Does it happen because of decoherence, observation, or some deeper interpretation of quantum mechanics I’m not parsing correctly? Copenhagen? MWI? Pilot wave? What’s the most no-nonsense way to frame it?
>>16554459There's no wavefunction to begin with. It's just a mathematical tool we use to calculate the distribution of a large number of repeated measurements.
>>16554472Sure, if we're going full Copenhagen, the wavefunction is just a bookkeeping device for probabilities. But isn't that sidestepping the question of why it works so well? If it’s just a tool, why does it seem to act like a real physical entity when you look at interference patterns or entanglement? How do you reconcile that with the many-worlds or pilot-wave interpretations that treat it as something real?
>>16554459>What’s the most no-nonsense way to frame it?Probably Copenhagen if you don't dwell on it too much.None of the explanations seem elegant when you spend a ton of time thinking about them, but Copenhagen is the most down-to-earth:1. No magical parallel universes that somehow pop into being out of nothingness.2. No magical shroud of quantum influence that hovers around particles.BUTIf you dwell too long on exactly what an observer is, you'll probably start muttering to yourself.
Decoherence puts it in a incoherent superposition, and that is wave function collapse for all practical purposes. It isn't caused by anything special due to observation or consciousness or what have you, it is caused by interaction with a large number of degrees of freedom in the environment or the detailed microstate of the system. There is still a step going from an incoherent superposition to the actual definite outcome observed in an experiment that different interpretations disagree on, but whatever.
>>16554482Is that it?The inner monologue?
>>16554477A: See that plane?B: Yep.[...one hour later...]A: Where do you think that plane is now?B: Well, knowing what we know about aircraft, I couldn't say for sure, but here's where it could be, with some isoprobability lines drawn in.A: I'll check FlightTracker. Hey look, there it is. Right inside your distrbition.
>>16554459Just stop pretending there is some reason that the physical world "needs to be" deterministic at all levels. There can be fundamentally uncertain realizations of physical state changes while still having consistent statistics/moments.
>>16554477Neither of those interpretations add anything to our understanding or clear up any ambiguity in quantum mechanics. They just replace the mystery of wavefunction collapse with some other mystery, like other worlds we can't observe. I'm not saying there isn't some deeper theory which might explain some of the mystery of quantum mechanics, but I don't think such a theory will include an ontologically real wavefunction.
>>16554486>Is that it?>The inner monologue?All I know is that I talk to myself a lot now, anon.Yup, I sure do all right!
>>16554503I get where you're coming from—both many-worlds and pilot-wave theories just move the problem around. But the wavefunction isn't just a mystery in itself, it’s a convenient model that predicts outcomes in a way that works (most of the time). If we're saying it’s not real, then what’s the alternative? What's actually happening when the system goes from a superposition to a definite state? If we dismiss the wavefunction as a real entity, are we just going to accept the same spooky behavior as 'it’s just math' and move on?
>>16554459>What’s the most no-nonsense way to frame it?shut up and calculate
>>16554561>What's actually happening when the system goes from a superposition to a definite state?You're assuming that the system was actually physically in a state of superposition to begin with. We've never observed this, it doesn't even make sense physically, so there's no reason to assume it's anything more and mathematical and conceptual model.
>>16554565Fair enough, but if the system isn’t physically in a superposition, then what is the wavefunction describing? If it’s just a conceptual tool for predictions, then what causes the sharp agreement between theory and experimental results? For example, experiments like double-slit interference seem to behave as if superposition is real. If not, what else explains the outcomes without invoking some hidden dynamics?
>Does it happen because ofconsciousnessquantum eraser is a good example of it
there is only one mystery in physics: why am i here experiencing things? everything else is downstream from that
>>16554459I will give you a full list about what we do know here.
>>16554614Kek. Nice one anon.
