>quantum 'physicists' literally invented an infinite

>>9168950
Phycisists have a bad way of speaking figuratively when describing the universe. All they are saying is that the POSSIBILITY of things happening in a different way exists, not that it really is in the present. What could have been does pose a legitimate moral question, for example what if you had tunneled out into space onto the moon?

>>9168950
just because the math works doesn't mean its real

infinite universes make no sense and there isn't any way to prove they exist so there's no point in it besides thought experiments

>>9168959
They exist as a possibility within the framework of the theory. For example if one were to bet one's life on a coin flip, even if one wins there would exist a possible reality whereby that person is dead. Which leads one to the conclusion that permitting the possibility that one dies based on random chance is a bad thing to do, right? (Or that the coin flip could be rigged)

>>9168972
A coinflip isn't random, ever.

>>9168972
>, even if one wins there would exist a possible reality whereby that person is dead

Wrong. Why are you physicsfag so fucking retarded in general? You do realize that there could be infinite universes in which you win right? You could win in all the universes.

In other words: having infinite universes does not imply all possibilities will happen.

I also get this shit a lot in the Rick and Morty community.
>XDD IF THERE IZ INFNUT UNIVARSES THEN U HAV INFANUT RACKS THURFOR THERE IS RICK END MARTY IN WHICH (SOME BULLSHIT) IS TRUE!

>>9168997
>I don't like Rick and Morty do I fit in to the contrarian circlejerk now?

>>9168959
does the mandlebrot set exist?

does pi exist?

does base-n exist?

do triangles exist?

(personally I'd say yea but im asking you)

>>9168998
No, I do like Rick and Morty. It is literally the only non-japanese show I watch. What I dislike is the community. It is sad to see a bunch of normies trying to grasp the concept of infinity and failing.

This was in my mind because recently I watched a video about a Rick and Morty theory in which the guy uses that argument to "prove" some retarded idea he had. Having infinite universes does not imply there is a universe in which a certain event happens. Nothing is guaranteed. And it is sad because in the show that is hinted. In one episode Rick expresses that there is a finite number of possible dimensions he can use to replace himself in the case he destroys his dimension again. So the show is trying to teach you infinity works, but the dense faggots are too retarded to comprehend.

>>9169004
usually when infinity is used in the context of how many universes there could be, it is assumed to mean a divergent exploration of possible universes.

>>9169002
they don't really exist. they are all just concepts that we use to understand the world around us.

it might help us to understand probability fields by visualizing an infinite set of universes. but just because we can imagine the possibility doesn't make it so

>>9168950
You don't want to accept that your life want predetermined and your fuck ups are your own.

>>9169060
wasn't

>>9168950
Ed W. Called, says u r a fag.

>>9168950
I personally like the Penrose interpretation

In physics, nothing, and I repeat, absolutly nothing is inherently "random". Everything we understand is deterministic, or we know too little about it and can only make educated guesses, which doesn't mean nature guesses, only us humans.

File: 1483696039560.jpg (46KB, 600x602px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x602px

this seems like a suitable thread for my question regarding entanglement.
Lets say there are 2 entangled particles light-years apart, what happens if you measure one particle? As far as I know you can't transmit information faster than light, so on the other end you don't have a way to say if the first one was measured and they are no longer entangled? For example you are measuring spin and the first one is down, so other must be up (I think??). I fail to see the spookynes of the entanglement, because it seems to me that this is could happen at the moment of entanglement - namely one particle going down and the other one going up. You just don't know which one has what spin until you measure it. Upon measuring you get the knowledge of particle 1 being down, so naturally the particle 2 will be up.
I am sure I am missing something here, so can someone clear it up for me?

>>9169695
Keep measuring at regular intervals as they split further apart.

Get to furthest possible point.
Go beyond.
Return within measuring distance.
Keep trying to see if it is not correct.

>>9168950
many-worlds is just like god
>it's really there i swear but you can't see, hear, feel, detect or interact with it in any way just trust me

>>9169058
if they don't exist, then how are we able to engineer machines and predict natural phenomena which do exist based on their very specific, well defined properties?

