what are some barely known interpretations of quantum mechanics that actually make sense?
you cannot average or suppress noise/chaos, it is the foundation of reality itselft.. knower
I was watching Dark Matter tv series (2024) and they were using the many worlds interpretation with a person in quantum superposition in a box. And the issue I came up with is time wasn't encapsulated. For example, after his girlfriend was shot, he could've just gone back to the box and wished himself into a entirely new universe with a girlfriend and no issues.
>>16881592Relational interpretation makes quite a lot of sense to me. Similar to how everett/many world want to reduce Quantum mechanics to wave function and take wave function to be real, the relational one goes further back and simplifies even further, it does away with wave realism and simply goes back into classical physics where waves are just probability distributions of classical particles. And waves should be treated as probability distribution only like classical mechanics. No observer status needed. No collapse. No wave realism. Simple clean QM, simplest of them all. Its gaining grounds in the recent years.
>>16881593t. glow nigger
>>16881592QM is not realJust because you don't know what's inside the box that doesn't mean all possibilities are happening at the same time. It was one all the time you just don't know what it is
(Y + M)/2 = (W + R)/2 = light R(R + G)/2 = (K + Y)/2 = dark Y(Y + C)/2 = (W + G)/2 = light G(G + B)/2 = (K + C)/2 = dark C(C + M)/2 = (W + B)/2 = light B(R + B)/2 = (K + M)/2 = dark M
>>16881593You can amplify the noise/chaos to the point where you perceive it as signal.Doesn't make it true, intentional, or even actionable.t. doer
>>16882074>they're the centers of the faces of the color cube...This is definitely a children's song in Chinese daycares. The chorus is probably about optimal color space transformations.
>>16882074>light Ris a pastel color>dark Y= olive>light Gis a pastel color>dark C= teal>light Bis a pastel colorand looks like lavender, to me>(R + B)/2 [=] dark M= purple
>>16882074explain
magic Schrodinger niggas interpretation >>16882161sounds like what a modern non-armchair occultist would say
>>16881593i, too, am a fellow knower of the jaguar
>>16882437Oh, ho ho. A fellow Strossian, perhaps?
>>16881592you posted most of them. super determinism is the obvious answer
>>16881592the only thing that makes sense is that quantum mechanics is fake and gay
>>16882427>explainI already knew what the 3 dark colors looked like.I wanted to know what the 3 light colors looked like.
Consistent histories due to (still unknown) higher order effects of GR
Niether of them.The entire quantum physics framework was inherently flawed by Bohr and others by forcibly prescribing some nonexistent nonsense properties to the individual "quantum systems", e.g. superposition, entanglement, act of measurement, etc.Though, it still works perfect on large ensembles of "quantum objects", when it is all basically statistics + wave physics, that's how we have lasers and semiconductors.
>>16884682Where's the data showing it's "inherently flawed"?
>>16884730When it comes to description of a single quantum object (particle), the theory fails or produces rubbish:Take quantum computing for instance. It is meme. Even an ideal quantum machine if it were to be built today would be basically just a sophisticated noise generator, applicable to very narrow set of tasks. And we're not even near that. A significant fraction of (!)Quantum Informatics community is rather skeptical about the possibility of such a machine.Quantum cryptography is based on classical entanglement and the idea that to measure a photon=to absorb it. Nothing quantum about it.Another example is the uncertainty principle. Back in the times I've heard a lot that due to ΔEΔt>h the time on atomic scales either doesn't exist at all or is uncertain. But attosecond pulse physics entirely debunks that. We can measure how EM fields change over time on these scales, we can film how chemical reactions go (they are governed by outer shells of the atoms). Just so you know, there is nothing "quantum" about neither attosecond pulses (it's classical ED) or about outer shells' electrons being waves (NLS is used vastly outside of QM). No quantum nonsense -> nice results.It's event redundant to mention, that quantum formalism is so far incompatible with concise and tested theories like GR.Take away Schrodinger equation, which is classical, and "quantum physicists" will have nothing left but a bunch of near-religious postulates, unable even to measure their shit.
