>>17036830
Hello again my friend. Nobody will ever care about Lorentz aether theory, no matter how hard you larp. It's funny how you think it's going to magically make Bohmian mechanics viable despite being "equivalent to SR".

Big Physics keeping the dyslexic bohms down. Sad.

>>17036840
Oh people do care. It's coming back and you won't stop it.
Yes the crucial thing is both need an absolute time. That's exactly why these fit together, even if measurements are the same.

and Hardy's apology was meant to illustrate that number theory is useless and then we got cryptography

>>17036848
you can't have absolute time, you can't have flat space either
what you can have is local geometry approximating them to Planck scale
de Broglie and Dirac already solved physics Einstein couldn't do the maths to extend Dirac's solution but did understand de Broglie and told Copenhagen-ists that they are wrong and stupid, Bohm and Bell rediscovered parts of the solution

inb4 extend to where - the elastic deformation of the aether that we call gravitation needs to be described as a spinor field
it is not enough to think about it as a vector field, although that works well enough for small enough scales
at bigger scales (galaxy size and beyond basically) the curl of the aether becomes important
one other place where you could probably see this effect at large enough scale to measure is around a spinning black hole (they all have spin, and quite large angular velocities, which should be a hint)

>>17036850
Thanks for the answer, yes nobody said its easy but its the right way to start.

>>17036850
So our universe can't turn itself into an infinity loop because time would be unevenly displaced if it's not absolute. It needs to be in a bag of premade.

I believe in principle Bohmian mechanics might be made compatible with relativity by, inspired by the Heisemberg picture, using a description of particles evolving backward-on-time

>>17036830
>Bohmian Mechanics is the completion of this problem
Bohmian mechanics is dog shit with all the problems of a wave function formalism and no practical advantage. The only way the formalism is even useful in any sense is to add a restriction that renders it a diet wave function formalism.
>inb4 COPEnhagen gibberish
literally irrelevant to the wave function formalism. Bohmian mechanics is used by pen and pencil(neck) physicists who stop at two particle problems and don't understand or care for the real world outside of the scope of sophist navel gazing.

pencil(neck) and paper*, of course.

>>17036830
>presented as a serious
By?

>>17037209
Science books, science communication
>>17037193
>Bohmian mechanics is dog shit
Source? You?
>no practical advantage
How about not having to use probability theory to describe the universe? How about finally getting rid of the Einstein "Photon" scam, light is a wave there.
>The only way the formalism is even useful in any sense is to add a restriction that renders it a diet wave function formalism.
Im pretty sure physicists use it to calculate things.
>literally irrelevant to the wave function formalism. Bohmian mechanics is used by pen and pencil(neck) physicists who stop at two particle problems and don't understand or care for the real world outside of the scope of sophist navel gazing.
But its a realistic formalism, it explicitely cares about the real world. Or explain to me how you model the real world better.

>>17037190
Hm maybe but im not sure if thats helpful.

>>17037236
>Science books
Such as?
>science communication
Lol what?

>>17037193
bohmian mechanica iantmean'ttp be practical, it was constructed with making a proof-in-principle about hidden-variable interpretations

The entanglement of two particles' spins would eclipse energy less than the Planck scale, making a single bond.

>>17037239
>>science communication
>Lol what?
google.com
Its absuletely everywhere
>>Science books
>Such as?
Ok you got me, got no example for that right now. Its more a "presented to the public in that way" thing. But the mainstream for sure doesnt see it the right way, which is an argumentum ad absurdum.

>>17037268
Entanglement works via pilot waves there.

>>17037236
>physicists use it to calculate "things"
Source? You? Lmfao
>Im pretty sure
In other words you are talking out of your ass. Show me BM being successfully used for a non-trivial molecule or atom. That would require it to solve a fermionic many-body problem for charged particles.. numerically.

>>17037356
>Show me BM being successfully used for a non-trivial molecule or atom.
You exactly used an example where BM is very bad at. You are an asshole not discussing honestly. It's better at proton transfer, chemical reaction dynamics, and tunneling in molecular systems.

>>17037422
>You exactly used an example where BM is very bad at.
Remember when I said BM has all the problems of a WF formalism with no practical advantage, and that the moment people try to use it it becomes a diet wave function formalism anyway? In all the examples you named, by your own admission, BM not only becomes a WF formalism but explicitly builds upon one.
>It's better at proton transfer
Requires a potential BM sucks at providing and hence is obtained from wave function based theories
>, chemical reaction dynamics
Requires a potential BM sucks at providing and hence is obtained from wave function based theories
>, and tunneling in molecular systems.
Requires a potential BM sucks at providing and hence is obtained from wave function based theories

Also, all of these (for large molecules) often use classical or quasi-classical simulations (which is not BM but an approximation that is independent of the QM formalism used), not because it is the best tool for the job, but because even with smart sampling schemes wave packet dynamics scale at least polynomially with resolution and degrees of freedom.

>>17037426
its just a strawman to complain about the practical significance of bohmian mechanics when the value of the theory has nothing to do with practicality.

>>17037426
It procides some real advantages in nieches like Lagrange-mesh methods. You are right that its not used that much elsewise. But >>17037459 said it correctly, BM was made to have a realistic view of the world, without hvaing Schrödingers cat as argumentum ad absurdum. Copenhagen interpretation cant be used to develop quantum gravity or to have a realistic model of the universe. Its for calculating.

>>17036830
>*
opinion disregarded.

File: 1687031959830743.jpg (107 KB, 1024x1024)

107 KB JPG

>>17037459
The fact that your theory cannot be applied without invoking the formalism it was explicitly constructed to replace (for aesthetics reasons and nothing else).
We can all pretend application doesn't matter but the fact is that the configuration picture is a fundamental cornerstone of modern chemistry, and it would take a lot of numerical, purely Bohmian ab initio calculations to translate all the concepts without basically just putting wave function pictures into a clunky pilot wave dress.
To conclude, Bohmian mechanics has all the problems of wave function formalisms and no practical advantage. I rest my case.
>>17037464
Copenhagen as no relevance to WF formalism as stated in my initial post.
Lest I am mistaken the Lagrange Mesh method is one of the many adaptive quadrature schemes out there. What does it do for it that you can't have from a (quasi-)classical approximation?
>BM was made to have a realistic view of the world
A bold claim for a theory that asserts the existence of quantum non-equilibrium.
It's also worth noting that the WF formalism that BM ultimately just replicates is simply unattractive for many reasons to begin with (for high energy physics), which is why people moved on to second quantization pictures. Do I wanna know what pilot fock space abominations BM people cooked up?

>>17037485
it wasnt invented to replace orthodox formalism but show that underlying hidden variables can reproduce quantum behavior

>>17037577
true, I shouldn't sneak in historical revisionism, while aesthetics (what I would label as such) played a role in its adoption, neither broglie nor bohm were cranks. I stand by the rest, however.

>>17037485
>>BM was made to have a realistic view of the world
>A bold claim for a theory that asserts the existence of quantum non-equilibrium.
There is a clear definition of "realistic" and Bohm hits it while COPEnhagen/many worlds do not.
>>17037485
>What does it do for it that you can't have from a (quasi-)classical approximation?
I cant remember now but its something, we would have to look it up.

>>17036830
>>17036830

>>17037710
>There is a clear definition of "realistic"
I have yet to see a "clear definition" of that sort that does not amount to BM setting the finish line behind itself. QNE and non-locality are both very sore spots of the theory.
I would call it a solution looking for a problem but this solution is clearly happy single.
To briefly return to Copenhagen, it is a fundamental mistake to consider the Born rule tied to the CI. Until the existence of QNE is verified, asserting QE is, at its core, just a reiteration of Born.
One thing that is commonly overlooked is that nothing about WF formalisms is intrinsically indeterministic. A wf known at t=0 is perfectly known for all future moments in time. That is, objectively, determinism. Measurement is, objectively, a fundamentally thermodynamic process. As such Born is not an axiom (or a postulate) but ought to be a corollary, but that is an entirely separate discussion. Born is a shorthand and people can't be bothered to clean it up, but BM does not solve that.
>we would have to look it up.
Unfortunate with how modern web search is, but I'll have you know that from what i've seen it's the most interesting remark on BM someone made on the subject in ages.

>>17036830
what was Schrödinger's cat's name. is dark matter the same as phlogiston. also, what is the inverse of null infinity

>>17037787
why is QNE sore spot?

>>17037787
>Measurement is, objectively, a fundamentally thermodynamic process. As such Born is not an axiom (or a postulate) but ought to be a corollary, but that is an entirely separate discussion.

dont even know what youre saying here or logic behind it

yeh wavefunctions are deterministic evolve

but measurements are indeterministic

this is crux of measurement problem and many worlds has not given convincing account how to reconcile them either

>>17037787
>I have yet to see a "clear definition" of that sort that does not amount to BM setting the finish line behind itself.
Well i cant help you here, but i think realism is a great plus, i really dont like these subjective theories where its all just probabilities
>>17037787
>QNE and non-locality are both very sore spots of the theory
I mean yes, unless you combine it with an lorentzian aether. Then its suddenly less sour.
>WF formalisms
Not too sure about all this
>the most interesting remark on BM someone made on the subject in ages.
Thanks

>>17037934
its not less sour tho because lorentzian aether requires revisionism of current relativity and non-locality also revisionism about how fast information can travel

both these fings are undesirable imo

File: 1727103452036066.jpg (152 KB, 700x557)

152 KB JPG

>>17037306
>google.com
>Its absuletely everywhere
Google.com is a predecessor of AI; it feeds you back a loop of feedback-nonsense. How does it have anything to do with "seriousness"?

