Is quantum physics based on probabilties simply because we aren't

Lol how the fuck is that even possible that thing would be leaking fore sure haha

>>8722251
It's based on probabilities because it appears to be probabilistic.

No it's based on probabilities because linear algebra and Fourier transforms.

It's literally just math.

>>8722262
>He thinks algebra can't give exact answers.

It's probabilistic because the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents you from simultaneously measuring the position and momentum of a very small particle at the same time. Without that data you can't calculate exactly where it will be in the future, so you can only use statistics to determine an area where it might be.

>>8722251
No, it's exact. We can exactly calculate the time evolution of shit if we knew the original states. Problem is, we don't know the original states exactly and there is absolutely no way in hell we ever could. Every attempt to extract information from the system will significantly alter the system and we would gain nothing.

>>8722251
What you're suggesting is basically non-local pilot wave theory.
Bell's theorem disproves local hidden variables (classical deterministic quantum mechanics). This leaves us with two option:
- Non-local hidden variables. This theory says that quantum mechanics isn't probabilistic, but it also somewhat defies special relativity.
- The standard Copenhagen interpretation, which is probabilistic.
There's no way to determine which one is correct, but the general consensus is on the Copenhagen interpretation.

>>8722359

Yes but the actual phenomenon appears to contain this uncertainty property. It isn't merely a shortcoming in our capabilities due to needing to interact with the particle to measure it, the double split experiment demonstrates that photons interact with themselves as a wave.

>>8722359
>- Non-local hidden variables. This theory says that quantum mechanics isn't probabilistic, but it also somewhat defies special relativity.
>- The standard Copenhagen interpretation, which is probabilistic.
>There's no way to determine which one is correct, but the general consensus is on the C
>>8722449


imho it's just an effect of cumulated error, knowing how physicist like to give "special" and "mysterious" meaning to certain phenomona

>>8722411
I thought there were theoretically experiments to prove which one is right, we just don't have the technology currently to perform said experiments.

>>8722411
Pilot wave is still probabilistic.

>>8722474
I don't think so. The thing is, that physicists have to decide what they believe in - special relativity or determinism (because of bell's theorem). Most would rather accept the former over of the latter, even in the cost of an extremely unintuitive theory (and no matter what they choose, the theory would still be unintuitive and "mysterious".

>>8722476
Not that I know of. Unless you have some sort of experiment that can prove non-locality.

>>8722484
No it isn't. That's the whole point of the theory - choosing determinism.