>>16881592Let's consider QM in terms of a coin flip. QM is at the level of 50% heads/50% tails and if I flip the coin a billion times, I get the distribution for how many heads and tail I get. I know nothing else and hence I have no good frame work from which to discern the nature of a quantum particle. Hence all interpretations are weak if not nonsense. The best interpretation is that there is nowhere near enough information to determine anything. QM is just a collection of statistical models whose purpose is entirely to predict statistical distributions of outcomes. Useful for experiments which is the primary purpose of all mathematical models. It provide very little if any qualitative information as to why or how when interpreted honestly. In the case of relativistic/classic mechanics. The coin has an initial trajectory, rate of rotation, initial height, and final height. If one knows what side of the coin was up, then one can predict exactly what side the coin lands on just from the total distance traveled and rate of rotation assuming the coin was stopped with no deflection. Though with deflection it's simply a matter of repeating the same system until the coin runs out of momentum. We know how exactly the coin behaves and quite a bit of why it behaves that way. There is relatively little room for interpretation outside of metaphysics or unless someone tries to delve into the quantum level with the coin.
QM just reveals that we have no fucking idea what is going on with reality and all our neat little square pegs are nowhere near representative of how the Universe actually functions.Its going to take a conceptual break through on an unprecedented scale to understand the true nature of reality. Something that will make the work of Einstein, Newton, and Darwin look childish. It will make the evolutionary development of abstract thought look like a trivial precursorIf and when that happens its going to be such an important discovery that Humanity will split with dramatic results. The vast bulk of Humanity will simply not get it. Those who do get it will regard those who do not as so inferior as to considered on the same level as dogs. Useful at times, occasionally kept as pets, but generally too dumb to be given much consideration, way too many in number, wasteful of resources, and yet still a threat. At that point the great extermination begins. But dont worry the inferior humans will not even be aware it is happening. If they are lucky enough to survive the culling ( for having some special talents such as being particularly cute or good at crawling into tight spaces ) they will not notice the fact that their loyalty is actually servitude to benevolent but vastly superior masters..
>>16881720if not bait, look up the double slit experiment>>16881632doesn't explain what a "probability distribution" actually is, basically just begging the question
>>16881592lmao imagine still thinking Copenhagen or Many-Worlds (MWI) are the meta. MWI is just religion for Marvel fanboys who can't cope with probability, and Copenhagen is "shut up and calculate" for academic drones.Here’s the actual red-pill stuff your fav pop-sci YouTuber is too brainlet to explain:1. Transactional Interpretation (TI):John Cramer. Particles handshake through time. Waves go forward (retarded) AND backward (advanced). It solves non-locality instantly. If you can't handle retrocausality, go back to playing with blocks.2. QBism (Quantum Bayesianism):The wave function isn't real object; it's just user-manual for your bets on reality. Collapse happens in your beliefs, not in physics. Solves the measurement problem by admitting *you* are the glitch. Cope harder, realists.3. Relational QM (RQM):Rovelli’s gig. There is no "view from nowhere." State is relative to the observer. Schrödinger's cat is dead for you but alive for the virus inside it.Read a book and touch grass.
>>16885024Probably is just prediction. Just as we calculate the baseball being hit and traveling in the air. Same shit. Thats what it was used to explain the distribution of the particles
>>16885004>we have no fucking idea what is going on with realityHave a handy little manual.
>>16885044For me, it's Superfluid Vacuum Theory, the favorite of glownigger research scientists everywhere. Sort of odd because you basically never hear about it, but The Universe in a Helium Droplet has has loads of citations in these ONR/AFRL glownigger "what if" papers.
>>16884682MWI has no measurement
Decoherence is the only hope
TIQM is the only one making sense to me.
>>16885004go to bed, rabbi
>>16881592>imagine has a million words while literally saying nothing of substancelooks like a typical xkcd comic
>>16882074color cube netresolution: 1
>>16881592The electron is a photon with toroidal topology is the most promising one I've seen:https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/AFLB-222/MARK.TEX2.pdfIt hasn't been worked out for baryons but it should be same basic idea.
>>16881592The Many Worlds Interpretation is the best one. The probabilities aren't meaningless there. What are you talking about? Suppose you do the Schrödinger's cat experiment in which the cat should be dead with 30% probability. It's definitely either dead or not dead in your particular world. However, if you repeat the cat experiment, you should only end up killing 30% of the cats, in your world.t. physics degree from one of the best schools, and an extremely high IQ.
