Quantum physics

quantum physics is bullshit.

determinism was the greatest mental leap of the Enlightenment, and these fools just dropped it.

grats on not actually understanding quantum physics.

Care to say why it's bullshit? It's a proven science with profound accuracy and implications. In fact, if quantum theory were incorrect, your computer would not run, for capacitors and transistors work on principles prescribed by quantom science.

>>2,3
it's bullshit because you can't reconcile common sense ("everything has a cause") with qm principles ("the wavefunction collapses into an eigenvector probabilistically"). what determines  the eigenvector? qm fails. what's "measurement" at all? qm fails again.

saying that my computer wouldn't work without qm is like saying gravity doesn't work because Aristotle's theory was wrong.

HIDDEN VARIABLES

>>5 VIOLATE LOCALITY (making the theory fails at lorentz invariance)

quantum shit

Fine. Let me reconfigure my argument:

Quantom physics has produced equations and models which are capable of explaining how transistors and capacitors work more accuratly than classic theory.

Say I make two calculators. In one, when I add 2 to 3, I get 5. In another, when I do the same, I get 17. Which calculator is correct?

It's true that QM doesn't appeal to common sense, becuase, it is, after all, "common" to our perception. A universal model based of particals makes "sense" since, when we look around us, we see tangible things with properties which are tangible. Therefor, it's easy to assume that such properties are universal.

However, our perception is unique to us, and in no way "true". We can't conceve of living in a random world made up of only probablities any more than a fish can conceve of living out of water: If the fish were concience, it would assume that living in water is the *only* way to live, becuase that is its perception of its environment.

What we experience is a culmination of the over all effect of processes which make no sense in our minds, because our minds were raise in such a scale that we only see things which have a reason for existing. QM doesn't make sense, but it's far from bullshit. When was the last time an ENTIRE branch of science was wrong?

Nearly every physicsist today accepts QM to be true, because no other model accounts for the behaviors of the microatomic scales. Newtonian properties and Einstein's general and special reletivity stop producing any sensible results when working at such scales, but QM? Spot on...

>>7
Explain the mechanism of wavefunction (really a distribution, but nobody seems to care about the details) collapse.

Until then QM is bullshit, even if it's empirically confirmed (which was not the argument).

You expect me to describe the collapse itself, when not even the scientific community can come to a consensus? How can anyone be expected to describe a process which takes place, not only at nearly infinitesimally small scales, but in a plane which can't be observed outside the mind's eye? I'm sorry, I can't.

So, if QM is complete bullshit, how can we account for the results of the double-slip experiment and its variants, which all point to a probabilistic nature. I'm assuming, because of your reference to the wave function collapse, that your problem is with the wave-particle duality - if not, then what?

his problem seems to be with the randomness physicists have decided is not the result of some hidden variable; because it violates deterministic causality

for some reason, he thinks he's cool for recognizing this fucks with people's minds, and says that it's a bullshit theory, despite all of its useful applications, because of this.  i suppose he would prefer if we completely abandoned it until we could find a model that didn't conflict with common sense, which is undeniably the ultimate truth.

>>9
My problem is probabilism. One way I use to measure how good a theory is, is to evaluate how strictly deterministic it is.

Ok, but realizing that the actual processes that determine the workings of our universe don't have to make common sense. This is hard to accept, I know, because our experience is rules by our senses and logic. But this is one of the hurdles that must be overcome to really understand.

Thinking in a classical sense, the reason would "see" a partical is because it exists and, if I launch it at something, it's easy to assume that it follows a path in the dimentions we're familiar with - it has a locality and a momentum, and it follows a path. The same is true when fireing a bullet or throwing a ball. The same properties don't apply when working in the subatomic scale. It's hard to imagene, in the scope our our experience, that, at the instant some partical needs to exist, all that is really produced is a wave of prabability that travels the entire universe seemingly outside all dimensions.

I know this sounds like more of the same, but it's because this is the defining characteristic of QM. Truth is, the only reason we know that a photon "exixts" is because, when launched at a screen, we see where it hits. Fact is, we know nothing about what happenes in between conception a arrival at destination (if speaking classicaly).

