I've just learnt that the "collapse" through "observation" was something that Niels Bohr pulled out of his ass and everyone just went along with it lmao. He didn't even define what counts as "observation" and he just said that big objects have the ability to "observe" and "collapse" quantum states but he didn't explain how he knows this or what counts as "big". It's all made up bullshitand don't get me wrong. I'm not denying quantum physics. The evidence is undebatable. I'm just saying that it's funny that bohr came up with that interpretation out of the ass and barely anyone questions it. There's no evidence
epr did this in 1925, it's fine
>>16917338epr? einsten podolsky rosen?
>Two Rodrigo threads on my catalogQuick, make Emmy Noether threads or about any other woman worth a damn
>>16917334>something moves rapidly through space until you stop itwoooooooow
>>16917334Wait until you find out about measurement in Classical Physics. Brainlets think physical frameworks are free of "it came to me in a dream" ontological assumptions.
>>16917346>tfw no emmy gf
>>16917338buddy that was 100 years ago, things are different now, we have TV and the internet
>>16917334My negro, the entirety of post 20th century physics is a crocus-pocus scheme that sounds plausible at first glance but when you dig deeper it all falls apart. Mathematicians have the right to mock physicists all day every day.
>>16917334>the evidence is undebatableWhat is the claim that can't be debated? Can you tell me? Do you even know?
>>16917334
>>16917334It doesn't "collapse" anymore than a piece of music "collapses" upon you actively listening to itIt's always already there and merely unfolds
>>16917334>Niels Bohr pulled out of his asswouldn't that be a prolapse
