Beep Boop Bip
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 2008)
BB Code
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: BMP, C, CPP, CSS, EPUB, FLAC, FLV, GIF, JPG, OGG, PDF, PNG, PSD, RAR, TORRENT, TXT, WEBM, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 10000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 1023 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 158395333754.png - (8.91KB , 731x61 , 303.png )
2008 No. 2008 [Edit]
From the classical point of view, it is natural to assume that everything that happens in our world must have a reason. This reason may be hidden, unknown, but it must be; it is this consideration that underlies attempts to create a more detailed theory of the phenomena of the microcosm. But from the point of view of conventional, orthodox quantum mechanics, the theory of hidden parameters is impossible, if only because it does not have its own subject "behind the scenes" of quantum phenomena simply, according to quantum mechanics, there is nothing.
Is quantum indeterminism the absolute truth? I quote from Paul Dirac's book the Directions in Physics: "I do not rule out the possibility that Einstein's point of view may be correct in the end, because the current stage of development of quantum mechanics cannot be considered as final. There are many unsolved problems in this theory. Modern quantum mechanics is the greatest achievement, but it is unlikely to exist forever. It seems to me very likely that some day in the future there will be an improved quantum mechanics, which will contain a return to causality and which will justify the point of view of Einstein. But such a return to causality can only be possible at the cost of abandoning some other fundamental idea that we now accept unconditionally. If we are going to revive causality, we will have to pay for it, and now we can only guess what idea should be sacrificed."
Is this question open today in the scientific community, or does everyone believe that if Bell inequality has not been solved, then hidden parameters do not exist?
Expand all images
>> No. 2009 [Edit]
> or does everyone believe that if Bell inequality has not been solved, then hidden parameters do not exist
I'm definitely not qualified to comment on quantum mechanics, but Bell's inequality essentially states that any hidden variables theory is incompatible with the principle of locality right?

I believe the Copenhagen interpretation – which gives up determinism in order to preserve locality – is only one such possible interpretation, albeit the most widely accepted one. There is also Bohmian mechanics (aka pilot wave) which is a hidden-variables theory that preserves determinism and realism at the expense of giving up locality. And many-worlds, which has a bit more support, where you give up realism but keep the other two.

Also if you want to get really niche there's also the loophole Bell noted of superdetermisn, where you can have your cake and eat it too (satisfy all of locality, determinism, and realism) at the expense of basically giving up on everything by throwing out falsifiability. I personally like this one the most because it just seems the cleanest and most elegant. And it wouldn't fully demolish our present understanding of the world if this strong-determinism applied only at the quantum scale; that is, statistical independence would now be an emergent properly limited to the macroscopic scale.

That's about where my layperson understanding of QM ends.

Post edited on 11th Mar 2020, 1:15pm
>> No. 2010 [Edit]
File 158395780733.jpg - (229.86KB , 850x1216 , __yuzuki_choco_hololive_drawn_by_masaki_msk064__sa.jpg )
I don't know the answer and I don't know whether the answer is actually important or not in terms of whether it can be implemented in some way. If there's ever patterns of behavior, it "seems" likely that reasons exist for it. However, these specific reasons may be beyond humans' ability to abstract. If there is an answer, it might take computers to figure it out. Modeling, trial and error, whatever. What one theory or another says is completely unimportant. They're just models, not doctrines. They can be further supported or completely demolished at any time. Anyway, please post more appealing images.

Post edited on 11th Mar 2020, 1:18pm
>> No. 2011 [Edit]
>whatever. What one theory or another says is completely unimportant
While I'm not sure it's what you intended to say, things raises a good point. No matter which interpretation of QM you ultimately choose to use, I don't think it's going to materially change the nature of the computations you ultimately perform to make predictions about the world. Because even if you subscribe to a "hidden-variables" theory, you're going to model it as a probability distribution in the end anyway. That said, new models – even untestable ones – might themselves inspire people to formulate and test out new implications so it's still worth exploring them.
>> No. 2013 [Edit]
>it just seems the cleanest and most elegant
The idea that everything is 100 percent determined since the Big Bang, even quantum mechanics, seems to you "cleanest and most elegant"? Why?
>> No. 2014 [Edit]
Viewing the universe as a cellular automaton seems pretty neat, and there appears to at least be some people [1] working on this approach, reconciling the results with the seeming implausibility of the conspiracy that initial conditions and determinism always conspire to result in violations of Bell's inequality.

I don't have the depth to go through that paper though so I'm not sure how valid it is.

>> No. 2015 [Edit]
Related (and serendipitously published just today):
>> No. 2016 [Edit]
Thank you very much for your response and for your links.
>> No. 2017 [Edit]
Some other good articles on superdetermism by the leading researchers in that niche. It definitely seems like it's something that should at least be explored instead of dismissed outright.
>> No. 2940 [Edit]
Of note, the nobel prize in physics has been awarded for work on demonstrating violations of bells inequality in a wide range of circumstances. It's surprising that the last gap here was only closed in 2017. So at this point, assuming system-measurement independence, because we have observed violations of bells inequality in a robust set of circumstances we cannot have a local hidden variables theory. Or put another way, any theory of QM that is consistent with our observations must either:

* Reject the notion of system-measurement independence (superdeterminism)
* Reject locality (assume FTL communication of some form)
* Reject realism (the notion that particles have defined properties before measurement, i.e. that "god does not play dice" as Einstein supposedly said)

Most mainstream people like to preserve the notion of independence and locality so it's usually realism that gets chucked out (resulting in either copenhagen or many worlds)

>> No. 2941 [Edit]
I find it interesting how much being a NEET screws with one's sense of time. When I heard the news about this I thought about when the Literature prize was going to be awarded, and saw October, I thought fuck that's months from now. Then just after, the prize comes in. We are in October after all.
>> No. 2942 [Edit]
I've lost many many years like that.
>> No. 3129 [Edit]
Not sure how relevant this is, but posting it anyway. Maybe string theory will get left in the dust bin.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Report post

[Home] [Manage]

[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]