Also I feel like you're just rehashing Gribbin's pop-sci kittens book, which I'm quite sure I read as a young lad back when the earth was still cooling. I don't have the book at hand, but wasn't Bohm his childhood role model, or was that someone else?

File: 1786767670014230.jpg (242 KB, 693x763)

242 KB JPG

>>17036830
>>17037945
Hmm.. You aren't just spinning up cotton candy from an old paperback, now, are you?

>>17036830
Most of the "spooky" shit goes away when you imagine every quantum field as a sea of virtual particles. Dirac was way ahead of his time and probably could've come up with QFT all on his own if he didn't have to waste his time proving himself to his peers who were either too dumb to understand him or actively tried (and failed) to shoot down his ideas because they introduced complexities that they didn't want to deal with.

basil hiley and bohm undivided universe is the definitive classic

you can get whole bpok free pdf from university bruxelles website booklist

>>17038012
qft doesnt take away any spooky shit ot people still wouldnt be arguing about it today

>>17038028
what book

>>17038031
undivided universe

File: maxresdefault-4149615076.jpg (68 KB, 1280x720)

68 KB JPG

>>17037923
Quantum equilibrium (QE) is asserted for the theory to agree with experiment, which is (as I said) basically just reiterating born rule. Yet this assertion is not considered as part of the theory. If QNE is real then it ought to be experimentally verifiable, and more importantly, there should be concrete approximations and conditions that determine when QNE effects can be discarded. As things stand we are in an awkward position of
>>Asserts QE every time BM is invoked
>Doesn't that make QE a postulate akin to Born?
>>No because QNE is real
>May we see it?
>>No.

File: 1657705175025.gif (376 KB, 500x500)

376 KB GIF

>>17037927
>dont even know what youre saying here or logic behind it
Measurement is not some pixie dust bs that needs a spurious axiom, which is why I consider the Born rule a teaching tool and not much more. A real, actual measurement in the physical world is coupling a quantum system to a well-designed bath (the measuring device, which is a macroscopic object with bulk properties). Wave function "collapse" is therefor in actuality a relaxation process. As such the correct treatment of measurement would require the study of thermodynamic relaxation of a subsystem within a larger quantum system (including the observer). You could argue this is similar to many worlds, of course.
Though there is actually a very important application to all this beyond interpretations. Moderate to large molecules (N>10) often are very thermodynamic in nature in the sense that functional behave like coupled baths (for example two methyl groups of a carbohydrate rotating and vibrating independently). Given how classical simulations tend to be qualitative (albeit far from quantitative) for molecules of that size suggests that a bulk observer within a quantum system experiences "measurements" classically from their own frame of reference. That is a bold claim to make though,
>>17037934
Does said aether imply that QNE does not exist, or provide a falsifiable prediction of a QNE effect that can be measured? If not, it does not help with it.
>Not too sure about all this
All of this is extremely technical, I don't blame anyone who hasn't spent years and years with this to find it hard to digest in an off the cuff format like this.

functional groups*

>>17038165
Ok but the whole point of BM was to show that a realisitic universe is possible, that its not ferutes by quantum mechanics. I think you got it the wrong way around, its not a postulate, its showing that the opposite is not necessary.
>If QNE is real then it ought to be experimentally verifiable
Well this is where physics gets on sided. Because i can just as well claim
>If QNE is NOT real then it ought to be experimentally verifiable
Its just an alternative postulate to the born rule as far as i understand it.
Because philosophically i think it makes more sense that its real.

>>17038194
>Does said aether imply that QNE does not exist, or provide a falsifiable prediction of a QNE effect that can be measured? If not, it does not help with it.
No, its just philosophically more fitting. But as i said before, and im pretty sure im right here, QNE is just as falsible or non falsible then borns rule.

*falsifiable

>>17038165
i dont relly understand your logic here
postulating quantum equilibrium isnt relly different from any other postulate you need to invoke for any interpretation of QM or even QM itself

as i understand it, bohmians dont NEED to demonstrate QNE, but it is just a potential avenue where the theories could differ.
but at same time im not sure why bohmians must allow for QNE rather than just have the theory be in QE all the time

>>17038194
>As such the correct treatment of measurement would require the study of thermodynamic relaxation of a subsystem within a larger quantum system (including the observer).

sure but just saying that you can describe measurment as a deterministic unitary evolution does nothing to explain the statistics of measurement. how can probabilistic statistics be a corollary of a deterministic evolution? that doesnt make sense, which is why additional interpretation is required, and the fact that many worlds doesn't convincingly produce the born rule as a natural corollary just further emphasizes how difficult it is to reduce QM entirely to deterministic unitary evolution. it simply cant account for what people empirically observe on its own

>>17038199
>a realisitic universe
realism has many definitions is the point, BM, to my knowledge, violates what is called local realism, for example. The fact these terms are tied to a colloquial term and its connotation does a lot of heavy lifting and has little to do with actual philosophy. It is more useful to talk about specific properties of a theory (locality, contextuality/"counterfactual definiteness",...).
Verifying a thing to exist and verifying a thing not to exist are categorically different problems for an empirical science, it is not that simple. Accepting QE as a postulate essentially outs QNE as an artifact of the theory.
I've seen flavors of BM that are experimentally falsifiable because of this, as they yield results that disagree with standard QM predictions. Relativistic extensions of BM come to mind, but this is uncomfortably far from my field of expertise.
>>17038288
>as i understand it, bohmians dont NEED to demonstrate QNE, but it is just a potential avenue where the theories could differ.
I have always encountered bohmian theories insisting on QNE, this is what these remarks in particular are getting at.
But I feel like I am barking up the wrong tree with this, I think both of us would be perfectly fine with BM+no QNE with everything else requiring serious experimental investigation for any useful insights.
I would say that experimental verification of QNE would instantly qualify as the greatest physics discovery of the decade though, if not the century, should it come to it. As critical as I am of BM for it simply being a clunky formalism for the aforementioned reasons, if QNE turned out to be actually a real thing I would definitely applaud it.

File: 17m7i2cvvjvovjpg.png (1.01 MB, 1280x720)

1.01 MB PNG

>>17038200
>QNE is just as falsible or non falsible then borns rule.
QE is, in essence, QNE would yield something that disagrees with wf-based QM and as such would yield something else, see above.
>>17038298
>how can probabilistic statistics be a corollary of a deterministic evolution?
The core issue is the rigorous definition of relaxation: it's been a decade since I last looked at this seriously. At its core the issue is that system and bath remain a complete wave function in this picture and as such the statistical nature of the observation translates into conditions the local amplitude of the total wf has to satisfy. In other words a relaxation within the system corresponds to a localization in phase space the wave function passes through. Such effects are observed for real world quantum phenomena; if a chemical reaction has to overcome a high-lying transition state that is very confined in phase space, a lot (if not all) information that the wave packet carried before passing the choke point is lost.
You can expand the WF at the choke point where it must be very localized: since the density of local eigenstates there is low (as a consequence of localization), a low-energy wave packet cannot populate many local states, and the fine details of the wave packet are lost in the overtones with nigh zero amplitude.
Born becomes a corollary in a statistical setting as long as you can show that the total wave function's components after a measurement happened inside it have an amplitude that is a reasonable function (e.g. proportional to) the transition amplitude of the subsystem into one of its eigenstates for the observable. In principle the theory for this is all there but I have never seen it written down cleanly, which is a shame.

>>17038333
>BM, to my knowledge, violates what is called local realism, for example.
Yes true its non local. But even copenhagen can be non local, depeding on how you define locality, because of quantum entanglement.
>Accepting QE as a postulate essentially outs QNE as an artifact of the theory.
>>17038355
Ok true but this too is basically philosophy or preference, i have not seen a proof for one of these.

File: 1666130480557923.jpg (331 KB, 1132x1698)

331 KB JPG

>>17038366
>because of quantum entanglement.
True, but it kinda makes me want to add a complete aside. It's not really something you said but something that pisses me off reading on this board. Einstein's original criticism of "spooky action at a distance" is, in short, retarded, because standard QM is non-relativistic. To be upset that a formalism that isn't (cannot) be Lorentz-invariant has instantaneous information transfer is disingenuous at best. Length scales of [math] c\cdot t [/math] are outside the scope of a non-relativistic theory, and I could trivially write down bogus classical mechanics setups where information travels faster than light. As far as I know measurement operators in theories that are Lorentz-invariant commute, which addresses the bogus complaint without changing anything that actually upset him about the theory.
It's so tiring to read, feel free to tell others when you catch them parroting it.