For me, the results of doulbe-slit experiment and its variants are the holy grail of QM. You can launch a photon (or electron) at a detector and it will land at some place. If you replace the detector, and shoot another partical, it won't strike the same place. This can be repeated as many times as wanted, but never will we be able to predict where it will strike. Superimpose all the detecors together and you get the characteristic bands associated with QM. Until classic theory can explain this and the other efects expleined by QM, then that's what were're stuck with.

If a physiscist doesn't want to meddle in QM, then he can be a cosmological physicsist. That way he can deal with nice, round reletivity, instead of the ugly, jagged, random Q space. But that doesn't mean he can deny QM is valid, unless he can offer an alternative.

If QM is bullshit, what's the alternative? I assure you that reletivity or the classic model or any other branch of physics will do no better a job at being deterministic at these scales than QM does.

what is this, lordriordian again? jesus christ, it's this type of thinking that holds us back -- "What do you mean, the earth revolves around the sun? FUCK OFF, THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH COMMON SENSE!"

the universe wasn't built off of our vision. you didn't decide the laws our universe is built on. how can you say what makes sense or not?

>>13
How about this criteria:

if your "fundamental" theory is indeterministic, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!

No, the universe is not built off our vision, but our *interpretation* of it is. In order to *really* understand QM, it's neccesary to completely remove yourself from the system. Stop seeing things as you want them to, and stop trying to make sense of things which won't to us, becuase that's not how it works.

I think you still aren't thinking through things outside of human interpretation. Here's an analogous situation:

When we look at a blade of grass, we see what we interpret as the color "green". Stricktly speaking, there is no color, because *we* define colors. If you remove yourself from the system, then you get to see what's really going on. The color "green" is only the short section of the elecromagnetic spectrum which isn't absorbed by the leaf. Speaking scientifically, what comes of of the leaf should be called "wavelength x through wavelength y". To any other object in the universe, there is no "color," only elecromagnetism. But we interpret colors because these are things which surround us, and are often important to note.

Synonimously, a universe based on particals is only our interpretation of what is going on, because we are so *familiar* to objects which set properties which always "exist".

In some cases (this being one of them), QM is as much a study into philosophy as science. I'd say to stop trying to see things through human eyes, and thinks about the experience of, say, a rock or a star, but this is very hard to do, and *that's* why the general public has such little knowledge on the subject.

Newtonian mechanics is incorrect, doesn't mean it's not useful; you just have to be aware of its limitations.

Same goes for QM.

Understood. Need to work with the subatomic scale? Use QM. Need to work with larger things? Newtonian or reletivistic fields are the way to go. This doesn't mean one is more "right" than the other, just that they can't be interchanged - that's to say, each has its place.

OH HEY THE MIDDLE GROUND HERE
Newtonian Physics apply when we have reached the singular point in observation
Quantum Physics are in application when were not observing, and therefore can only be proven by math and some areas of science, but it doesn't mean its bullshit.
Its Classic Thought vs. Quantum Thought

>>17
Well, QM isn't incorrect when applied at a larger scale, it's just way too much work to do so. Where it's incorrect is inside black holes, etc, that kind of thing.

I'm still hoping the eventual underlying Theory of Everything (if we ever find it) will be deterministic.

>>18
what the shit are you talking about?  theres a lot of aspects of quantum physics that are observable, and a LOT of technology based on work in the field.

you can't observe some the deeper things of quantum physics with observation, because of things like the double slit paradox, the observer actually changes outcome

For the most part, The inner wrokings of QM can't be observed. Sure, there is technology which is *backed up* by QM, and we can observe the over-all effects of QM, but, in most cases, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is in affect., meaning you can't measure the location or momentum or a particle without affecting the other property. Also, one of the founding thoughts associated with QM is that the universe is based on probability, so #18's point about QM is accurate.

>>22
I was of the idea that the founding thought of QM is that particles and waves aren't really different, and that certain states can't exist.

I dunno what QM is, but I'm still fully entitled to dominate the discussion and be the supreme 4chan authority on physics (and philosophy. And everything)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser

Can any non-quantumist explain the Quantum Eraser experiment? Besides just proclaiming the entire thing a lie? (proof that observation determines results. Also, time travel)

Oh, and in b4 anti-wikipedia fags. If you're too lazy to verify the material in wikipedia with a quick google search for reputible sources, then gtfo. Wikipedia just has the easiest to follow description.