>>9169808
can you communicate with or confirm the existence of another universe?

>>9169750
lol
just like dark matter/energy

has physics just gone full retard

>>9168950
why does the (((clock))) turn jewish in the second universe?

>>9169060
>implying my fuckups aren't my own even in a deterministic universe
Just because nobody is DECIDING to hold me accountable doesn't mean I'm not being held accountable.

>>9169567
Except quantum physics which is inherently probabilistic, but keep believe whatever makes you feel comfortable

>>9169714
what?

>>9169876
kek

>>9169890
What is inherently probabilistic about quantum physics? Did Max Planck ever mention probability in his quantum theory?

>>9170147
Nice bait.

>>9168950
>quantum 'physicists' literally inserted an arbitrary collapse process into schrodinger's linear deterministic equations because they couldn't deal with the fact that the formalism entails many worlds

You contrarian dorks make me sick. There is one universal wavefunction and it has a branching structure.

>>9168950
>>9168972
>>9169808
>>9169567

>being this stupid and misinterpreting scientific theory in order to make yourself feel smart.
Fuck off. at least read the fucking wikipedia page on what you're talking about

File: 1482502439970.jpg (178KB, 750x864px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 750x864px

>>9169695
can anyone pretend that I am a retard and explain in to me, how entanglement is different from the situation I described?

>>9169695
>>9169695
it's just that we cant see the effects of their interation and entanglement until after measurments have been made. Similar to the quantum eraser. It's just awkwardness of wavefucntion and has been turned into a MEME by popsci people. its actually pretty close to what you describe.

>>9170356
Well, the thing I don't get is this.
Hypothetical situation: two particles go into entangler and one then travels far away. We don't know what is their spin, because if we measure them then we lose entanglement. Now, all I can think of is that they got their different spins in the process of entanglement and that's it. We just don't know which one has what spin. When we measure one we know that the other particle will have a different spin and that's it.
Now, how does entanglement actually reveal itself, what is the peculiar thing about it? Can you describe a situation, where it reveals it's spookyness or effects?

>>9170377
>
Hypothetical situation: two particles go into entangler and one then travels far away. We don't know what is their spin, because if we measure them then we lose entanglement. Now, all I can think of is that they got their different spins in the process of entanglement and that's it. We just don't know which one has what spin. When we measure one we know that the other particle will have a different spin and that's it.

This is exactly what is ruled out by Bell's theorem. The quantum state is not a classical object and the particle you measure does not acquire its spin until the measurement process is completed. When you measure one, the other instantaneously acquires the opposite spin.

>Now, how does entanglement actually reveal itself, what is the peculiar thing about it? Can you describe a situation, where it reveals it's spookyness or effects?

It's peculiar because it implies a superluminal causal influence is acting between entangled states. It doesn't violate no-communication because neither side knows what the spins will be until measurement, but the spins are not actually determined UNTIL measurement. There is something non-local occurring and that in turn undermines the local realist picture that all physics has hitherto been constructed upon.

>>9170377
When you measure spin, you effectively measure along a specific axis and force the particle to be either spin up or down about that axis, regardless of it's original axis of spin.

Imagine, then you have two entangled particles, which you claim to have already decided their opposing spins. I measure along a chosen axis my particle and it will either spin "up" with a certain probability or "down". Your particle will have the same probabilities but reversed.

Repeat the experiment enough then and there should be a small percentage of times when both our particles measure the same spin.

This does not happen.

If mine measures up, yours will be down 100% of the time.

That is the spooky.

>>9169695
>Lets say there are 2 entangled particles light-years apart, what happens if you measure one particle? As far as I know you can't transmit information faster than light, so on the other end you don't have a way to say if the first one was measured and they are no longer entangled? For example you are measuring spin and the first one is down, so other must be up (I think??).
Yes, that's all correct.

