled particle will have spin down or spin up we just know they will be opposite.
You raised another good example yourself, radioactive decay. Half life is a very consistent thing but guess what, we can't predict which atoms will decay.
These things seem to be truly random or maybe there are some incredibly complex hidden variables at play that we haven't considered.
Trying to explain how the seemingly random quantum world makes up the orderly predictable world we know is one of the big questions in science now.
>>7684664
Look up the Bell test experiments if you really want to know what they're talking about.
>>7684674
I'm going to learn PhD level physics, mathematics included. I'm going to know.
I could stifle it. I could even bury it so deeply it would never again be found, nor would the means exist to think about anything existing to be unearthed. But no matter what, some part of me, needs to know. It will always need to know.
Question!
Is the issue whether they fail to have an efficient cause for their change or whether they fail to have a sustaining cause?
>>7684672
Also important to note that we haven't just said "fuck it idk must be random!" And now we're done or something. We're still trying to explain this shit its just that we haven't found any hidden variables yet and we don't want to fall into a trap like people did in the past with the aether.
People used to insist the aether was real and this wasn't just an ancient idea it wasn't until Einstein the shit was finally laid to rest. Why did people believe for so long it had to be real despite test after test after test that failed to detect it? Because it had to be real to make some of Newtons ideas make sense and Newton had to be right because look at a the things his formulas could be used to predict! He was wrong.
Its a dangerous thing for us to start telling nature something "has to exist". That's not how science is supposed to work. We need to accept things as the facts tell us they are. Certainly we can and should continue trying to explain the quantum world but we shouldn't go around insisting on hidden variables and other ideas just because we feel they "have to exist" to make it make sense to us.
>>7684701
You can't just say hidden variables must be real. If test after test fails to find them then you have to accept that, that casts doubt on their existence.
Yes we have been unable to explain thing in the past for example at one time we thought the weather was random. But here's the difference, we looked into that and found it wasn't. With QM we look into things and they still seem random.
But again like I said we're not done by any means. We could make a discovery tomorrow that there was just something we were missing this whole time, or we might not. As a scientist you have to be ready to accept either outcome.
>>7684708
imagine a puzzle with no visible moving parts, like a lock. it can easily have some stupid cosmic amount of possible solutions.
the only way to solve it is to actually try those for a very long time, so knowing that, it should actually take a really fucking large amount of trying before you start giving credit to the retard who insists there are elves in it. if every other thing in the universe follows a rule just why would you assume it stops applying when you run into a thing that's hard to see from your perspective when it's perfectly predictable that that would eventually happen.
explain how this is not perfectly logical.
>>7684718
Why should we believe it is applying if experiments tell us it may not be?
You might be right its totally possible we're missing something but I'm not gonna sit here and insist upon it. I will believe what the evidence shows.
At what point is it right to draw the line and say that there is no cause?