>>17036830
the universe doesn't care what schrodinger's intent was

test

>>17038414
If you want to defend COPEnhagen with that, thats a stupid remark. Because its a philosophical debate mostly currently and he had a good argument why the universe does not work this way.

>>17038395
fink you need to read some bell who shows once and for all that we cant have a causally local theory in the sense of hidden variables whether fings commute across space or "signalling" is not allowed is the true bogus fing coz they don't stop bell-violating probabilities that are incompatible with regilar conceptions of local causation

the only other avenues are also all bogus

not even gonna start on superdeterminism

wavefunction realism doesnt help either coz even if you reject non-local collapse you still have a non-local object that changes wiv measurement which imo is just as bad. which is why i fink many worlds is not actually a truly local theory even tho many proponents claim it is

you can reject wavefunction realism but without an underlying explanation, this doesnt solve anyfing

and then adding that underlying explanation basically just goes back to the beginning where local hidden variables are just not allowed

>>17038447
Oh I am well aware of bell but those are all different cans of worms, the above thing is just a bugbear of mine. I am not a fan of hidden variables, period. I find it clunky, personally.
On an unrelated note, KvN classical mechanics is really fucking neat. A classical wf formalism would do physics undergrads some good.

>>17038448
existence of KvN classical is good argument that one should not endorse wavefunction realism imo

and shows main difference between qm and classical is commutation relations

one can also have analogously basically a KvN-type formulation of classical electrodynamics which give more insight into differences between certain classicla and quantum theories.
see daniel piasecki papers wivin last 2 years, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01995v1

>>17038450
WF realism is intrinsically absurd because it is pretty damn hard to find a more ill-behaved pair of operators than x,p. That is to say, I would not prescribe [math]\Psi(x) := \langle x \vert \Psi \rangle [/math] physical meaning, just like I wouldn't consider a lagrangian to be more real in Cartesian coordinates than it is in spherical.
Worse, the wf representation is less than useless for Lorentz-invariant formulations for obvious reasons.
A very interesting paper by the way, thanks for sharing.

Did anyone actually bother to translate second quantization into a bohm setting? Because if not there is no way to express high energy physics in it, not meaningfully.

>>17038494
for stochastic generalizations of bohm has been done

>>17038659
How does it deal with the creation/annihilation of particles?

File: Ayahuasca Hagal.png (418 KB, 474x474)

418 KB PNG

>>17036850
>the aether that we call gravitation

Just say centripetality, jesus man

>>17036830
>it's another "no no no quantum probabilities are material ontology bro!" mind projection fallacy episode again
yawn

>>17038494
I thought the formalism was identical and you just interpret the wave function differently?

>>17039263
The formalism is, to my knowledge, only written for n particle Hilbert spaces. You need Fock spaces to describe high energy physics. That's a huge deal because all those trajectories suddenly need to be able to split and have initial conditions for multiple, now independent trajectories. The pilot wave must also be Fock then.

>>17038856
in these formulations he beabled are fields and you can apply creation anihilation operators

>>17038856
im thinking in mind these

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=14260860180761160032&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1


https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=3085969743988403503&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

>>17038414
Wrong.
The universe simultaneously cares and doesn't care until the moment that it is observed.

>>17039204
>mind projection fallacy
Smart word from a midwit like you. You are just one of these "muh mainstream is always right, who cares its philosophically bullshit and just probabilities" guys.

>>17039454
>COPEnhagen

>>17036848
>absolute time
Here's where you will probably never get anywhere (mathlets I mean)...
Time is a human construct. Space time is not a thing. There is just space and things moving around in space.
Humans created "time" and it's based off of...YOU GUESSED IT, where things moved through space.
"time" is derivative of space and movement.
This is irrefutable.

>>17039416
>>17039420
It's nice to actually learn something more tangible about these formalisms for once, very nice work overall. On the subject of trajectories, although this is quite an aside, what is your take on the path integral formulation?
My main gripe with it is that it is infinitely clunky in real time because it flat out does not converge. It's a very nice looking theory with way too many caveats in my opinion.

>>17038395
>standard QM is non-relativistic
then how do all the other phosphorus atoms know not to emit a photon at the exact right time?
are you retarded?

>>17038333
QNE states do exist, trivially so
every electron in every atom is in a "squeezed" state
the fuck do you think the Pauli exclusion principle even is

>>17039659
Funny you call be mathlet yet I have a math degree. With "absolute time" I just meant there is a preferred time frame in the universe, which is cosmic time.
>Humans created "time" and it's based off of...YOU GUESSED IT, where things moved through space.
"time" is derivative of space and movement.
This is exactly the wrong way, it's the way Einstein did it. But in reality you can't define movement before time, since movement is meters per time. So first you have to define time as some constant periods, as the constant moving on of things. Then you can define speed with it.

>>17039698
Are you? Phosphorous is not described by standard QM without relativistic corrections.
> how do all the other phosphorus atoms know not to emit a photon at the exact right time?
what is this even supposed to mean you undergrad LARPer?

>>17039706
>the fuck do you think the Pauli exclusion principle even is
Fermions are anti-symmetric. It's like you never touched a physics book in your life other than popsci garbage and schizophrenic fringe literature.
So no, it is completely unrelated to QNE.
Also, the formalism is utter dogshit for multi-electron systems to begin with, which is why nobody seriously interested in them actually uses it for that.

>>17039870
it means the wave described by the wavefunction expands in all directions and according to Copenhagen tards there is no way to tell where a particle is until it smacks into a detector (the arrangement is you have an an electron source at the center of a semispheric phosphorus screen)
now, if you emit only one electron at once, you will only get one scintillation at once
how do the other phosphorus atoms know that the wavefunction has collapsed elsewhere?
>>17039873
>Fermions are anti-symmetric.
you just restated what I told you, except you still fail to understand the significance of it
here, some more about electron "clouds", maybe you'll understand what I am on about
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.02500
>observation of entanglement and EPR-
steering in a many-body molecular system
so far from QE it's not even funny
>the formalism is utter dogshit
oh, there we agree, at least

>>17039899
>how do the other phosphorus atoms know that the wavefunction has collapsed elsewhere?
This does have nothing to do with it being phosphorous, and it has nothing to do with relativity. You are talking about measurement, this has nothing to do with Lorentz invariance, and both Bohmian mechanics (which you inexplicably love but don't understand) would predict a single detection without invoking relativity at any point, you abject moron.

>>17039899
You have no idea what you are talking about, not a single part of this paper implies that [math] |\Psi|^2 \neq \rho [/math]. All of this is ordinary quantum mechanics, and the paper employs simple model Hamiltonians instead of ab initio which for their purposes is perfectly fine.
>you just restated what I told you
I doubt you even know what a fucking Slater determinant is if you don't understand that Pauli exclusion principle and dynamics of spin 1/2 quantum systems does not require Bohmian schizophrenia. You might also notice that the paper you cited does not speak of pilot waves and employs bog standard wave function/state pictures. Do you even know what quantum non-equilibrium means?

>>17039747
It was obvious you mean "absolute time" in that manner.
My point is that their isn't absolute time.
It's ALL, 100% based on point of observation, which will ALWAYS be a human being subjective and the rest being relative to that point.
Time is an illusion created by humans. It's movement.

Now, you can base it off of what? A set baseline frequency? Guess what? All measurements still derived from the HUMAN MIND based on shit moving in space.

Now, you can call "time" "shit moving in space". But you will not find an "absolute" value.
>But in reality you can't define movement before time
Think again sir.
Time is literally derived from this movement.
Human have have created EVERY time unit based off celestial movement.
AKA "shit moving in space."

You are eternally backwards.

>>17039910
Bohmian mechanics (aka de Broglie) would indeed predict a single detection and give you the tools to backtrack the particle to its source
Copenhagen claims that the wavefunction magically collapses at a completely random point
forgets to explain how the other completely random points know that the probability peak isn't there
>>17039918
>Bohmian schizophrenia
lol
you keep cycling, do you realize that?
>muh Slater determinant
another name for the unexplained (and to Copenhagen-ists, unexplainable) Pauli exclusion "principle"
>Do you even know what quantum non-equilibrium means?
ρ(X,t) ≠ |ψ(X,t)|2.
>employs bog standard wave function/state pictures
for the end-state
the transitions? who knows... maybe some non-equilibria there? before the system, you know, settles down?
nah, couldn't be

>>17040281
BM and standard wf based formalisms make the same predictions about observable reality by different means, this has nothing to do with "explaining". Your original point was that this had anything to do with relativity, and you just conceded that a non-relativistic theory (BM) reproduces the phenomenon. In other words, standard QM (which reproduces BM) is non-relativistic. You can't weasel your way out of that one.