>I fail to see the spookynes of the entanglement, because it seems to me that this is could happen at the moment of entanglement - namely one particle going down and the other one going up. You just don't know which one has what spin until you measure it. Upon measuring you get the knowledge of particle 1 being down, so naturally the particle 2 will be up.
The spookiness comes from the fact that we have done experiments that make it clear that the above is NOT what is happening. The two particles quite definitely do NOT have a predetermined spin when they leave each other; rather, this is determined apparently-randomly when you try to measure it. And yet the two particles that are far apart do match up with each other.

We do now have a nonspooky understanding of what is going on here, mind. But the fact that the obvious hypothesis you described is experimentally ruled out, and yet the entanglement is there, is what seemed spooky to early quantum physicists.

>>9170437
>We do now have a nonspooky understanding of what is going on here

And what's that?

>>9170419
>>9170419
>This is exactly what is ruled out by Bell's theorem. The quantum state is not a classical object and the particle you measure does not acquire its spin until the measurement process is completed. When you measure one, the other instantaneously acquires the opposite spin.
This is the part that escapes me at the 3rd cosmic speed.
How is it known that the parcticle doesn't have spin? Because if the only way to know the spin is measuring it, how can we say, that the spin is undetermined? Is it just not measured?
I don't really get why is there a difference between undetermined state and unmeasured one? How this undetermined state actually manifest, can you give an example?

>>9168950
Sorry to say my dude, but probability exists in the mind, not within nature. Stop projecting your humanness onto the world.

>>9170447
>How is it known that the parcticle doesn't have spin? Because if the only way to know the spin is measuring it, how can we say, that the spin is undetermined? Is it just not measured?

Because that's what the formalism tells us. Quantum theory expresses itself in terms of mathematical properties. Early philosophical debates on the theory emphasized the completeness or non-completeness of the theory. Einstein thought that the indeterminacy must be epistemic (a function of our knowledge). Bell's Theorem is a non-locality proof that answers his concern in the negative. Any hidden variable theory that would make it so the indeterminacy in our minds must satisfy certain inequalities that were later shown to be violated by nature experimentally. Quantum mechanics is non-local and (probably) complete

>>9170444
Inb4 pilot wave shilling.

>>9170447
>>9170463
>terms of mathematical properties

*probabilities

>>9168950
Woah woah woah hol up man quantum physicists had nothing to do with that shit. Multiverse nonsense has nothing to do with QM, pin that shit on someone else

>>9171193
yes it does retard. You have no idea what many-worlds even is. It's entirely based through QM and states.

>>9170463
>Any hidden variable theory that would make it so the indeterminacy in our minds must satisfy certain inequalities that were later shown to be violated by nature experimentally.

Nope. That proof was later shown to be invalid. It has an unstated assumption of locality. This is completely unreasonable because even the Copenhagen interpretation is non-local (universe wide collapse of the wave function).

The pilot wave theory is a disproof by counter-example.

>>9171253
And it has absolutely nothing to do with QM. QM uses an infinite function space to represent quantum states, not infinite universes. I know perfectly well what many worlds """"""interpretation"""""" is, and if you had studied QM in any amount of depth you would recognize that the idea of parallel universes is entirely independent from the science itself. No prediction that QM has ever made has relied on the idea of other universes, and no self respecting physicist has ever relied on other universes to explain how or why the model works. It's a bunch of nonsense that some jackass just said out loud once and every science fiction author latched onto the idea and never let go. And now every brainlet and their fucking mom is under the impression that quantum physics involves parallel universes. It doesn't, and if you are going to talk shit about it fucking learn how the model actually works or fuck right off.

>>9169890
I think part of the problem people have with quantum is when you say that measuring something changes it. People interpret this as meaning a sentient being has to be observing something, implying that we alter the universe just by looking at it. What it really means is any object that alters information (i.e. a lens) can force probabilities to become definite.

>>9171311
you don't know shit what you\'re talking about

>>9171567
I want you to find me an actual science publication post-Everett that relies at all on the many worlds idea

>>9172039
Learn English you dumb motherfucker

>>9168950
Brainlet, please. Contradictory consequences follow from wrong theory, Copenhagen Interpretation in this case, and the only way to deal with wrong theory is to cut it and make a better one.
Though worlds in many-worlds interpretation are not really worlds, they are sates of one universe. They are like worlds because they are independent of each other (orthogonal).

