Ain't quantum mechanics just a probabilistic model of estimating things we can't actually see and this "existing in two places at once" is just a miscomprehension of said model. How wrong am I?
>>8184661
Very wrong. If it were simply a probabilistic model, experiments such as the quantum eraser experiment would yield more "intuitive" results than they do.
>>8184661
That was the original interpretation, but then things like Bell's inequality ruled out hidden variables (at least local ones).
Biggest difficulty with quantum mechanics is interpreting what the mathematical framework means in a physical sense. And that's something that's still not agreed on to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
>>8184686
>local ones
It's plausible that in the subatomic world non-locality can emerge.
>>8184994
Non-locality of consciousness, right?
>>8185140
Consciousness isn't just housed inside the human brain anon...
>>8185142
Deepak! Is that you?
>>8185140
no, just some fundamental aspects of space/energy/matter
>>8184661
Extremely wrong. Quantum mechanics is actually the most accurate science, in that they can take measurements accurately down to more zeros than any other science.
>>8184685
>If it were simply a probabilistic model, experiments such as the quantum eraser experiment would yield more "intuitive" results than they do.
The quantum eraser experiment seems wildly counterintuitive only because of the interpretation that's given.
I mean, let's look at this description:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment
>1. First, the experimenter reproduces the interference pattern of Young's double-slit experiment by shining photons at the double-slit interferometer and checking for an interference pattern at the detection screen.
>2. Next, the experimenter marks through which slit each photon went, without disturbing its wavefunction, and demonstrates that thereafter the interference pattern is destroyed. This stage indicates that it is the existence of the "which-path" information that causes the destruction of the interference pattern.
>3. Third, the "which-path" information is "erased," whereupon the interference pattern is recovered. (Rather than removing or reversing any changes introduced into the photon or its path, these experiments typically produce another change that obscures the markings earlier produced.)
>the experimenter marks through which slit each photon went, without disturbing its wavefunction
This is not a physical action. This is an interpretation of a physical action.
Let's look at the description of the physical action:
step 2:
>a circular polarizer is placed in front of each slit in the double-slit mask, producing clockwise circular polarization in light passing through one slit, and counter-clockwise circular polarization in the other slit
step 3:
>a linear polarizer is introduced ... This alters the effect of the circular polarizers: each will produce a mix of clockwise and counter-clockwise polarized light.
This is hardly isolating the acts of observing and erasing "which-path" information. It doesn't sound especially counterintuitive until you describe the interpretation.
>>8185208
Hidden variables.
>>8185212
someone refute this asshole cuz i aint smart enough to do it.
>>8185242
hes right, fuck off
>>8185212
You have just made my day.
Thank you.