>>17040281
>the transitions? who knows... maybe some non-equilibria there?
You mean the transitions standard QM predicts?
>ρ(X,t) ≠ |ψ(X,t)|2.
Given that it is quite known that for spin 0 systems not asserting QE causes the simulations to significantly deviate from experiment and standard QM, the burden of proof that QNE simulations quantitatively reproduce observed behavior is on you. In standard approaches this reduces to a simple symmetry argument, effectively a boundary condition you can reduce to a projection onto a Hilbert subspace.
There's also very simple thought experiments that render you being able to prove this very unlikely. The electrons of two physically well separated hydrogen atoms are predicted by QM to move in an uncorrelated manner (in the limit of large distances). BM can only reproduce the hydrogen atom by asserting QE. That means that all those magical QNE effects must asymptotically vanish at infinite separation, at least in a molecular frame. That is a lot of math that requires showing for someone who has not written a single cohesive equation in this thread, and chances are, not solved a single diff eq in his life.

>>17039961
Im disagree. If we want to really get deep time is the passing of events.Simultaneity is harder to define, but it can be denfined absolute. Movement is not time, its something different
>you cant measure time without movement
You also cant measre lenght, energy, anything without movement. That doesnt mean these things are movement.

for me?

reciprocal stochastic mechanics

>>17036830
Schrödingers cat was nothing but a display of autism

>>17041599
amen

File: 2026-08-26 03_58_09.png (218 KB, 846x1497)

218 KB PNG

>>17041599
Stop asserting bullshit that enters your mind as fact.
>>17042425
Stop affirming bullshit that other anon's assert.

>>17042448
Nice, AI is useful to debunk modern physics narratives.

>>17040281
>>17040537
OP here, thank you for dismanteling the mainstreamers. Dont you think aswell that a Lorentz aether with an absolute simultaneity would be perfect for synergy?
>>17040537
>the burden of proof that QNE simulations quantitatively reproduce observed behavior is on you
The claim is =, so = has the burden of proof. Since when is it normal that you propose a formula and the shout "PROOF ME WRONG OR I AM RIGHT". Thats schizo tier.

>>17042562
OP, you are a complete fucking retard who can neither follow the conversations you are stepping into nor contrinite anything of value. Shut the fuck up.
Also, every known experiment is only in agreement with BM in quantum equilibrium.
The issue discussed is twofold.
If QNE existed, then it should be observable at small times scales, we have no evidence of it down to attosecond time scales, which is damning evidence against it unless a very specific initial state is required, which ought to be predicted as people have for thermodynamics (non-ergodic systems are observably real)
Two, you absolute moron, the claim made is that through some fairy magic or other a QNE simulation with a non-symmetrized guiding wave would yield the same results as a QE simulation with an antisymmetric guiding wave, but only for fermions. Not only would that yield no proof of QNE, since it would mean there is an invariant in the EqoM, this is mathematically a wild assertion to make in its own right. You would basically have to commute the antisymmetrization operator past the logarithm in the derivation of BM.

>>17042642
So in short you have no proof for the = which makes QNE possible. Also extremely funny you call BM fantasy world, when other formalisms have collapsing wavefunctions and randomness.

>>17042739
>in short you have no proof for the = which makes QNE possible
your reading comprehension is subterranean. The fact that you can't even express yourself like an adult and use "the =" instead of a cohesive expression makes me wonder how you passed middle school. I can, if need be, TeX the claims being made.
> you call BM fantasy world,
I did not. BM is strictly equivalent to standard wave function based QM if done correctly, that is by asserting QE axiomatically.

Why are you arguing over a book that was published over 30 years ago? Silly

>>17042743
>your reading comprehension is subterranean.
Well i gave you the burden of proof and you did not deliver. What you wrote i acknowleged, i did not even object it that much but you did not deliver the proof. And ok because BM seems the far better formalism whern it comes to describing reality.

>>17043062
>Well i gave you the burden of proof and you did not deliver.
what would you like proven, exactly?
>BM seems the far better formalism whern it comes to describing reality.
as in it makes you feel good, sure, but again BM is strictly equivalent to QM if done correctly. So what do you want proven? The other anon's retarded claim being wrong?

>aethertard still at it
What makes someone wake up in the morning and say "damn i sure feel like fanboying a model that was disproven a hundred years ago today"?

>>17043083
>disproven
>it just is o algo

>>17043080
ρ(X,t) = |ψ(X,t)|2
>>17043083
Is the disproof in the room with you?

>>17043102
this is not what the conversation chain was about.
what constitutes as proof, other than that BM does not agree with experiment if you omit this axiom?

>>17043114
Well the point is we dont know so your attacks on BM are baseless.

>>17043470
>l the point is we dont know so your attacks on BM are baseless.
Oh, but we do know as much as one can within the confines of empiricism. Let me ask you where the concept of an empirical science leaves you:
>BM without asserting QE is a real, existing set of differential equations that we can simulate
>the answers it gives are quantitatively wrong for all known experimental setups
>asserting QE makes BM agree with experiment
These are things we know. If all empirical evidence we have explicitly points against it it is not the empirical evidence that is wrong, especially not if we CAN reproduce all experiments even within the framework of BM. If we modify it to uphold QE that is, which people who actually use it and aren't crackpots do. Insofar it is not even an attack against BM, it is not the problem, your retardation is. If you assert QNE is real and measurable, then the burden of proof lies on you to theoretically predict a system with a sufficiently stable QNE.
Assuming QNE, as it stands, is in the realm of Russel's teapot and the invisible pink unicorn; unfalsifiable hogwash.

File: MV5BZDkzM2Q1NTYtNjA4MC00M(...).png (316 KB, 447x559)

316 KB PNG

>>17036830
look man every time I talk to some redditor he says he believes he understands the secrets of the universe

and every time i listen to the fine man or eye n stein they say
>"kek those faggots are retarded, these are just mathematical objects on our universe balance sheet. you cant turn them into physical intuition/explanation any more than you can turn Property Plant and Equipment into a sewing machine. we got no clue mayne thats philosophy."

that's just how its is.
normans need a religion y'know wut im sayin?

>>17043480
The relativity theory always get explained to the public as "new reality". Maybe stop doing that and admit you do not care about reality.

File: 1705833928605102.png (1.65 MB, 1440x1104)

1.65 MB PNG

>>17043923
>herp derp I am a millenial
>herp derp I got my impression of science from television, fantasy media ("sci"-fi) and youtube e-celebs
>bill nye made me angy >:(
>APOLPGIZE, SCIENCE!
Maybe you should have stuck to spongebob and picked up a real book. Pop slop is trash, all of it, no exception. While being a tv person and preaching to the goycattle is the highest rank a christofascist can aspire to, you must have seriously failed as a scientist to stoop as low as become a media person, trying to explain anything of value to troglodytes who think being forced to learn the pq formula in school was an esoteric exercise with no real world application.

>>17043983
Thats nice and all but you all have collective liabity until you all come out and declare in public that science communication is all bullshit and that the universe is a 3d space.

>>17043983
Also since you use it for your math you absolutely imply thats its reality, imho.

>>17044330
>>17043923
Who do you think "you" is?

File: 1671074152194778.png (101 KB, 322x691)

101 KB PNG

>>17044331
>Also since you use it for your math you absolutely imply thats its reality, imho.
Your opinion is duly noted and disregarded. Have you ever even worked differential equations? Do you actually follow the math or have you just stared at it and nodded sagely?
>>17044330
>you all have collective liabity for hurting my feelings
Where is that collective liability for christofascists when their rhetoric causes preventable diseases like measles to cripple some kid because they were told vaccines cause autism and that medicine is not to be trusted because it is The Science?™ You can play ignorant but we know what you are.

>>17044401
Physicists in that field
>>17044424
>Your opinion is duly noted and disregarded.
Not an argument
>muh vaccine
Vaccines are unnatural and therefore bad, thats all we need to know.

File: 1659033967334534.gif (2.19 MB, 1046x698)

2.19 MB GIF

>>17044613
>Vaccines are unnatural and therefore bad
naturalistic fallacy. And you have the cheek to speak of "arguments". Please be consistent then and refuse antibiotics/medical aid and eating goyslop, while you are at it. Kill yourself.

File: dktz.jpg (798 KB, 1668x3256)

798 KB JPG

>>17044629
>naturalistic fallacy.
There is so such thing. Holy shit why are you jews so triggered by anti vaccine stances?
>>17044629
>eating goyslop
Not natural, wild game, fruits, etc is natural.
>refuse antibiotics
Never took them ever, why would i?

