>Oh shit our model is completely fucked and says there is

Do you know anything about this kind of physics? Just asking

What I'd like to know is how they got away with basing quantum physics on probability, rather than just trying harder to figure out a measuring method that doesn't influence the result.

>>8726302
>trying harder to figure out a measuring method that doesn't influence the result.
If you want to try and figure that out go ahead. But according to current physics theories there is a hard fundamental limit on how much uncertainty exists in your measurement.

>>8726391
I think it's because the math said that the particles are fundamentally unpredictable so they didn't see any point. The math works out perfectly, it's just that we have absolutely no idea what the reality of quantum physics is. I mean, they don't actually exist as a 'wave of probability' in reality, that's just how we model it.

>>8726391
Believe me anon, it has been tried like hell

>>8726411
But why? How can something never be truly located in space it seems so absurd.if you loom at your computer desk as a probability wave itd be verticle as fuck because its 100 percent at one coordinate set. But fif you resolve to its constitutent particles you dont know shit? What?

>>8726430
>if you loom at your computer desk as a probability wave itd be verticle as fuck because its 100 percent at one coordinate set.
But it's not 100% at a certain location. It could be a millimeter or 2 off from where you say it is. The difference is that the desk as a whole is on a completely different scale than the uncertainty in its position. When you get down to the particles, saying it's a millimeter or 2 off is a lot more meaningful of a statement. Your measurements have to be much much more precise because everyday objects are unimaginably larger than the quantum world, so the uncertainty matters less when making definitive statements.

>>8726302
lol, thats how most science is. engineering is particularly notorious.

the big secret the eggheads don't want to reveal is that everything we do is a rude approximation.

>>8726538
The hilarious part is that even with such rough approximations we get shit to work pretty well.

>>8726302

Yeah this made sense up until the point where dark matter was directly observed with gravitational lensing, proving that there is *something* there that matches the characteristics of a WIMP

>>8726556
Well maybe a WIMP, another popular theory has dark matter as stupidly small and numerous.

They changed the model to explain reality. That's what all scientists should do when faced with results that contradict theory.

File: dubseldore.jpg (23KB, 248x249px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 248x249px

>>8726302
How many times is this guy going to make the same thread about how he thinks dark matter is made up

I won't pretend to understand too much about modern cosmology, but a lecturer I had who does understand quite a bit about modern cosmology isn't a huge fan of the whole dark matter/dark energy thing. It's not that people aren't aware it's basically an asspull, it's that they haven't come up with anything better.

I'm of the opinion dark energy and sentient beings are coorilated through information processing and novelty. In other words lots of dark matter means there is a lot of information processing and novelty generation going on out there somewhere. Humans are designed like living replicating antenna.

>>8726302
>make up some shit
Lrn2inductive-inference fgt pls

>>8726536
absolute accuracy with 5 billion percent error margins

>>8726391
>Quantum mechanics is deterministic!
>I INVENTED THE HIDDEN VARIABLE THEORY
>Now, let me just go see if anyone else has thought of this
>Oh... It's taught alongside Schrodinger's Equation in QM 101...