Is theoretical physics basically a meme science now? >wasted

>>7697921
What should they be saying/doing in your opinion anon?

File: Read A Book.jpg (65KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 566x480px

>conscious observation
Jesus Christ, you've got to do better than that on this board.

>>7697934

>despite Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger and others instantly noting that the otherwise flawless QM model implies it

>>7697926

At least be consistent in extolling wild ideas. QM predicts that reality requires an active observer, which has been confirmed experimentally. Yet this viewpoint is viewed as kooky, despite it being taken seriously and troubling many of the greatest physicists of the century. Note that this is explicitly described by the otherwise perfect QM model.

On the other hand, fudge like dark energy and dark matter are promoted as facts despite them being shoehorned in to make an imperfect model fit observation and are yet to be described or observed directly.

>>7698001
Its true we have yet to observe dark matter/energy and as such probably shouldn't say they are factual but you're trying to force facts here too.

It is not experimentally verified that conscious observers are necessary, nor that entanglement is FTL (and even if it is that doesn't necessarily = Einstein BTFO), nor that causality does not exist.

QM does make some good and useful predictions but so does relativity. We can't just throw it out because of quantum mechanics. QM can't explain everything relativity can and relativity can't explain everything QM can, the truth probably lies in some combination of the 2.

>>7697921
You know there were critiques saying the same fucking thing about Neutrinos decades ago.

>>7698032

At least neutrinos were pretty specifically predicted, with predicted characteristics and origin rather than a nebulous unknown factor.

>It is not experimentally verified that conscious observers are necessary, nor that entanglement is FTL

I'm sorry but the cognitive dissonance required to keep that viewpoint is increasingly difficult. One basically needs to be obtuse and ignore experiment after experiment.

>>7698066
So you want to throw out relativity?

File: 1366853407818.jpg (53KB, 241x230px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 241x230px

>>7697921
>mfw OP's pic

>>7698091

So you want to ignore QM?

>>7698132
I want to reconcile them

>>7697921
Entanglement doesn't break FTL you mong.

>>7698143
yes it dose u knob

>>7698143

It does, which is why spooky action at a distance rustled Einstein's jimmies so hard.

>>7698136

So you grasp at the broken and incomplete GR at the expense of the flawless and beautiful QM? QM predicts many things which are conveniently overlooked despite increasing amounts of experimental confirmation.

>>7698154
>>7698152
Einstein thought it did, but it doesn't really.

>Certain phenomena in quantum mechanics, such as quantum entanglement, might give the superficial impression of allowing communication of information faster than light. According to the no-communication theorem these phenomena do not allow true communication; they only let two observers in different locations see the same system simultaneously, without any way of controlling what either sees. Wavefunction collapse can be viewed as an epiphenomenon of quantum decoherence, which in turn is nothing more than an effect of the underlying local time evolution of the wavefunction of a system and all of its environment. Since the underlying behaviour doesn't violate local causality or allow FTL it follows that neither does the additional effect of wavefunction collapse, whether real or apparent.

From wikipedia but whatever, sue me.

>>7698160
>Flawless and beautiful

So how's that quantum gravity?

>>7698163
>From wikipedia but whatever, sue me.
Expect my lawyer to be in touch.

>>7698163

That sure is some mental gymnastics. Blow all the smoke you want but the predictions speak for themselves.

>>7698168

Trying to shoehorn gravity into QM isn't a problem with QM, it's a problem with current understanding of gravity and spacetime.

File: 12070639_1625251151091029_254775937_n.jpg (15KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 320x320px

Pro Tip:
Anything that has "Theoretical" or "Theory" is not law. It means that they are close to explaining it but still have hiccups and testing and simulations do not reflect reality.
Mainstream science and education tend to push certain theories as fact and ignore any alternative theories, the main one being gravity. I get it that its fun to fantasize, make it look great on paper, and all but when it comes down to practical applications that's where the line is drawn.

Examples of pushed theories into fact:
graviton
general theory of relativity/gravity
Dynamo theory
evolution
big bang

>Einstein: cosmological constant? *facepalm* what a crock of shit what was I thinking?
>physics today: LET'S ROLL!

QM is not flawless you dumbass.

>>7698189
You've offended my religion and this is a hate crime.

