Why does the wave function only collapse in one specific way? It could collapse in many different ways, but why does it only collapse the way it does, out of so many other possibilities?
>>8118488
>he believes in the Copenhagen interpretation
>>8118488
It's random, dummy.
>>8118488
look up transactional qm, penrose interpretation, GRW, debroglie-bohm, etc, read them, then come back.
no one knows, it's not relevant day-to-day qm anyway, it is retarded philosophy.
despite what many say, MWI is not that bulletproof (preferred basis problem, probability, the paradoxes caused by the equal reality of all parts of the W.F, etc). It is strong in some respects, but overall it seems some form of objective collapse interpretation will win eventually (not until we figure out gravity though). If Penrose's conception of gravity is corrected, his interpretation will hold and he has devised some tests for it (they are just hard and expensive, and no one really cares).
Old school copenhagen (ie Von Neummann) is pretty dumb, but the reformulations of it (there is no single C.I.) make more sense. Also, modern C.I. thinks the wavefunction is a good descriptor/approxiamation, it is not the lowest level of reality. Recent discoveries suggest this is probably true, which takes away a tiny bit from the MWI.
Just read about it though, it's actually pretty interesting.
Also, not sure if this is true, but I have noticed a lot of overlap between sweaty euphoric neckbeards and staunch MWI supporters. I can see why some like the MWI for its simplicity, but the really staunch MWI fanboys that hate other interpretations are almost always neckbeards or groupies for Tegmark and Deutsch.
>>8118508
>he thinks the copenhagen interpretation is "consciousness causes collapse"
god everyone here is in hs
>>8118592
Nigga u wot? Consciousness doesn't collapse the wave function, measuring it (ie. blasting it with photons or electrons) does. A human cannot observe the target without this happening, so it can be said that a human seeing it collapses the wave function, but that isn't really precise. Also, the target could be measured and never viewed and the wave function would still be collapsed.
>>8118619
i never said it does, i was poking fun at the common misconception of the copenhagen interpretation (that it is "consciousness causes collapse").
>>8118625
How the hell "uncollapsed" matter even exists? How particles can interact with each other if we don't measure them yet and they all are in an uncertain state.
Jesus, mathematicians are the most retarded people in the universe.
>>8118629
bill gaede is that you?
>>8118625
Oh shit, you right, I just went full retard when reading it.
>>8118629
>How particles can interact with each other if we don't measure them yet and they all are in an uncertain state.
Maybe you should ask less retarded questions before suggesting that other people are retarded.
>>8118488
loli catgirls
>>8118488
There is no "why".
In a way, Its like flipping a coin and asking "why'd I get heads that time". Except with a coin you could explain it as result of coin rotation and air resistance and whatnot.
With a quantum object, not only can we not measure such variables, we're pretty sure there aren't any.
>>8118629
if you really want to know, search "mach zender inferometer" . its the clearest example I know of how we can do exactly what you sarcastically imply is impossible. Its not that involved either. Maybe 30 minutes of work to someone who knows nothing of QM
>>8118914
So the answer is "it just happens this way and we can't explain it".
>>8118571
True scholar right there.
>>8118619
>Consciousness doesn't collapse the wave function, measuring it (ie. blasting it with photons or electrons) does
This is wrong. Wavefunctions interact with photons or electrons all the time. This is not the same as collapse.
>>8119294
True samefag right there. Your post was cringeworthy and factually wrong.
>>8118571
I suggest you look up what Copenhagen interpretation actually is before making dumb posts on 4chan about things you dont' understand.
It becomes null
>>8118592
No, you dongmongler, but the Copenhagen interpretation IS "collapse is the process of a wavefunction resolving into a single randomly-chosen classical outcome." In other interpretations, like many-worlds, this is not so.
Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to respond to a question about why the wavefunction collapses to a specific single outcome and how it "chooses" which one to collapse to, with a remark that the question assigns undue weight to Copenhagen as a description of reality.
If we had perfect information, would there be any quantum randomness left?
>>8119834
Anyone?
>>8119834
Of course. Even exactly knowing the wave function at one point in time won't tell you how it looks like after collapsing. Collapse is completely random.
>>8119834
Yes, because even in mathematical models wave function collapse HAS to happen. In quantum mechanics all observables, values we measure, enforce collapse to eigenkets
>>8121316
What if we knew the positions of all particles in the universe? Why would then there be any randomness left?
>>8121415
>measure momentum
>suddenly we don't know shit about position anymore
>>8121417
What if we simply knew them, without any measurements taking place? It's a hypothetical situation.
>>8121422
Then we wouldn't be in this universe.
>>8121422
>What if we simply knew them, without any measurements taking place
What does that mean?
>>8121438
It means that you need to read the thread to see the context. He asks whether there would be any randomness left if we had perfect information (which means knowing all the wave functions and particle positions, I believe).
>>8119521
What if OP asked why we are in the particular world we are in? Same stupid question, except it requires you to believe in unfalsifiable nonsense about stuff outside our universe.
>>8121563
No, it still wouldn't work in this universe. It's for the reason that even if you have a perfectly defined wave packet in either position or momentum space, you still have uncertainty. There is no way to remove that uncertainty, even by measuring.
That's because it's made of bugs. "Generalization is for human functions like the ball. Specialization is for insects. -- Isaac Asimov"
>>8121595
This is what Copenfags actually believe.
>you can't know nuthin
>>8121771
It's not that you can't know 'nuthin' it's that you can't know everythin'