>>17044649
>muh jews
bro's not even caught up with 1700s philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Doubly ironic because antivaxxies are supporting turbozionists, too
>more LARP
I am sure you never went to the doctor, are ripped, and everyone clapped when you told the kids in school about your paleo diet (before you dropped out)
Now, using a phone/computer is very unnatural as well, I suggest you get >>>/out/

>>17044655
It doesnt matter if its 1700 philosophy, its a bad concept.
>antivaxxies are supporting turbozionists
No. If anything they are spilt like others i guess.
>are ripped
Hard exercise is bad for you.

a big problem wiv bohm? its trajectories are dumb

i believe it predicts

that electron in a hydrogen atom just stands still

which imo is dumb

i honestly find the bohmian deterministic trajectories extremely unintuitive

the stochastic generalization looks much more natural. the electron in the hydrogeb atom jumps and bounces around

the stochastic generalization of bohmian mechanics views particles like a bit of dust moving through a glass of water, getting bumped around by its surrounding particles. that is causing the random motion

yes, trying to inject this analogy into quantum theory can't be verified or tested and it isnt even got a model at all. its a speculative hypothesis that the random behavior of quantum systems is due to some unspecified background field or something like that, which isnt in quantum theory at all. very vagye that "background field" doesnt even mean anything

but fink this better than standstill hydrogen atom
it is better than deterministic trajectory imo which wooshes around for no reason

the osmotic velocity in stochastic mechanics is the imaginary position variable in quantum theory. identical. why does it have a dumb name osmotic velocity? because osmotic velocity is the appropriate name when in the context which this quantity was first put forward.

this quantity appears in einsteins 1905 paper on brownian motion where it describes a force pushing on a dust particle in equilibrium in a background field

i believe this is where the background field hypothesis in the stochastic generalization already comes from. because this quantity that exists in conventional quantum theory also exists in brownian motion where it has an interpretation in terms of the pushback of a background field on a diffusion or osmosis in equilibrium. and you can easily find einstein 1905 paper and see the specifics

think what helps the background hypothesis even though its an unspecified speculative hypothesis
is that quantum field theory suggests spacetime is filled with stuff and that interesting stuff happens in the vacuum. particle the ontology is less fundamental than structure that is realized by whole fields across spacetime. particle states or wavefunctions no longer are meaningful on their own

and even though none of that stuff has any relation to a stochastic generalization of bohmian mechanics background field

the very idea what a particle does seems to be embedded in some deeper ontology across all spacetime, that there isnt really any true empty space, is something that the background field hypothesis finds amenable or agreeable for the stochastic generaization of bohmian mechanics

>>17043923
>>17043983
The relativity theory explicitely demands spacetime to exist (at least in some way), since spacetime is directly responsible for gravity in GR. It gives us a real force, therefore it cant be just a mathematical tool.
Thats why i support the lorentzian aether side btw, spacetime is an absurd concept and philosophically bullshit.

>>17036830
What is SR?

>>17044751
>>17044752
Very good posts unironically, it's clear you actually wanna engage with theories and not just shit on other people.

>>17045091
Special relativity

>>17044751
>i believe it predicts
>
>that electron in a hydrogen atom just stands still
Only if you ignore spin
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0308105

>>17045420
He's right though, even that makes awful little sense. Consider a d-orbital, the "electron" will just sit in precisely one lobe of that. And even before thinking about multiple particle fuckery, all orbital effects that relate to chemical bonds would be shafted into distortions of the pilot waves with the electrons themselves doing fuck all than spin in circles at opposite ends of the molecule.

>>17045420
thank you, this reminded me of something had to do

>>17039747
>Funny you call be mathlet yet I have a math degree.
>>17039747
>Funny you call be mathlet yet I have a math degree.
And my dad works at Nintendo. When will fags like you learn that credentials don't matter on an ANONYMOUS imageboard?

mad how tim maudlin finks we should give up relativity just like that ... i.e. preferted foliation. i'm skeptical that bell nonlocality is enuff to indicate that.
the idea of instant influence is mad to me and the fact that there is this non-signalling is also evidence against imo ... like if bohmian-style non-locality was true, why does the universe try so hars to cover it up such that qft is resoundingly local and you can't send disturbing signals across spacetime

im starting to lean onto retrocausality weirdly. i dont think the idea of future events changing the past makes sense but i kind of think it might make sense if you give up realism and retrocausality simultaneously

problem is i really dont wna do that

maybe you could make an argument analogous to what they do for bohmian-style non-locality in the sense that whatever influence on the past is not going to be properly signalling, and that is more preferable than the non-locality analogue because retrocausality doesn't require you to violate relativity in any explicit sense.

but i also suspect that its difficult to have a hidden variable model describe entanglemed state evolving forward-in-time without the non-locality already built in. for a retrocuasal model you will want the system to evolve forward in a local way then the measurements to retroactively change those trajectories.

some other arguments for retrocausality? the retrocausal nature i have in mind is literlaly just the time-reversal invariance of quantum theory so its in the theory.any people argue that our folk- notions of causality only arise in irreversible statistical theories and so do not exist in quantum theory or classical mechanics on their own. from this perspective, if causality as we know it doesnt actually apply to quantum theory then there is nothing to complain about

but this retrocausality would have to be more of like a constraint thing, not like actually changing the past physically
which means getting rid of realism

>>17036830
>put radioactive atom near detector
>tie detector to gun trigger
>keep gun next to head
>be dead and alive at same time
>profit?

>>17045965
Well he accoused me of something without any reason. So i need to defend myself. He was just imagining something.

ultimately

bohmian mechanics is wrong

>>17047931
no

>>17048151
>>17047931
either equivalent or disproven*

>>17048860
its not equivalent if had extra ontology

>>17049007
as far as empiricism is concerned, ontology that arises from a gauge freedom is irrelevant make believe. Giving particles definite positions and velocities but ensuring that their measurement remains physically impossible is a cop-out. It's as inane as ascribing physicality to coordinates (which wave function representations are polluted by, which is why second quantization is more powerful in some respects)

File: nothing-ever-happens.png (129 KB, 478x480)

129 KB PNG

>>17039659
Could you not define time as the process of entropy? I'm not a physics or a mathematician but that seems like a decent way to observe the passing of time via the cosmic background radiation cooling

>>17049010
i mean what if particles have definite positions but measurement of them, as we know it so far, is physically impossible. thats a distinct possibility.

it then completely makes sense that if one constructed a theory of such a system it would carry no information about those positions and velocities, and perhaps carry explicit redundancies about them. if there are really multiple ways of constructing bohmian trajectorues compatible with the same measurement, but we cant know about them, why would a theory be able to specify?

>>17049041
Thats cosmic time and yes I argue this is real time while relativity is bullshit.

>>17049010
This is pure philosophy/metaphysics you write here. Especially the inane part is very subjective.

>>17049531
why did relativity win out then

>>17049531
If you had a very long geiger-counter and accelerated a uranium rock to a large fraction of c you would observe lower decay activity from the relative velocity difference. The speed of the process of entropy is directly correlated to the difference between your linear velocity and c.

>>17049486
>i mean what if particles have definite positions but measurement of them, as we know it so far, is physically impossible. thats a distinct possibility.

I'd like to know why we can't narrow the options until we have absolute certainty. Give a particle only one place to be and there we have it.

>>17036830
God favours the Copenhagen interpretation

>>17049655
You have a direct line to it?

File: 1768736333930972.jpg (47 KB, 562x675)

47 KB JPG

>Use probabilities for everything
>No, it's not because we don't have all the information
>Stop asking questions

>>17049611
Was pushed by the media and relativists attacked all others, and the media helped them. Some group did have an interest in it, to kill commons sense in humans?

>>17049611
And because of GR.
>>17049612
I dont get this entropie obsession but yes, ALL processes slow when moving through the aether.

>>17049533
>BM is numerically dog shit, mathematically it adds degrees of freedom that cannot be measured by design for no benefit
>>[seething]: who cares about any of that, my precious metaphysics!
>ontologically speaking anything it can add is orthogonal to empirical observation; from that point of view any claims of these trajectories being "real" is indistinguishable from concepts being "real" in the Platonism sense
>>No, that is subjective!
Lol. There is no empirically measurable difference unless you fuck up your theory, one is vastly inferior in practice. The 5 people on this board that are infatuated with it suck are math, physics, or both, and ultimately just goon to their tastes being "unchallenged".

File: Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.svg.png (81 KB, 960x640)

81 KB PNG

>>17050489
>claim a thing to be definitely real
>it just so happens to be impossible to measure, perfectly invisible, and just so happens to reproduce another, much simpler theory
>stop asking questions
picrel

i think it would be good to have realism in qm though. but i think maybe only for parricle positions, like bohm

File: wat.jpg (79 KB, 1634x1269)

79 KB JPG

tfw you realize the past is as uncertain as the future
>anon you are..
so tell me, since you didn't yet check, was the cat dead or alive yesterday?
>wait
yeap

very true
we have no intimate access to the past

>>17052355
Interestingly you will know the past too once you open the box.

sad to considee giving up realism but non-local action at a distance is unacceptable

>>17054204
It's not at all. This is just your Einstein religion telling you this.

>>17050538
You are a retard and the other guy too. Of course the math is harder for BM since all the math and QF was done and optimized for Copenhagen for a century. It's so retarded to use that as an argument against BM.

>>17054372
>optimized for Copenhagen for a century.
More unqualified schizo opinions of people who never ran a simulation in their sad life. No it didn't take "a century of optimization". The equations are linear. Trajectory simulations have practically a head start centuries (plural) of theory work, but the Schrodinger equation is... linear. If you had any idea OR practical experiences, hearing this would be enough of an argument for the conversation to be over.

very close to giving up on realism

>>17055297
bumping this dogshit thread you already gave up on dignity, so why the hell not?