Renormalization group is the future of theoretical physics.
Screencap this.

>>7698195
Make me.

>>7698180
Show me the experiment where entanglement has been used to send a *message*, message not just random data, FTL.

>>7698182
And the correct understanding is?....

>>7698207
Nothing pisses me off worse than people cooking up logical loopholes for why relativity must work. I mean really petty shit, loopholes in the truest sense. It's a hack job and it shouldn't be treated like it makes any goddamn sense.

"W-Well, one theory of black holes is that there's a great firewall and more or less nothing in the "center", another is that matter is compacted inside. But relativity says blah blah, so say you sent a person in. Well near the event horizon you'd need to use gamma waves in this case to measure this person's state. So whether there was a great firewall or not, or whether it depended on your perspective, doesn't matter! Because you'd need to fry them anyway to know!

Susskind, what the fuck are you talking about.

>>7698219
What the fuck are you talking about?

Got that experiment?

>>7698225
It's just a proposed way to "reconcile" a hypothetical relativity related paradox to do with reference frames. I say "reconcile" because the solution is retarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR3Msi1YeXQ

File: backinmyday-shoehorn.jpg (36KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 350x500px

>>7697921
>shoehorning gravity
>>7698001
>being shoehorned
>>7698182
>to shoehorn gravity
people don't use shoehorns any more, Grandpa

>>7698265
fuck you, I use a shoehorn all the damn time and im too young to even be allowed on 4chan

>>7698231
So no entangled FTL messages though huh?

>>7698266

*User was banned for this post*

>>7698277
No. This is just something unrelated I thought was obnoxious.

>>7698185
SUCK A DICK

>>7698282
>why cant i get a job doing theoretical math?

>>7698189

Name the flaw.

>>7697921
>Face it, theoretical physics is a fucking joke.
Your understanding of it is.

>>7697921
If you can't prove your claims with experiment then of course it's going to be a joke. Hate to be Lord Kelvin but I think we have reached the limit of what we can work out on Earth. Everything past what can be inferred from LHC will always be pure speculation

>>7698207

Nice try on moving those goalposts, but experiment has shown that entangled particles do interact spookily at a distance. One of several implications of Schrodinger's equation which many cannot deal with.

>>7698493
>but experiment has shown that entangled particles do interact spookily at a distance
How so?
>get two pieces of paper
>write the same word on each
>seal both in envelopes
>mail one to friend in Tokyo
>mail one to friend in London
>friends open envelops simultaneously
>spooky action at a distance!
>get arrested for violating laws of physics
>write tell-all book in prison
>go on Oprah
>profit

>>7698493
lol

File: 18j23gs0rceq7jpg.jpg (46KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 636x358px

>>7697921
>wasted decades promoting superstring theory as fact
There has been a lot of opposition to ST, but it is generally pushed quite hard.
>wasting even more cycles on shoehorning gravity into QM
Matter is the source of gravity (specifically the stress tensor), and matter is quantum, so quantum gravity is unavoidable.
>"dark" matter and energy fudge figures being paraded as factual before evidence
There is evidence - experimental and theoretical - and there is evidence against other explanations, such as modified gravity.
>totally ignores that QM breaks causality despite experimental evidence predicted by the maths
Untrue, causality is a basic requirement of any realistic QFT.
>totally ignores that QM breaks FTL despite experimental evidence (entanglement) and practical application of the same (quantum encryption)
You misunderstand. Entanglement cannot send information - see the no-communication theorem.
>totally ignores that conscious observation is required for reality to exist, despite this being obvious since Schrodinger's equations and the double-slit experiment
That's not what observation means.

>>7698485

While there are plenty of Kelvins, I believe the problem is the serious dogma and official memes in theoretical physics; where theories like dark energy are taken as law, where theories like schrodinger's equation are cherrypicked. While it is now taboo to consider the almost mystical train of thought raised by early quantum pioneers, they were smart enough to deliver this framework which has barely moved since.

>>7698500
>Matter is the source of gravity

Is it? That's almost an assumption at this point. While there is clearly a close relationship between matter and gravity, nobody has any idea how it works. Decades of experiment have proven fruitless.

>Entanglement cannot send information - see the no-communication theorem

Moving the goalposts. Instantaneous state despite distance.