>>16554599Philosophers had a similar dilemma when Newton proposed his universal theory of gravitation. Newton proposed a mathematical rule describing the force between two bodies that had no underlying physical basis. There was no string pulling the bodies towards each other, no substance pushing the bodies towards each other, no mechanism at all behind this mysterious force acting at a distance. Until then philosophers always thought of physical interactions in terms of direct mechanical forces touching each other, so they had difficulty accepting Newton's theory. I think we're in a similar position with quantum mechanics. There could be some underlying mechanism that is yet to be discovered, but it could also simply be the nature of reality we have to accept.
>>16554619>that had no underlying physical basis.nigga, he had copernicus' heliocentric ideas, brahe's observations, and kepler's laws to support the conclusions of his model
>>16554624I think you misunderstood what the other anon said. The prevailing notion was that the motion of objects could only be influenced by mechanical contact. That a strange invisible "force" could have tangible physical effects seemed absurd. That's what he meant by gravity supposedly having no physical basis. The works you quoted of course were evidence to the contrary.
>>16554633Got it—Newton's gravity challenged the notion of 'contact mechanics' and made people rethink causation. But even if Newton didn’t have an underlying mechanism for gravity, his model still had predictive power. In quantum mechanics, though, the predictive success of wavefunctions relies heavily on the idea of superposition. So if we dismiss superposition as merely conceptual, isn’t it like rejecting the essence of the theory while still using its math to get results? I get that we’re in the same philosophical limbo as Newton’s time, but QM seems harder to just 'accept' without probing deeper—because it challenges intuition at such a fundamental level.
>>16554638I think we've pretty much reached the limits of our intuition with quantum mechanics. It's really only calculation going forward.
the whole reason wavefunctions are needed is because of experiments showing that when two probability distributions representing the position of particles overlap, they don't just sum up they interfere. collapses occur because when you take a huge amount of parameters in measurements, it's like adding a huge amount of quantum numbers, which is equivalent to leaving the quantum system and returning to the macroscopic system. i'm pretty sure the dirac delta function is what's used here, and that's how you converge to the classical point position probability.
>>16554644Agreed, intuition hits a wall with quantum mechanics. But doesn’t that raise a deeper question? If calculation is all we have going forward, does that mean we’re doomed to treating quantum mechanics as purely instrumental? Or do you think there’s still value in searching for a conceptual framework, even if it’s just for the sake of coherence?
>>16554603https://youtu.be/RQv5CVELG3U
>>16554671That's solid. It shows the bridge between the quantum and classical worlds pretty well. The idea of interference in overlapping distributions is key, but doesn’t the use of tools like the Dirac delta function in this context kind of reinforce the idea that wavefunctions are more of a mathematical abstraction than a physical reality? Or would you argue that the math directly reflects something ontologically real about quantum systems?
>>16554698she is only "debunking" the time travel not that it doesn't work
>>16554725So she's debunking the only part of the experiment that was potentially of interest. All that's left is a big fat nothing.
>>16554698shut up
>>16554734the point of interest is that the result depends on the measurement, the particles know how you measure them. she admitted that's true.this "debunking" doesn't actually rule out the time travel. she claims it doesn't erase anything, i'm not sure if she really understands how the experiment works.
>>16554459Has "it" ever been shown "to happen" under laboratory conditions? No, of course not. It's another "Model" that's never actually been show to be. Every Physics and Chemistry teacher knows this, but they keep teaching it anyway because we STILL have nothing better after all these decades. Not a promising outlook, really, but it's all we got.
>>16554477>But isn't that sidestepping the question of why it works so well? If it’s just a tool, why does it seem to act like a real physical entityYou are not describing just QM, but all of physics, all of science for that matter.Welcome to the rabbithole.
I read some reviews about this. What I learned is that nobody fucking knows. People can't even agree whether decoherence can explain collapse, although I was fairly convinced that it can't after reading various papers.
schizophasia threadspout out all your favorite polysyllabic science jargon so you can feels smug and get dat social media dopamine buzz you crave
>>16554459Unironically FTL explains it
>>16554803this is not incompatible with theory
>>16554614Underrated
