Quantum Shit

>>8909005
The wave function's absolute squared distribution is non-uniform, yes.

>>8909005
Yes, the effect happens just the same.

Although it's worth pointing out that the probability interpretation is "just that" - an interpretation (maybe the only good interpretation we have).

What's different is that the quantum systems can be more complicated. I.e. some events that would describe joint events simply can't occur. That is, events for which the analog in classical mechanics would be uncorrelated, and so you don't naively expect the complicated behaviors..

>>8909005
why don't you fucking go and read a book on it if you want to know instead of asking retarded questions about things you don't actually care about?

>>8909012
>>8909029
Right that clears it up, thanks. So basically there’s a possibility that the dice can influence each other.

>>8909049
Jeez, sorry for talking about science on a science board. I do have a reading list but it grows longer faster than I can keep up with it. This question has been bothering me.

>>8909005
Copenhagen interpretation is brainlet tier.

pilot wave theory master race.

File: One_dimensional_quantum_random_walk[1].png (10KB, 360x235px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 360x235px

>>8909172
>So basically there’s a possibility that the dice can influence each other.
Kinda

The components that make up the superposition state have phases that can cancel each other out. For example, in a quantum version of a random walk on a 1D line, the final location is most likely to be off to a one side due to these phases.

Pic related, blue is the quantum probability distribution and red is the classical.

>>8909005
No, anyone in this thread saying otherwise is wrong. Your dice rolls can be predicted, given all initial starting conditions(position, velocity, orientation etc.). Given some pretty high level physics calculations and enough information you could find out what you would roll before you rolled it. According to the quantum uncertainty principle theres a fundamental inability to know everything about any given subatomic particle. Its not that we dont have the tech, its a property of the universe. We can never know the exact position and momentum of say an electron, because the more specifically one is defined, the less specifically the other is defined. The closest we will ever get is a probable distribution. Its pretty much the lowest limit at which our universe simulation is capable of rendering.

>>8909005
Yes, there's coherent and incoherent mixing of states.
Basically you can square the amplitudes and you can add them together; the order you do that in determines if it's "normal" or "quantum" probability.

You know, if you wanted an entity to prove it was god, you could have it predict quantum random numbers.

>>8909204
the eigenfunctions for various situations dictate weird quantum behaviors
>quantum tunneling
>antitunneling