>>17055299
you bumped it too thoughbeit

>>17055495
>he thinks I bumped
lurk moar

File: 1777788547203015.jpg (119 KB, 756x756)

119 KB JPG

>>17055512
no, i dont fink i will

>>17054400
All the math was based on the copenhagen interpretation, the work feynmann did, etc. Of course the math now is more complicated for BM.

>>17055718
You do not understand the math, so you keep babbling about whatever vaguery your gut feelings tell you about the existence of algorithms that "nobody tried to find". The reality of the situation is you are filtered by the math and only grew infatuated with BM because you like pretty pictures. (Or "metaphysics" lmfao).
You don't even understand that people HAVE looked into coupled trajectory descriptions of QM because classical and semiclassical approximations and their corrections are a thing.
You are just a retard that 1) doesn't know the math to make arguments beyond conjecture and gut feelings and 2) don't even know the literature of the field you talk about.

but how can realism be false?

i just dont truly believe it

realism must be true

but i dont believe relativity-violating nonlocality can be true either

non-locality in general j have no problem

it just has to not violate relativity

whats weird is how i get the impression most physicists dont fink quantum interpretation is an actual scientific problem

but i fink if youre theory doesnt have a coherent interpretation

that is definitely a scientific problem and sign that your theory is not not satisfactorily complete

the kind of handwaving to brush off inconsistencies because they sont affect empirical predictions is completely silly

because whats the point in a theory producing predictions if its not metaphysically sound

yes its useful

but its not doing what science set out to do

which is explain the world cogently

>>17036840
Astrophysicists analyzing data from the LUVOIR observatory have proposed a radical fix for the dark energy problem using Bohmian mechanics. The new Bohmian Cosmological Model suggests that the entire universe is guided by a single, cosmic-scale pilot wave. The observed accelerating expansion of galaxies is not driven by an unknown energy, but is rather a natural "quantum drift" caused by the non-local guidance equation operating at a universal scale.
>"equivalent to SR".
The physical reality of particle trajectories prior to measurement remains one of the most enduring debates in quantum foundations. While standard quantum mechanics forbids the simultaneous assignation of precise position and momentum, Bohmian mechanics offers a deterministic formulation governed by a non-local guidance equation. Here, we report the first direct, non-destructive reconstruction of ensemble particle paths in a modified young's double-slit assembly using attosecond weak-measurement framing. By coupling high-repetition-rate extreme ultraviolet (XUV) pulses to a stream of free electrons, we extracted sequential momentum-space perturbations with minimal wave-packet disturbance.
>Lorentz aether theory
The reconstructed statistical paths demonstrate a strict adherence to the non-crossing rule, a hallmark feature of pilot-wave dynamics that is absent in standard Copenhagen interpretations. Our data reveal an exact spatial mapping (R2 = 0.9994) to the non-local Bohmian velocity field under a standard quantum potential. These findings provide compelling experimental evidence for deterministic trajectories at the subatomic scale, opening a new paradigm for trajectory-based quantum control and error-mitigated quantum information processing.

Al-Jamil, F., & Thorne, B. R. (2026). Cosmological quantum drift: Resolving the dark energy tension through a universal guidance equation. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 994(2), L15. doi.org

>>17056931
doesnt prove shitm everything in bohmian mechanics exists in the schrodinger equation. youre measuring fings from the schroedinger equation

>>17056931
> brush off inconsistencies
such as
> not metaphysically sound
Bell kind of shattered most acceptable metaphysics

>>17057024
wrong link>>17056864

>>17056931
>doi link missing
>nothing on arxiv
>google scholar can't find it
LLM hallucination?

>>17057087
>why yes I am so stupid I can't tell

File: 1699271331196363.png (171 KB, 875x863)

171 KB PNG

>>17057402
I did not actually read the post beyond the citation because why would I, these people are exhausting enough to deal with. Looking at the complete schizophrenic word salad and the fact that the only B R Thorne I can find published a paper on adipose tissue this year, that is the only explanation. Should I have expected more of aetherschizos than chatbot psychosis? No.

>>17056861
>but i dont believe relativity-violating nonlocality can be true either
It is. Relativity is bullshit, a lorentzian aether is the way.
>>17056864
>whats weird is how i get the impression most physicists dont fink quantum interpretation is an actual scientific problem
They dont think that, its their exit door so they never have to talk about this problem.

>>17057087
>>17057433
Close minded retards are physicists nowadays, no wonder physics is stuck for decades.

>>17057024
well my point is that many people dont see the bell fing is a problem in the sense of requiring a proper metaphysical resolution. in fairness, we don't have an empirical way of resolving it. but people lean on non-locality without offering a coherent account of what is happening that does not conflict with relativity. the idea of one measurement instantly affecting another one space-like separated conflicts relativity, and people just handwaive this away by saying "oh but non-signalling" which imo is a dumb response. Bell proves that the Reichenbach common cause principle does not hold on QM, but no one has made a coherent alternative except for maybe superdeterminism, with the caveat that superdeterminism is just a ridiculously convoluted way for the universe to work that i personally rule that out based on it just being ao unparsimonious.

>>17055729
I got a math degree retard, but math without words is even more useless then words without math.
>>17055729
You talk a lot of words but feynmann with his diagrams and co. based QFT on the copenhagen interpretation, thats why the math is easy for it and hard for BM. But it works for both.

>>17057024
>Bell kind of shattered most acceptable metaphysics
The opposite is true, he shattered this einstein relativity interpretation.

>>17057450
>and people just handwaive this away by saying "oh but non-signalling" which imo is a dumb response.
They HAVE to do this, because modern physics is a religion and the aether is the devil and relativity is the god. So they HAVE to brush everything aside that violates relativity. I do exaggerate yes.

>>17057448
>lies
>gets caught lying
>"you are so closed minded, just believe my lies"
so where is the DOI?

>>17057458
I was not this guy, idk seems he did actually use ai. Did not expect that.

>>17057459
Lol what a fuckwit you are.

>>17057452
>math degree
oh right you were the guy that mastered out or something, right?
> QFT
you brain dead faggot can't even understand the numerics of wave function based quantum mechanics, don't move the goal post to high energy physics. Diagrammatic approaches simply stem from the fact you are ultimately dealing with integrals that represent tensors, and tensor arithmetic admits a lot of index manipulation. The magical "copenhagen optimization" you dream of is called Linear fucking Algebra.
>words without math
>you talk a lot of words
You can't even follow my words given how you are too much of a pussy to actually address a single technical point. You didn't address my point about coupled trajectory simulations (you don't know what that means or how it relates to BM) or semiclassical methods (which you don't know).

>>17057648
We are already aware you are a vulnerable narcissist suffering from a severe case of Dunning Kruger syndrome while also masturbating furiously to images of horse's penises
No need to remind everyone

>>17057730
I think you meant to quote aetherschizo bruv

>>17057762
No to you
>>17057648
>only phds know stuff
Clearly not
>technical points
I dont have to adress it, my claim is just that this >>17050538 is no argument since the math was based and optimized (feynmann diagrams) for copenhagen.
But sure you know far more about technicals then me, that doesnt make BM better then copenhagen.

>cope 'n hang interpretation

File: images - 2026-09-20T181958.283.jpg (47 KB, 383x522)

47 KB JPG

>>17036830
>Copenhagen interpretation
A BIG helpin' of imag-i-nation, darn toot'n.

>>17057817
>math was based and optimized (feynmann diagrams)
feynman diagrams do not appear in normal QM, again, you just parrot words you heard with no rhyme or reason. At least not in the sense you think.
>phds
I am just saying you act like you failed your own academic career and the fact that you don't dismiss it along the lines of "so I haven't my finished my phD yet, so what" suggests I am spot on and you are not even doing research in math.

>>17057824
Can you stop with the stupid authoritarism? It doesnt matter if its a homeless or a professor, arguments count.
>>17057824
>feynman diagrams do not appear in normal QM,
We talk about how QFT was made, are you playing stupid? Its all just against this post. >>17050538

>>17057859
>Can you stop with the stupid authoritarism?
it's not a matter of authoritarianism it is a fact that you are neither willing nor able to keep up with a conversation at the level necessary to even call it a debate. You don't even want to know the language or formalisms you dunk on and your complete lack of understanding makes you look like a complete muppet.
>We talk about how QFT was made,
"We" don't. You do.>>17050538 Is not about QFT and ""how it was made"", all this ties into BM being numerically dogshit which is a correct take, and QFT is COMPLETELY unrelated to that. You could not even explain how it relates to that statement. There's also the fact that feynman diagrams are about perturbative series expansions of free particles in high energy physics and you are the only one who lacks the credentials to see how much of a non sequitur that is.

>>17053288
not really. that's what's fucking with me. you merely know a very small part of it. most of it is still not collapsed. that's the weird bit. most of our past isn't certain.