>>9168950
youre actually mentally challenged

>>9172047
I'm waiting.

>>9172039
Is that appeal to authority? Or do you want to say that "shut up and compute" publications prefer to not touch any interpretation including copenhagen?

>>9172242
Interpretations of QM are not falsifiable. No publication has ever made a claim that they justified with an interpretation of QM. Seems strange to claim that physicists "invented parallel universes" when the idea isn't talked about in the actual literature, don't you think? If you are going to insist that many worlds fuckery is the fault of physicists you better find an example that proves me wrong.

>>9172300
>in the actual literature
In a fraction of the actual literature. If they have nothing to say about it, why they would talk about it? It doesn't mean they didn't invent it. They do understand that criticism of copenhagen interpretation is valid and are trying to solve it. And many-worlds interpretation is not a fault, but an achievement.

>>9172242
> appeal to authority
Are you retarded? OP is accusing quantum physicists of inventing parallel universes. If the idea of parallel universes is in fact irrelevant to actual research in the field then this is patently false. And I don't know where you motherfuckers learned quantum but most actual physicists laugh at the many world interpretation even in informal conversation. Basically every physicist that isn't a hard nosed "shut up and calculate" empiricist subscribes to the Copenhagen interpretation.

>>9168950
You realize the opposite is true, right? You have to assume extra information for the MWI to be false.

>>9172387
> why would they talk about it
They fucking don't. At least, not in formal scientific settings. No interpretation of quantum mechanics is relevant in a conversation about actual research in quantum mechanics. A physicist might start talking about many worlds if you got them stoned, or invited them to talk on Ellen. Or maybe a professor finds it easier to explain the model in words if they assume a certain interpretation. Whatever, it's not serious discussion among physicists.
> they are trying to solve it
They are not. Figuring out which interpretation of QM is best is not a question that any physics research is attempting to answer. Fucking prove me wrong and show me the research team currently funded to find the best interpretation.

>>9172431
>actual research
What's that? Applied physics? It's common understanding that applied science can't exist without theoretical science.
>subscribes
Defaults rather than subscribes. And they laugh only because they don't want to change their way of thinking. Well, Copenhagen is ok to shut up and calculate and not try to understand what's going on.

>>9172387
> in a fraction of the literature
Citation please. This should be an easy one Anon, since only a fraction of publications apparently avoids referencing an interpretation of QM. Show me this abundance of literature that does make references to the many worlds theory.

>>9172459
The fuck are you even trying to say? I don't give a single shit which interpretation you want to believe in. It doesn't fucking matter to me. OP said that many worlds came from physicists and it fucking doesn't. Most physicists don't believe in many worlds and the debate about what interpretation makes the most sense doesn't take place in any actual scientific forum. I came here to call OP an idiot for blaming physicists for an idea that they aren't responsible for spreading at all. I didn't come here to argue with you about what interpretation is most reasonable. What I am saying applies to both theoretical and applied physics. Physics research does not consider interpretations of quantum mechanics and most physicists don't believe in the many worlds interpretation even in causal dialogue. These are facts, they are the reasons OP is an idiot, and if you want to dispute them you can present counter examples or fuck off.

>>9172461
Never saw one?
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302164
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906015

>>9172482
>Most physicists don't believe in many worlds
It doesn't matter what applied physics brainlets think about interpretations of QM because it's not their field of expertise. They were told to shut up and calculate, they shouldn't even talk to begin with.

>>9168950
There is one universe and it's made out of probability fields.

You don't even know that yourself, because you did not heavily do the research, you lazy fuck.

File: 1422468099173.png (1MB, 1080x1417px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1417px

>>9169058
>Triangles don't really exist
Please explain

>>9172482
>>9172495
>https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch
heh

>>9172544
Do you not know what reference means?
Ok il ask again with different language. Give me an example of a paper that relies on an interpretation of quantum mechanics to make a certain prediction. Either you completely misunderstood that request or you didn't actually read any of those papers. They present alternative theoretical approaches, and both bring up the implications on correct interpretations of quantum as a consequence of their adjustments. Neither use any interpretation as a basis. Find me a paper that uses the existence of other universes as an assumption in their model. If you are paying attention you should realize that what I'm asking for would not be a scientific paper which is my entire point. Scientific discourse does not deal with claims made on the basis of unfalsifiable assumptions, so interpretations of QM don't deserve to be treated as though they are scientific concepts.

