Is QM correct? Are particles really 'everywhere' until they interact with a classical system? How can a classical system confine a quantum object to a definite location if it itself is made up of mere quantum objects?
Personally it seems more reasonable to posit that things always have a definite position, but we're not always capable of figuring it out to arbitrary precision.
>>7920675
no rationalism is correct. Math do not describe the world, no matter what you fantasies are.
Mathematics is a choice of a framework to look at the world. Then the people embracing the scientific method choose to sort out what well formed formulas make sense according to them. since they know that it remains a choice to say that ''such well formed formulas describe the world (like the one of the free energy or the one of a black hole)'' but they cling to the notion of ''explanation'', they hide their personal choices into an external necessity: ''it is necessary that my mathematical model is right, in the sense that it describe the world''.
also, particles do not exists in most modern models. what exists is fields and the number operator.
Next time, ask your professor ''how many electronic wave function [NOT ELECTRONS] is there in the universe ?''
if he is smart enough, he will refuse to answer, or say that there is one.
>>7920750
Pretty much the sanest reply I've read on /sci/ for a while.
>>7920675
Our conception of objective reality has this evaporated into a mathematics which describes, not the behavior of particles, but rather our knowledge of this behavior -Heisenberg
Get off /sci and read a book nigger
>>7920750
what about debroglie bohm pilot wave theory
>>7920783
Didn't Heisenberg dislike Copenhagen though?
>>7920675
We'll see if its true if we ever get working quantum computers. If we do make them and they really do solve problems using qbits that are both 1 and 0 at the same time then QM is probably correct. If not maybe debroglie bohm pilot wave theory was right and particles have definite positions that only seem random due to chaotic interaction between the particle and it's generated pilot wave.
>>7920784
>what about debroglie bohm pilot wave theory
it is not trendy today. but this model has the goal to retain as much notion form classical mechanics as possible.
And since people choose to do not really like it, because they choose to cling to field theories (because they choose to have faith in the standard model, because they say that the SM predicts more than just QM, because they cling to the fantasy of ''prediction of events= disclosing the secrets of the universe''), it is not really developed.
>>7920945
but we already have quantum computers that ran algortihms
>>7922094
>Bohm interpretation
>The Bohm interpretation preserves realism, hence it needs to violate the principle of locality in order to achieve the required correlations . It does so by maintaining that both the position and momentum of a particle are determinate in that they correspond to the definite trajectory of the particle; however, that trajectory cannot be known without knowing the physical state of the entire universe.
>>7922232
>that trajectory cannot be known without knowing the physical state of the entire universe
does that also work backwards so that if you knew the exact trajectory of 1 particle you could infer the physical state of the entire universe?
>>7923200
No.
>>7920784
a fluid analog can at least replicate a few quantum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE
>>7924146
The waves and droplets in that experiment doesn't seem to rely on non-local interactions so perhaps debroglie bohm can be modified to be local as well.
>>7924153
I think the nonlocality is specifically for things like entanglement, which I'm fairly sure hasn't been and can't be demonstrated with macro droplets.
Also superdeterminism is clearly correct
>There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
- Mr Bell himself.
>>7924176
Basically what Bell is saying here is that his inequality is only valid as long as hard determinism is false.
>>7924176
Speaking of superdeterminism, I find it funny how essentially it is assumed to be false, then people use the product of that assumption (nondeterministic QM) and try to claim that as evidence for nondeterminism.
>>7924176
So physics basicaly proves Calvin right?
>>7925117
What did Calvin say?
>>7920675
The math model behind QM has been experimentally verified many times, so it's at worst a very good approximation.
How to interpret the math is something even physicists still don't agree on. The word "particle" itself is just a convenient term to put the predictable behavior of measurement apparatuses in a familiar context.
>>7924146
pleb here
someone explain to me this video and everything discussed in this thread
>>7926048
Bell's theorem assumes the experimenter has free will; if he doesn't then you can have a valid theory which concurs with experiment and obeys local realism, and determinism.
>>7926566
free will has not been formalized mathematically, so it does not intervene in bell's theorem.
>>7920750
>>7920767
>>7926583
Bell's theorem falls apart without the experimenter being able to freely choose detector parameters, so it's actually a crucial element of it.
>>7924146
I've seen this video many times over the years and it is just amazing and how elegant it really is.