>>25
That's actually a very nice experiment. I'm going to think about this a bit.

>>25

Whoa

Well isn't kind of deterministic?

Just exactly because the Universe wasn't built off our vision, I don't understand what's with this modern uncertainty fappage. Ever since Heisenberg came up with his goddamned uncertainty principle, which applies to OBSERVATION, I repeat, OBSER-FUCKING-VATION, scientists started to circle-jerk to knowing nothing. Now we are back to the anthropocentrism of 5 centuries ago. It's funny how you mentioned the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not otherwise as stupid humans thought, because now they are making the same mistake, only in a more scientific way. See Shrödinger's cat for an example. Some modern scientists will tell you that nothing exists or can be proven unless a human observes it. That, my dear gentlemen, is fucking ridiculous.

I think Einstein lost the battle for sanity in scientific trends, and now everybody is fapping to uncertainity and non-determinism. Determinism, above common sense, is simply the only possible way things can work. Non-determinism is not an issue because it's not common sense (many other well-known facts might contradict common sense too, such as the fact all forces act on a distance); non-determinism is an issue because IT'S FUCKING MAGIC! Anything goes! Woo! You can't call "anything goes" a law of Physics. Magic went that way *points to church*.

>>Determinism, above common sense, is simply the only possible way things can work.

fucking finally some got the point.

schroedinger's cat is a poor counter-argument to uncertainty, because interaction with the cat acts as the measurement on the decaying particle.  the only reason it's remained slightly interesting is because the observer, being outside the box, has no way of knowing whether the cat has died or not yet, simply because we give up your ability to make any inferences about the cat's health.  the cat, on the other hand, can be presumed to know whether it is still alive.  people mistake this for a comment on the absurdity of uncertainty, when it is more accurately just a silly experiment in which the observer would have no means of concluding anything after until he/she looked inside.

>>30
you don't understand QM.

>>31
you don't understand that I understand QM.

>>1

...no.

While QM is new and still teaches the older starting part which is no longer relavent {at least when viewed from a atomic structure standpoint}, it is still true that you cannot determine everything; that all information cannot be found. By trying to find all information you ultimitly change it.

Also, QM isn't the only thing going against determinism. Chaos Theory also goes against it. The enthropy of the universe seems to make it questionable.

>>28

"Ever since Heisenberg came up with his goddamned uncertainty principle, which applies to OBSERVATION, I repeat, OBSER-FUCKING-VATION"

Uh, yeah, if you can't observe something, it's meaningless. It's funny how you relate magic with QM when QM is antithetical to magic -- QM basically exemplifies the idea that when something can't be observed, it's meaningless, while magic is all about the meaningfulness of something we have no understanding on.

In any case, if you want to refute the uncertainty principle, go ahead, but realize you'll never have a good understanding of the things happening in the small scale.

"You can't call 'anything goes' a law of Physics."

Oh wait. You have no understanding of QM whatsoever. Silly me, trying to teach a retarded person.

Uh, yeah, if you can't observe something, it's meaningless.
Anthropocentrist bullshit. You haven't observed my cock, yet it exists, I know that much. Nobody observed a hermit, yet he exists, he knows that much. Nobody observed a fish in the bottom of the ocean, yet it exists, he knows that much. And nobody observed most of the bottom of the ocean, yet it exists, because the Earth is not made from water.

>>35
Is English not your first language? I ask since you seem to have no grasp of the difference between "meaningless" and "non-existent."

>>35 does not understand the observation in the context of physics

>>37
the word* observation

I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying we can't know what they (in the case of the uncertainty principle, position and velocity) are, unless you can somehow use something completely energy-less to observe something, and if you can do that you can refute QM, but seeing as how that doesn't make sense with COMMON FUCKING SENSE, something you seem to hold so dear, you'll have to learn to live an indeterministic universe.

>>35
From what you have seen it is highly likely there is a bottom to the ocean and there is life there. Just exactly where that fish is is unknown, but you know there are fish down there.

I'm not sure what the fuck he means by "meaningless", but if you have insufficient accuracy about something you can only make valid judgements reflective of the accuracy of your observations.

>>Also, QM isn't the only thing going against determinism. Chaos Theory also goes against it.

Hahahahahahahaha! Get the fuck out of my QM thread you fucking idiot!