>That's not what observation means.

That's right in a cosmos without conscious observers, information recorders spontaneously appear. Oh wait they don't.

>>7697921
>wasted decades promoting superstring theory as fact
Oh, look, someone who doesn't understand ST.
>wasting even more cycles on shoehorning gravity into QM
Gravity exists, so I don't understand this complaint.
>"dark" matter and energy fudge figures being paraded as factual before evidence
Those theories were created BECAUSE of evidence. The reason they are called "dark" is because we don't know what's going on.
>totally ignores that QM breaks causality despite experimental evidence predicted by the maths
No...
>totally ignores that QM breaks FTL despite experimental evidence (entanglement) and practical application of the same (quantum encryption)
Again, you don't understand the concept. "FTL" is just the simplification of "information can't travel faster than light". It has nothing to do with how fast things happen. QE is such a fucking meme - it's entirely based on deduction.
>totally ignores that conscious observation is required for reality to exist, despite this being obvious since Schrodinger's equations and the double-slit experiment
>"Observation" means any form of measurement that interacts with the particle to determine its state. This happens literally every time a particle and a force interact.

>Captcha: Freemasons

>>7698505
Decades of theory haven't given us a viable alternative to gravity.

>>7697921
>Come on, guise, the more they find out about how reality works, the harder it is for me to understand. Can we just stop studying it now? People shouldn't study things I don't understand!

>>7698493
Spooky action not necessarily = spooky communication.

Do you even understand how it works and why we can't send messages with it?

1) The particles themselves don't travel FTL - So if you wanna talk to someone 1000000 light years away you have to wait for one of the entangled particles to reach him still.

2) After one measurement is done they are no longer entangled - You can't just keep flipping them back and forth it only works once for a given entangled pair.

3) The outcome is random - Say you want to send a binary message to someone, pretty important to know if you're sending them a 1 or a 0. With entanglement we can't control which particle will be spin up (1) and which will be down (0), we just know they'll be opposite.

Still think the no communication theorem is "mental gymnastics"? There are real factors preventing the FTL communication.

>>7698480
QFT does what QM don't

>>7698531

>defending supersting theory

>>7698665
>The particles themselves don't travel FTL

Mental gymnastics. A sweet salve for the butthurt reality that they do communicate FTL.

>>7697921
Did you learn QM from a philosophy textbook or something? None of that is true.

>>7698266

They still make shoehorns? I haven't seen one of those since the 90's.

>>7697921
>theoretical physics is GR and quantum theory and nothing else

Fuck off to your popsci channels you dingus.

Without experimental proof, your science is a meme. Deal with it.

File: shoehorn.jpg (28KB, 1063x1063px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1063x1063px

>>7699680
I have a few, they're perfect backscratchers

>>7699449
Reading comprehension bro that's not what I was saying.

I want to see if I understand how entanglement works. This is my understanding of it:

So, when you create a particle, you actually have to create two, in opposite quantum states, one spin-up, one spin-down, for example. This means that, theoretically, by measuring one particle, you can know the spin state of the other particle. However, this violates the uncertainty principle (which I don't fully understand either - why exactly is the uncertainty principle true? Like, I've seen the math, but why does it happen?). So what actually happens is that, once you measure one of the particles, they become disentangled, and the other particle is now in a superposition between up and down, with equal (50%) probabilities of being in either when measured.

This seems to break FTL, since this process is instantaneous. However, I'm seeing a lot of people saying that it doesn't break FTL, which makes me think I don't actually understand entanglement. Am I wrong?

>>7699828

Well first you have to assume that it doesn't count because of some arbitrary demarcation. Then you have to ignore all the experimental evidence and hide behind a set of complex equations which says it's not possible. Then you will understand that two quantum states can collapse identically despite distances involved and there is no FTL scenario. :^)

>>7699828
Basically it works like this:

>2 particles interact with each other becoming one entangled system. These particles will always be found to have oppositie spin values no matter where they are in relation to one another.

Doesn't sound so weird until you realize we cannot predict which particle will be up and which will be down, we just know they will be opposite.

This suggests one of 2 things:

>There are hidden un accounted for variables

Einstein supported this but recent tests have things not looking so good for local hidden variables.