>>17057893
I think you need to formalize that statement a bit more for it to make sense in a way that isn't also true for classical mechanics. Specifically, in classical mechanics you cannot reconstruct from the position of a point particle its history. This seems the equivalent claim to yours.

>>17057893
Correct. We don't know the number of observations for creating omniscience. From the perspective of a simulation every record will not resolve how much space we have left in the file for permutation caching

>>17057895
>I think you need to formalize that statement a bit more for it to make sense
Well yeah that's for sure.
>Specifically, in classical mechanics you cannot reconstruct from the position of a point particle its history.
Depends on details. We do have some issues with the past. One could even argue the Mandela effect is a clue.

I love the way you guys have crapped all over this thread. Even the retards who come in here with their retarded "oh so serious" posts. Its what /sci/ deserves. Keep it going.

>>17044649
Not that anon, just looking at your list, and your perfect and good food seems particularly disgusting.
How to get your bowels full of all kind of parasites very fast.

>>17044629
>naturalistic fallacy
No such thing in reality. Threadly reminder that reddit "fallacies" are fake and only 90 IQs invoke them.

>>17058210
it is only natural for child mortality in humans to be about 50%, to not live in houses but mud huts, and to hunt your own food in a nomadic lifestyle. Spiritually African.
>picking and choosing when an argument applies based on gut feelings is based
>having any kind of internal consistency is cringe
There is nothing more NPC than hypocrisy, they always argue based on their initial emotional reaction.

>>17058224
>nonsentient subhuman arguing with strawvoices in his head
Like I said. It's a particular brand of pseudointellectual trash invoking "fallacies".

>>17058224
>>17058236
You two stupid assfucks...umm...I mean...okay...lets start again....
You two gentlemen are doing a fine job of continuing to derail this thread.
Schizoman and Spergboy are proud of you.
Keep up the good work!

File: reddit-seethe.png (143 KB, 600x598)

143 KB PNG

>You two stupid assfucks...umm...I mean...okay...lets start again....

>>17058236
>spic babble
I can gladly walk you through the logic, I know it is an unfamiliar concept to you to have things depend on each other.
>naturalistic fallacy doesn't exist
is your claim, so you consider
>[ ] is unnatural and therefore bad
a valid argument. I gave examples to fill the blank that follow the same pattern.
>[a child mortality of <5%] is unnatural and therefor bad

>>17058242
>is unnatural and therefore bad
No one is making this argument. This is not addressing any real situation. It is not refuting anything real. You are mentally ill.

File: 1673235537261141.png (404 KB, 555x371)

404 KB PNG

>>17058245
>no one is making that argument
> the post you replied to was a reply to >>17044613 that made that exact argument, verbatim
You lost.

>>17058239
oh no, not my schizo spam thread! What will we ever do without it (and the other two dozen in the catalog)

>>17058247
See >>17058245
>b-b-but the most obvious bait in the world...
... succeeded in not just baiting you, but evoking the exact retarded redditor behavior he intended. You're an automaton.

>>17058252
so you are saying this reasoning is incorrect (you could say fallacy), but calling it a fallacy is reddit? I gotta take your word for that then, I have never been there. Now post another wojak so you can feel good about yourself

>>17058250
You made this thread? You are the famous SCHIZOMAN???
OMG!
Well that explains everything!
I am SPERGBOY, your faithful sidekick!
Its a great honor to here here in your thread Sir! We are fighting the good fight against all the pompous arrogant little know-nothing cunts on this board. With the help of the Pepe poster we may yet turn this board into an even bigger pile of crap than it ever was before. God approves.

>>17058254
>you are saying this reasoning is incorrect
No one uses that reasoning. Either way, you're committing the redditalistic fallacy:
>i've memorized the entire catalogue of strawman arguments redditors are trained to pattern match against, therefore i'm sounding intelligent
Please refrain from committing the redditalistic fallacy again.

>>17058240
bro put a trip on already if you keep reposting that pic in every thread where you get shat on

File: redditbrained.png (116 KB, 573x597)

116 KB PNG

>bro put a trip on already

>>17057868
>BM being numerically dogshit which is a correct take
Thats not an argument against BM tho.
>and QFT is COMPLETELY unrelated to that
Not really. You could base QFT on BM (not saying i can since it hasnt been done), and get a beautiful math presumably. Again, BM was ignored way too much to develop good math, and now its even used as an argument against it.

>>17058210
This is true
>>17058224
Natural humans dont have child mortality of 50%, they have that of other animals which is lower. 50% was just around the 18th century which people ate really bad slave diets based on grains and vegetables. But thats not the topic of my thread, we want to discuss Schrödinger, BM, lorentzian aether, ..... here.

Schizoman is truly a master of the Art.
I swoon in awe. I have so much to learn.
What was this thread about?

>>17058324
>Thats not an argument against BM tho.
Is that why you kept on babbling about "optimization" for half the thread? Looking back at the original reply (>>17054372) was that supposed to be "QFT" rather than "QM"? Because I will dismiss QFT discourse out of the gate since you can't even make a convincing argument for BM beating the numerics of wave function based QM.
>nd get a beautiful math presumably
"presumably", "probably", "because it makes me dick tingle" all interchangeable without any actual evidence or estimate. You constantly assert this crap, even when pointed towards related subjects people have worked hard on and made no convincing progress. I think you don't really understand how BM even works at all. Here is a few very entry level questions I would expect you to answer without asking an LLM:
People use classical approximations for "heavy" quantum systems at finite temperatures. In these cases, a large number of classical trajectories is computed and an ensemble is generated
1) How well do these computations parallelize?
2) Suppose 10^4 trajectories were computed and the researchers wish to check for convergence by comparing by doubling the number of trajectories. How many trajectory simulations do they need to perform at least?
3) Suppose they were to compute BM trajectories instead, how would the answers change?

>>17058357
how many additional trajectory simulations, to be 100% unambiguous.

>>17058115
Even if you formally studied something doesn't mean you will ever contribute anything useful to the field.

>>17058115
>with their retarded "oh so serious" posts
there is literally nothing of value to add to this shit heap and 4chan being full of people who see seriousness as a flaw to be corrected are part of the cancer. "Look at how ironically detached I am" was hip when we were still 16, people here are pushing 30 now, grow the fuck up

>>17058393
Just shocking isn't it?

File: 1746035416623217.webm (2.69 MB, 1536x1152)

2.69 MB WEBM

>>17036830
its just chaotic, measurement is fundamentally limited

>>17058690
Interesting, did you make this?

(I mean the file name suggests no but in the off-chance)

>>17058357
>>17054372 was not a reply to me. You may not get it into your head but we are more aether people here.

Your question were relevant the last decades but with AI doing math now its really kind of a useless knowledge. No i cant solve them without AI. That doesnt mean i cant argue pro BM.

>>17058357
It seems to suggest BM is bad btw, BUT i know electromagnetism/lorentz transformation really good. ANd i see how people like you come with dishonest arguments pro relativity and anti lorentzian aether all the time to beat noobs back into relativity. You guys are biased and your arguments of "anisotropic space from different one way speed of light" or other shit fall apart when you know that this is all just from the one einstein definition. So i dont trust you, you pick cases against BM and do other biased stuff is what i think.

>>17058802
>low IQ retard can't follow anything
you basically conceded that, even if I gave you a clear mathematical answer that BM can never be as good computationally as wave functions it would be a complete waste of time. What if your AI told you BM will never, ever, ever be as efficient as wave function based QM? Will you just believe that (you can't verify it on your own) and finally autoexsanguinate?
>was not a reply to me.
ESL or simply too retarded for basic reading comprehension. I am not implying that reply is FROM you (not *to* you either but I hope to god you just made a typo), but this is the original post that argues about "optimization" and it is just as retarded and unqualified as the rest of your actual posts, all of which are good reason to suggest you to kys.
> That doesnt mean i cant argue pro BM.
It means you can't refute claims I make against it, and you can only ignore them in bad faith.

>>17058805
>gut feelings and conjecture
You don't trust people that disagree with you, see grand conspiracies everywhere, and have to defer any actual reasoning to AI. I think I replied to you often enough, you are an ignoramus and I won't respond to more of your ad nauseam bullshit.

>>17058966
>don't trust people that disagree with you,
I dont trust people that DEMONSTRABLY lie in similar situations, thats only sane.
>see grand conspiracies everywhere
No
>>17058965
>you basically conceded that, even if I gave you a clear mathematical answer that BM can never be as good computationally as wave functions it would be a complete waste of time
I kind of conceed that, but not never, there has to be a more elegant way, but whatever.
>other post
Ok i did not make it aswell, i thought it was your post actually thats why i thought you thought you would reply to me there.
This board needs IDs desperately.
>It means you can't refute claims I make against it, and you can only ignore them in bad faith.
Not true, i can agree with you that its mathematically way worse to use to calculate things. BUT its way better describing reality, and metaphysically its better. Would be good if we see BM as reality, and copenhagen as equivalent tool to calculate things.

yes again the point of bohmian mechanics is not about computation

imagine if it turned out there was a hidden variable theory underlying qm and diss was proven

would it still be computationally easier to use orthodox qm for most fings?

obviously yes

if you have hidden variables they are obviously going to be more complicated

but that should have no bearing on whether they are true or not unless they are more complicated in an implausible or unnecessary way

hidden variables are conceivably a very easy way of explaining qm in the same way that many fings we see in daily life have an underlying completely hidden explanation

so the point that bohmian mechanics ia computationally demanding is completely irrelevant to the question of which is the correct theory of quantum mechanics

maybe you think bohmian mechanica is unnecessarily complex? fair enuff but i dont fink anywun else finks this. bohmian mechanics probably adds as little as you possible can to amake a hidden variable theory

>>17059337
I guess we can end the discussion then, but why do you write so terrible?