>>9172591
>prediction
Predictive power is only one of traits of a theory.
>that request
Which one?

File: 1500167927061.png (459KB, 549x542px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 549x542px

Fact: Richard Feynman believed in MWI. Many other of the world's best mathematicians, including Steven Hawking, also believes in MWI.

Really causes one to ponder, doesn't it?

>>9172617
> predictive power is only one of the traits
Holy fuck you're a goddamn moron. Predictive power is the entire reason a theory exists. And more than that, it's the only aspect of a theory that is relevant to my actual point. Physicists can't be responsible for an idea that isn't relevant to physics research and that most of them don't even agree with. Many worlds is irrelevant to physics research because it makes no predictions, and no matter how hard you try to downplay that "feature" it will always be true that ideas without predictive power will be entirely irrelevant to research until kingdom fucking come. Again, it doesn't matter what you think is true, all I am saying anything about is what the community of physicists actually takes seriously in a scientific context.

>>9172632
So you're only interested in a theory in light of applied science. Well, that's fine, but applied science is not all there's to science.
If a theory makes contradictory predictions depending on how you compute, you're fine with it as long as you can ignore wrong prediction or they don't affect practical applications?
Many worlds has all the right predictions of QM and cuts all the wrong ones like FTL, time travel and loss of physical reality.

>>9169004
>I watched a video about a Rick and Morty theory
y tho

>>9172671
> assumes I don't value interpretations at all
Ok, I'm convinced: you aren't having a conversation with me. You are just "disagreeing" with me and then saying something you think is clever every time it's your turn to talk.
How many times do I have to fucking say it. I didn't come here to argue about the merits of the many worlds theory. Are you going to go off on how wonderful and complete your interpretation is every fucking time I make a comment? I don't fucking care about what you think is true. People get the idea that parallel universes is a prediction made by QM, or that it's an assumption that QM makes. It's neither, it's something that some people have inferred from the theory. Apparently you think that it's true, fucking good for you. But an idea that is inferred from a theory isn't relevant to research and that's why it isn't discussed seriously in scientific dialogue. Most physicists also don't believe it's true. It also isn't falsifiable. So, it shouldn't be confused with the actual theory of QM which is falsifiable and is relevant to actual research. Just to make sure, I haven't lost you again have I? You keeping track of what point I am trying to make? Are you gonna go on another bullshit tangent about how wonderful the many worlds interpretation is? Alright I'm gonna fuck off from this thread never to return, before I go I just want you to know that your brain is a walnut and it would be best if you ended your life.

>>9172730
>It's neither, it's something that some people have inferred from the theory.
It's only expression of mathematical properties of evolution operator. You're going to argue with math there.
>It also isn't falsifiable.
If Bell inequality held, it would falsify many-worlds interpretation.
>actual research
No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't matter what applied physicists think about interpretations of QM because it's not their field of expertise.

Though it's you who is expressing concerns about quality of theory. If you don't like those concerns being addressed, I don't know, don't express them. I'm not responsible for your lack of focus.

>>9168950
Infinite universes is still a simpler concept then probability.