>Neither particle really has a spin until we measure it, at that point it instantaneously effects the other particle making it be opposite.

He didn't like this one but really even if it is true it doesn't necessarily invalidate his theories.

>>7698533
Gravity's electromagnetic.

The electromagnetic force~

Zomg attractive repulsive force.

>>7697934

>muh materialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

The only argument I've seen against the Von Neumann chain dilemma to date is "IMPOSSIBRU! ;w;"

>>7700028
>says there are no counter arguments
>links an article with several counter arguments

Anon...

>>7700022
P.S. Electromagnetic fields follow inverse-square-law just like 'durrGravity' does.

>>7700042

>counter argument
>appeal to consensus

Face it nobody can break the dilemma outside of moving the goalposts.

>>7700022
I can't even attract repulsive. My love life is theoretical.

>>7700062
Anon you don't even understand the dilemma

>>7700028
Why would you pick that interpretation over any other?

>>7700089
>>7700090

The dilemma speaks for itself: how can a superposition collapse without being measured? Spontaneous measurement devices are deus-ex machina which is ironic in view of the realist case which boils down to "objection", a poll and Einstein being butthurt about it.

Schrodinger's equation is explicit in how it describes collapse in interaction with measurement. Must we ignore the how of measurement?

>>7700106
Well I'm gonna stop observing you so have fun returning to the quantum ether.

You don't exist if no one observes you right?

>>7700110

I observe me. Nice strawman though.

>>7700073
Maybe you need to be more like yourself. Being more like everyone else, I assume, creates repulsion.

>>7700117
How do you explain history? People alive today did not observe ancient history so how can we know it happened?

How do you explain things like the big bang or evolution? Us evolving consciousness depended on a series of events actually happening yet according to this theory none of them could have happened until we consciously observed them.

Also what is the cut off point? How conscious do you need to be? Can a dog collapse a wave function? A fly? A coma patient?

>>7700106
>how can a superposition collapse without being measured
By interacting with other systems.

>>7700008
Or, you know, many-worlds. I'm surprised no one here seems to be suggesting that, it doesn't seem any crazier to me than wavefunction collapse, which seems to violate FTL and causality.

As far as I know, Schroedinger's equation doesn't favour any one state over another, the only reason we have collapse as a hypothesis is that it was the best hypothesis scientists could come up with in the early 1900s when all this was being sorted out. But that doesn't mean many-worlds isn't true.

Also, I do know that local hidden variables has been disproven outright because of Bell's theorem.

>>7700138
>By interacting with other systems.

What systems? How did they collapse? Spontaneous decoherence is deus-ex machina and is a salve for butthurt, not an actual theory.

>>7700135

You are trapped in your own linear timeline, realist matter perspective. From your attitude it is clear that you are closed to the idea, so I won't waste my breath.

File: 300k my ass.jpg (35KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 720x540px

>>7697921
Since OP is obvious b8, can someone explain what exactly is Theoretical mathematics? What kind of maths is theoretical and could a math scrub get good enough to dabble in it? pic contains some relations

>>7700152
>FTL and causality

Both are assumptions.

>>7700158
Please enlighten me anon

>>7700157
Emergence I guess.
How does the conscious observer collapse a wavefunction?

>>7700176
He's busy looking up a pop sci explanation for this I'm sure.

The fact is QM is still largely up in the air. We really don't know wtf is going on at that level despite OP's claims.

And yes I know we can make some decent predictions about certain things but by no means does that suggest we've got it all figured out.

We don't know exactly how/why wave functions collapse or if that's really even what's happening.

>>7697921
When you come up with a single answer to explain every known natural phenomenon, theoretical physics will cease. Till then, let the intelligent people decide what's worth entertaining

>>7697921
No you are just retarded. Open a textbook for once.

>>7700161
I think they're more than just assumptions. You see FTL pop up in multiple places, and I think we'd need more evidence to prove that causality isn't something fundamental. And plus, this still doesn't explain why one collapse is favoured over another collapse, when that is nowhere in the Schroedinger equation.

>>7700176
Emergence is another word for magic, it doesn't provide any explanation for anything.