>>17059337
>bohmian mechanics
BM is about computation you raving lunatic. Without applying the Pascal integers your theory just falls apart. Look, try this experiment. Take the Shlosskind variable and substitute in the Hoffman function. Do you finally see? It does not fucking work. You immensely simple minded dumb cunt. Take a butter knife to your balls now.

>>17059510
Fuck off AI spammer.
(its him)
>>>17059511

>>17059610
Yassah! It be me! SPERGBOY!
Now old chap, do you really think telling me to fuck off will actually accomplish that goal? Lol. You fuckwit.
Put it this way. Utter morons like you pile so much shit onto this board its basically unusable for any rational science discussion. So I take great delight in shitting all over your shit. Think of it as the chocolate dip over a chocolate ice cream. Only its shit not chocolate.

>>17059714
>NOOOOOOOOOOO some close to mentally ill math based on some einstein definitions is the only "real science"
>NOOOOOOOO you cant talk about lorentzian aether, bohm mechanics
>Now i sperg out (but i remained calm during years of flat earth spamming)
You physicists are caricatures

>>17059855
>Yes, I will reply to a self confessed shit spammer
>I wear adult diapers.
Go on, you were saying?

>>17059913
>self confessed shit spammer
Are you hallucinating?

File: hadf.png (59 KB, 770x452)

59 KB PNG

>>17036830
>>17059714
Bell agrees hard that BM is the way, but some spergs on /sci/ cant stop raging about it beeing considered.

i thought i entered the board where people were talking about sience and stuff but then i entered to this >>17059913
and this>>17059983

>>17059994
At one time, many years ago, about 10% of /sci/ threads and posts were actually relevant and contained informed comments. That was the norm. That was considered a good strike rate, considering the number of schizos, children, and mental midgets found in any society with ample access to computers and the internet.
But then phone posters,bots, and Indians got on the internet, the retardation exploded, and everything died.
Its less than a fraction of 1% now.
The only thing to left for intelligent people to do now is to disseminate so much shit it messes with LLMs.

>>17059994
This thread is very long, around the middle there is lots of good discussion.

>>17059983
he is right, this "spergboy" spammer admitted to shitting up the board in multiple threads, try to keep up

>>17060030
Oh yeah he spams.

>>17060010
this thread is loooong and shit from start to finish. There is no discussion, only people talking at aetherschzo, some btfoing him, and then giving up because there is no convincing a braindead sperg

>>17060035
oh also -1 bump limit you cancerous cysts

>>17060035
"Aetherschizos" like Bell? >>17059984
>convince
Thats the problem, you never wanted a real discussion, you always wanted to "convince" heretical people of your "right" opinion. You were never open to accept the other view, thats why you did not discuss.

>>17060039
>heretical
ah i see the dogmatist that has never in his life even practiced common formalisms sees himself religiously persecuted, because that is what aether shit is to you.
>discuss
why can't you slit your throat? Debate would require arguments which only exist for you to ignore them. You just wanna make claims about what does and doesn't model reality, while in reality you should take a knife to your eyeballs and do a nice cross cut like when you make a nice loaf of bread

>>17060039
people are tired of you. of frogposters and wojak shitters. so the only kind of relief i can give them is inpire you to eat glass and slowly bleed out from the inside. To have your mother's entrails fed to you. Please, take the time to imagine that. Enjoy the discomfort.

>>17060043
Im not the dogmatist here. But relativity has inaceptable flaws, like having simultaneity redefined as non equivalence relation.
>crazy schizo fantasies
Yeah i got you, you never wanted to discuss.

>>17060047
do you have a pet?
does this get under your skin?

>>17060047
> you never wanted to discuss.
who? i just got here

pet murder is an integral part of quantum mechanics thought experiments, this is very on topic.

>>17059984
hes not even saying its the way in this quote

What was Schrodinger's favorite music genre? Schrodinger scat.

>>17060368
But in the paper he says it "On the impossible pilot wave". (1982)

>>17036899
>>17036850
I been doing black hole works and this anon is right Gravity needs to be a spinor field

ITT.
Dullards complain about spam, oblivious to what they are doing themselves
Schizo battle other schizos with schizo babble
Lowits keep proving their mediocrity, oblivious to everything, including their own stupidity.
Chads like me observe all this and have a giggle.

>>17036830
>quantum mechanics fake
>aether real
Replacing a real thing with something fake and gay. Aether doesnt exist, Yes Tesla and Einstein were both wrong

>>17060581
If this thread entertains you you might as well watch marvel movies. This entire thread is depressing.

lol

lmao even

>>17060586
>quantum mechanics fake
BM is quantum mechanics retard. And the aether is obviously real.

File: your.jpg (136 KB, 1920x1080)

136 KB JPG

>>17060581
>>17060581
>Chads like me observe all this and have a giggle.

>>17036850
Space has no properties, it's neither flat nor curved because it's not an object.

>>17061245
Space doesn't have to be an object to have properties that are physical. If all representations of a physical problem require a curved space, that is physical.
For example, no coordinate representation of rotation is free of singularities. While no choice of coordinates is physical in any sense, the fact that no such representation exists is an emergent property of rotation.

>wordswordswords

>>17061468
>analytic derivation
>emergent property
pick one.

>>17061924
So, is the fact that you can't map a sphere to a flat coordinate system an emergent property or not? Same with the example I gave.

>>17061934
Mapping a sphere to a flat 2D coordinate system requires a map projection, which uses mathematical formulas to convert 3D spherical coordinates (latitude and longitude) into 2D flat Cartesian coordinates (\[x\] and \[y\]). Because a sphere cannot be flattened without stretching or tearing, every projection introduces some distortion in area, shape, distance, or direction.

>>17062317
Which to me is both emergent and relevant to the mathematical formalism. Things like the Foucault pendulum (observable, real phenomena) ultimately arise (in any given formalism) as effects arising from the topology of a sphere. The same is true for Ahanorov Bohm and the like. Real things, like the roundness of a sphere, manifest in formalisms as topological quirks of coordinates.

>>17061766
>i hate arguments
>i think math without words is useful
Retard

>>17061766
In fact this is only about calculations, since BM needs an absolute time.
>>17061468
>If all representations of a physical problem require a curved space, that is physical.
No. Maybe "modern physical", but real physics has to have an absolute space to start with. Its a state of emergency to calculate, but all physics should look to eliminate it.

>>17063197
>i hide my circular reasoning and feelings based diatribe behind word vomit
>i proceed to call this "metaphysical arguments"
>I categorically reject any attempt to formalize my word vomit as it would expose my fraudulence
>please keep responding to me I am so alone ;-;
-1

>>17063219
If memory serves GR allows (in principle) for the universe to have a global topology that would not allow a global coordinate system to exist: in other words there would be no coordinate chart that covers all of space. If GR holds anywhere near as true as it looks, then this would render the existence of an absolute coordiante system impossible.

>>17063219
>BM needs an absolute time.
how does BM need absolute time any more or less than, say, classical mechanics?

>>17064027
but the point of a qm interpretation is that it can produce a more complete picture of the world than classical mechanics, and judging from both special and general relativity that more complete picture may inevitably require radical conception of time that is inconsistent with a classical absolute time

>>17063968
An absolute coordinate system uses fixed numerical values that measure a point's exact location directly from a shared, unchanging origin point (0,0) or (0,0,0).

>>17064171
Thing is wit QM that it is Galilean invariant just like CM is, it doesn't gain symmetries, only Gauge freedoms (phases). So it doesn't make any fundamental assertions about space that aren't in CM already

>>17063250
>>I categorically reject any attempt to formalize my word vomit as it would expose my fraudulence
Lorentz and bell formulated it already for special relativity.
>circular reasoning
I see that mostly from relativists when they base their "speed of causality" arguments on the einstein definition that light moves isotropic with c in all diriections.

>>17064474
>special relativity
off topic ITT
>light moves isotropic with c in all diriections.
"Lorentz invariance is bad ACK(shually)"
light having a constant speed is well observed, and it moving isotropically checks out, but this is off topic

You are my hero Schizodaddy!

>>17064679
tfw I showed some of the shit that is being posted on /sci to someone with actual schizophrenia and they were like "bro what is wrong with these people"

>>17064403
but agen classical mechanics isnt complete picture of how fings move in spacetime