>>9172591
it doesn't have to be an assumption in the model you faggot learn english

>>9171311
>>9172039
>>9172431
>>9172482
>>9172632

dear god fuck off brainlet. You've clearly had no real world experince of anything related to QM and are just a mild fan of physics. All widly respected physicists support many-worlds as at bare minimum the best interpretation of fundamentals in QM. Please tell me your theory if WMI is just bull? WMI allows for the only viable removal of randomness which is literally like page one of any book on QM.
nice wikipedia copy/paste too. You're retarded and spewing shit you don't understand buddy. Many-Worlds is apart of the basis of current QM understanding.
Stay in highschool kiddo.
t. actual nuclear physicist working on my phd

>>9173458
> actually bought into the many worlds meme
> "everyone smart believes in other universes and if they don't then they aren't smart because I decide who is smart since I am a real nuclear physicist!"
> "No really I'm a real nuclear physicist guys!"
> tfw still working on phd, probably first year and doesn't actually know anything more than a fucking 4th year undergraduate
I just thought I would stop by and say that everyone involved with this conversation should fucking kill themselves, and you should kill yourself the mostest. Please end your life you self important cunt I hope you never get your phd and one of your alternate lives manages to rick and morty his way into this reality and fuck you to death with your own dick.

>>9173458
>worries why electron goes left or right
>doesn't worry when universes pop up left and right

if this isn't religion, nothing is

File: physicists-photo.jpg (766KB, 2126x1397px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 2126x1397px

>>9172069
>They are like worlds because they are independent of each other (orthogonal).
Well put son.

>>9172730
>It also isn't falsifiable.

The bigger issue is that the Copenhagen interpretation is manifestly incomplete.

It has no real theory of measurement, just posits a classical (!!!) apparatus to do the measurement. And it also claims a universe wide collapse of the wave function upon a measurement, but with no real explanation of what is going on.

What is a measurement exactly?

> crickets

>>9173707
>i dont understand what MWI is so im going to make stuff up and curse and get mad!!! GRRR LOOK AT ME MOM!!!!
I wish everyone on this board had atleast some level of education but it's clear that isn't the case.
You're making up things about MWI that arn't true. Please take like 5 minutes and read a bit before you post dude. QM and WMI are inherently tied together because it's by far the most complete explanation that give QE at distance a local meaning and deals with collapse in the C.I. The only real problem with MWI is that it isn't friendly to study as it's more of a psycological interpretarion rather than a pure ontological scenario as most people are used to. This isn't some MEME multiverse bullshit you inbred moron.

>>9172730
>inferred from the theory
is this what people actually think? It's literally a fundamental interpretation of QM because C.I. falls short.
Also MWI is falsifiable retard. Doesn't mean i agree with mwi but you're posting bullshit

m theory is a shit meme that needs to die

>>9168950
the what now and the where how when

what?

File: 1466227714956.jpg (13KB, 350x296px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 350x296px

>>9173707
love it when brainlets get buttfrustraited like this.

>>9168997
I agree with you, despite your rampant autism.

File: hqdefault.jpg (29KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x360px

Shit and Murphy is a 2/10 show, but that doesn't disprove MWI.

All possibilities exist.

Considere this, time is a spatial dimension (4D), but we can only "see" an infinitesimal "slice" of it (3D space). In the 5D plane, all timelines (4D) are just sides of the same object.

I'll try to formulate a better explanation, but this is the basics of it afaiu.

>>9174078
Until you many world autists can bring a gram of evidence that other universes exist you belong in the same basket with santa claus, magical unicorns and muh jesus

>>9174104
I get your point, its nothing more than hypothetical pondering.

Things like quantum uncertainty seem to suggest that maybe electrons move in 4D space (see one electron universe, but without the"one" part). Then, if they do move in 4D spacetime, where are they when they are not "here"? Other time? Why not same time, other space?

In the other hand, causality/determinism hardcore believers like you fail to thing beyond. You might be right absolutely right. But if it was up to people like that, and there was no "rebels", we would still be navigating carefully no to fall off the edge of the planet...

>>9168982
>coin flips aren't random
They ARE random to humans as there is no simple way to determine the outcome of a coin flip. Yes, you can predict a coin flip, using physics, in very controlled experiments, but who the fuck would know the outcome of a coin flip from a glance. Random is conceptual, but based in a lack of information to support one outcome more than another.

>>9174104
They are just states in superposition. You want evidence that superposition exists? Or that eigenstates exist?

>>9174203
There is such thing as true random though, for example in radioactive decay.

File: rip_timecube.jpg (399KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1920x1080px

>>9174078
I see you too have red the doctrine of timecube