>>7700188
>ad-hominem

>>7700220

>ad-hominem
>appeal to authority

>>7700135
you sound really ignorant I suggest you stop posting until you get older and after introspection

>>7700188
>The fact is QM is still largely up in the air

Quantum mechanics is the best and most complete theory that physics has. The very fact that QM is so strong and beautiful that it has given theorists enough confidence to be bullish with bullshit theories like superstring, purely because they have good math as well.

The theory of QM has proven to be bulletproof, what is lacking is an unwillingness to accept what the theory explicitly lays out for us because it contradicts our expectations.

>>7700240
K bro. Do you think I'll ever be as smart as you?

>>7700242
>strong and beautiful
>bullish
This has to be trolling. You're slowly turning this into some kind of kek fantasy.

File: 1359337390789.jpg (25KB, 350x398px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 350x398px

>>7700227
> it doesn't provide any explanation for anything.
Okay, then I'll go with the MWI, problem solved.
You only addressed the first half of my reply though.
How does the conscious observer collapse a wavefunction? And why does it have to be conscious?

Why do people still seriously argue about quantum foundations? This subject has been nothing but drivel for some time now.

>>7700271
I think there's a lot of confusion about what "observation" means, according to collapse theory. "Observation" in the context of collapse theory is basically a synonym for interaction. It just means that the particle interacts with something else. It does NOT have to be conscious, that would imply ontologically basic consciousness which is dumb.

Now, I'm not actually a proponent of collapse theory - I'm leaning towards many-worlds, but there's some things I need to understand about it first before I become a proponent of it.

>>7700271

Theory and experiment shows that an observer is required for the superposition to collapse. No theory or experiment shows that this can happen spontaneously. The irony of your comic is that the miracle is to ignore the obvious.

>>7700271
Observation exists only within the mind.

>>7700280
>particle interacts with something else.

What collapses the particle that interacts with it AND SO FORTH!

>>7698001
You're overflowing with arrogance and ignorance. Actually understand what you're criticizing before criticizing it.

First of all go and understand what observer means. It most certainly does not imply some magical being looking at shit.

Also dark matter was formulated due to evidence breaking current models, why the fuck would they come up with some weird shit for nothing? Are you truly a retard?

>>7700287
Well, that's really the question, isn't it. That's one reason why I'm not a fan of collapse theory, since I think it erroneously favours one state over another, when the Schroedinger equation does not.

>>7697943
Observation does not mean a pair of eyes staring at a fucking wave you moron. Observation just means interaction with the surroundings. Do you think humans are fucking special beings, our eyes are fucking magical devices or some shit

>>7700306

According to your interpretation. Care to explain how a measurement can be made without an interactive party?

>>7700298

Are you angered?

>>7700315
I do not observe him to be so, so he isn't

>>7700300

MWI is a decent attempt but IMHO only succeeds in the continuation of dogma rather than the clarification of QM.

>>7700285
>Theory and experiment shows that an observer is required for the superposition to collapse.
No, some interpretations of theory and experiment conclude that a conscious observer is required.
The MWI for example doesn't even have wave-function collapse.

>>7697921
Theoretical physics is a meme science, but everything you've said about QM is wrong. And QM has basically solved since the 1930s, so it has no relevance to "current" theoretical physics.

>>7698185
Kill yourself

>>7700347

MWI has literally zero experimental or theoretical proof. Maybe if and when gravity is integrated, but until then it's a handwave.

>>7700374

Lord Kelvin pls.

>>7700383
>MWI has literally zero experimental or theoretical proof.
Do you know what an interpretation is?
>An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain quantum mechanics beyond existing theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
The reason why there are more than one interpretation is that experiment and theory leave holes.
The Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, the MWI, and the Copenhagen interpretation all make the same experimental predictions.
Unfortunately I don't have time for anymore tonight, goodnight.

File: tmp_25709-1446572428662-1292963372.gif (2MB, 448x243px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x243px

>>7700271
Any system that recieves enough information about a particle will have to interact with it to obtain that information. Hence the act of measuring disturbes the system because it requires the wavefunction to react to the potential of the measuring apparatus. The information propagates from measuring equipment to computers and human beings and every system involved behaves as if the wavefunction collapsed. You can view this as a combined system because the measurement gives a strong interaction between the different parts.

The main philosophical hiccups are in determining if there is an objective physical reality in which the wave function collapses, but this is a bit of a silly question if your an empiricist because you would have to measure the wavefunction/equipment/observer combined system to find out. You may argue that you could measure the particle and then move it to another observer to let them measure it, but experiments with entanglement show that the combined system stays coherent even if you would naively assume that there would be FTL information travel involved (this is just a paradox as the no information theorem shows).

Don't get spooked into thinking qm just perturbes the newtonian view of the universe a bit, it should radically change your perspective.

>theory overrides empiricism

That's the problem with physics today, it's too wrapped up in theory to be open-minded about empirical observation. Take the meme-drive for example; sure it appears to be bullshit, but what if it's not? That effect could be a breakthrough for the otherwise stagnant science.

For a classic example, check out this interesting lecture and the butthurt assclowns attacking during question time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

>>7700383
>zero experimental proof
Sure, but neither does collapse theory. And, many-worlds is a simpler theory from an Occamian perspective, since it doesn't break FTL & causality. I'm not saying it's definitely true, but it's better than collapse theory.

>>7701278

MWI is increasingly shaky in light of experimental proofs of causality-breaking like the delayed choice quantum eraser.

>>7701278
>simpler theory from an Occamian perspective

Infinite parallel worlds, simpler? Only if you have a pathological aversion to the possibility that there is an extradimensional component to life.

>>7697921
The stuff taught at university in QM is definitely wrong and this will become apparent in the near future.

Yes, theoretical physics is meme science philosophy tier and almost certainly incorrect.

Only one theory can be correct, and it's predeterminism.

>>7697921
I don't think anything involving infinity is actually correct.

>>7701622
I'm just giving this post a (You) because it is 100% correct.

Sure, it might not count because it's me, but fuck it.

You plebs better learn real quick that the future already exists. Somebody is going to get famous and it isn't me, so at least let me have my arrogance and shove it in your faces.

>>7701626
Wildberger pls go

>>7701601
Life is complex. Consciousness is complex. My prior probability for ontologically basic mental entities existing is extremely low, so it would require enormous evidence (which we don't have) to prove. If it's true, and there are OBMEs, then I want to believe that, but it's extremely unlikely.

But I don't see why that would have anything to do with collapse theory.

>>7701571
I'm struggling to understand this honestly (not a professional physicist). I'm hesitant to say that it's causality-breaking though, just from my initial impressions. Also, it seems to say that it's not necessarily causality-breaking on the wiki page, but I can't verify if the reasoning makes sense without understanding what the heck is going on.

>>7701660
>I'm just giving this post a (You)
Is this something a lot of people are posting, or is it just you?

Either way, well done. When genuine intrigue fades, this is what remains. Waiting for the (You), that's what it's all about. It is good to see someone acknowledge this level.

>>7701678

It's causality breaking because the effect is observed BEFORE the cause of superposition collapse. It takes serious cognitive dissonance to ignore this fact.

B8 thread

>>7701686
It gets frustrating watching the plebs ignore my obvious genius.

>>7701694
The wiki page says otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#Does_delayed_choice_violate_causality.3F

I'm not saying I understand this argument, but this is what it says.

>>7701746

Oh the wiki says so? Well consider the experiment invalidated despite published papers saying otherwise.

>>7697921
>conscious observation is required for reality to exist
so if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, it doesn't make a sound?

>>7701757
I was posting that to ask you to explain why the wiki page is wrong, not as an explicit refutation. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the experiment myself.

>>7701770

Reading that section breaks down to a subtle ad-hominem, a florid handwave and an appeal to authority because some theoretical proof overrides observation.

>In fact, a theorem proved by Phillippe Eberhard shows that if the accepted equations of relativistic quantum field theory are correct, it should never be possible to experimentally violate causality using quantum effects.

In other words: IMPOSSIBRU!

>>7701770

How about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#Against_consensus

>>7701777
>>7701783
Alright, I'm seeing that now. This is concerning. Does this imply that FTL is possible?

>>7701892

Not necessarily, but the clockwork cosmos isn't as straightforward as some would suggest. Determinism is pretty much illusory.

>>7701278

MWI on the surface may appear simpler, by handwaving away the wave-function entirely, but it has serious shortcomings in explaining many nuances of quantum mechanics and probability, which I'll leave to you to research fully for your own intellectual satiety. :)

The Copenhagen interpretation is pretty much identical to the Von Neumann interpretation except instead of stating the blatant requirement for some origin measurement to collapse the wave-function, it *mumble mumble* look over there! Just pretends it doesn't matter. :^)

I don't see why consciousness is such a taboo in theoretical science and if it were taken more seriously, may open the door to further discover. If only as a lateral-thinking exercise if not a concrete theory.

>>7701766

Prove otherwise. :^)

>>7700152
Anyone who suggests many worlds or wavefunctions are mentally devoid of intelligence and/or a vegetable.

Only normies suggest that.

The truth is obviously predeterminism, but only a genius can see how it unifies GR and QM.

>>7701766
what is this, 1st grade?
There exists an objective event the result of which could be interpreted by a homo sapien within the vicinity as sound waves

>>7702833

The husk (body) is an automaton marching along it's predestined path. The mind (soul) is extradimensional and collapses the present as it sees fit, which the body marches along.

>>7702837

Prove it.

Theoretical physics isn't a science.

It's the "theoretical" part of physics, which is a science.

>>7697921
I think the celebrity surrounding the field after Einstein ruined it.

It is lovely seeing plebs discuss physics because they look at docs. and youtube. Maybe first grasp the implication of a theory before making assumptions ey?

>>7700313
You can't make a measurement without an interactive party, but that party doesn't have to be a living being staring at the particle, dumbass. Everyone hears the word observation and thinks their magic eyeballs make the world go round. Before you post again, look up what observation means for quantum mechanics.

>>7702858
>The mind (soul) is extradimensional

Have you charged your energy crystals today?

>>7704571

The problem is that nowadays, theory seems to override observation. Observation which doesn't match theory gets shouted down and ignored, and some frankly wild theories are taught as fact despite there being zero empiric evidence.

>>7704670

I know what it means, do you? Are you aware of the Von Neumann interpretation? Are you calling Von Neumann a dumbass?

>>7704636

Literally the stupidest brainfart I've seen on /sci/ today. Behead yourself.

>>7704783
And... You proved my point.

Those who have studied physics here. Dont even partake in the stupidity that is this fallacious proclamations of physics.

>>7704777
Jesus. The collapse is happening because it interacts and have to be specified in spacetime.

Do you think experimental physicists are looking at the collapse with their own eyes? Or are they looking at data accumulated by the instruments?

>>7704799

The irony of your post knows no limit.

>>7704814

Ahahahaha and you're pointing fingers at who doesn't understand the experiment or the interpretation? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU MORON!

>>7704817
Hahahaha... Omg... My sides are burning!

>>7704815
Oh no. The sarcasm knows no limit.

>>7704814

How about you educate yourself before chiming in on something of which you know nothing?

Just google it: Von Neumann chain.

>>7704831
How about you take your pseudo interpretation to a philosophical forum instead?

>>7704833

>Von Neumann
>pseudo physics

Well we sure know who the pleb is now.

>>7704841
I know you so sincerly wants this solipsistic interpretation to be a link unto a more abstract reality. But there is nothing on this.

I never said Neumann was a pseudo physicist. I said your interpretation of physics was pseudo scientific.

>>7704814

>implying that instruments spontaneously appear

>>7704865
Wow maybe you should stick to sticks and stones if you are so anal-retendent.

>>7704856

OK then pretend it doesn't exist with your copenhagen handwave, I don't care enjoy your meme science. two centuries from now they'll be laughing at morons like you just like we snigger at idiots like Kelvin.

>>7704868

>name calling

Thank you for conceding the debate. Goodbye.

>>7704874
Well there is the real agenda. The schism of reality. As i said, go back to philosophy.

>>7704876
Good ridence then :) science will be alot less shameful

>>7704891

u r not very intelligent...die

>>7704895
Oh a fundamentalist to. Maybe it is time to grow up?

>>7698185
theory: idea how something works and the underlying logical structure to the smallest possible element which hasn't been proven wrong yet.

law: mathematical formula to describe effects from a theory like Kepler's laws or newton's laws of motion. These two even might be the worst examples to show a law is fact because the underlying theory isn't behaving very nice compared to all other known natural forces.