>>17069476
Your interpretation isn't far off from Pilot Wave Theory. Basically the answer to the "fuzzy" part of your interpretation is that available paths exist in a higher dimensional space so the (still deterministic) wave does take on a different geometry depending on what information about that path is available in the visible dimensional space. We just don't see that structure here in 3D.
(I am greatly oversimplifying in a way that would piss off a lot of physicists. But this is sufficient to answer your question. There is no shortcut to doing and understanding the math if you want a complete picture).

But honestly, this is really no simpler than Copenhagen. A "particle" is just the minimum energy level at which a field is capable of interacting with something. Until that interaction occurs, there is no particle to "go through both slits." It's just a continuous wave of energy dispersed across the field. Obce the interaction does occur, the minimum energy for the interaction to occur must come from somewhere so it's "leached" from the entire wave.

>>17069497
Regarding the Pilot Wave Theory. Definitely I have to dive into the math to understand it but here is what I got. Tell me if I'm wrong.

> Wave = Particle
> The path taken is deterministic but defined by the available paths
> The available paths are expressed as multidimensional vectors
> The effects observed reside in out observable dimensions
> The changes on the observed effects are explained not by the particle taking multiple paths at the same time but by traversing one of the available multidimensional vectors / paths

>>17069516
> *The effects observed reside in our observable dimensions

> The path taken is deterministic but defined by the available paths
Something like a ball rolling across a multidimensional surface, where the ball can't roll outside this surface.

>>17069516
> Copenhagen: uncertainty is in the particle, easy and simple to perform the calculations.
> Pilot Wave: uncertainty is in the wave, hard and cumbersome to perform the calculations.
Both make identical experimental proven predications and give the same final results from the math. So in that regard they are both unfalsifiable despite being completely opposing interpretations - in fact the same is true for all QM interpretations.

>>17069516
"Wave = particle" is wrong under pilot wave.
According to the theory: there is always a particle. And the wave more or less represents a set of force vectors guiding the particle.
Describing available paths purely topologically was kinda the part that would piss off any knowledgeable physicist. It lives a bit more in an "abstract" realm of "configuration space." When information is known about possible paths, that removes possible configurations from where the set of force vectors could be pointing.

To confuse matters more, there's a concept floating around that if you take modern pilot wave to its logical conclusions, it's no different from many worlds (which is the interpretation popsci rags often mischaractarize as meaning there's literally alternate realities parallel with our own). It's a debatable viewpoint but it does highlight how much the concept of a deterministic wave "guiding" particles has to be contorted to match observed data.

>>17069533

Here is what I got:
> "Copenhagen" and "Pilot Wave" are both different theories that represent different interpretations
> Although these both come from different interpretations, both produce similar enough results and predictions.
> Because of the way both theories interpret the data, saying that a wave is a particle is not the same depending on the theory
> Copenhagen says: the wave is the particle
> Pilot Wave says: the wave influences how a particle moves

>>17069549
>both produce similar enough results and predictions
not similar, identical. that's why there's all this confusion and bullshit spoken about QM, you can't prove any of these alternative ideas wrong (or right).

>>17069549
Much closer. As another anon said: all present interpretations of QM observe the same exact outcomes so any distinction between them is purely ontological/philosophical until a differentiating experiment can be conceived and demonstrated.

With Copenhagen, it's not so much that the particle "is" the wave and more that a particle isn't even really a "thing."
Much like how a "volt" describes a quantity of energy rather than a physical object, a "particle" is just the minimum quantity of energy for an interaction to occur in the associated field.
But yes, pilot wave does, indeed, reify particles and waves both as distinct entities.

>>17069533
The fucked up part here is, if I build a macroscopic gutter which accurately represents the "warm EM" field OP is considering, it won't remit aether or make quantum duality easier for people to understand, it will just make everyone think we can model discrete information using mere intuition rather than actually needing math.

It doesn't matter if an enlightened monk can will the framegate open a few extra seconds to get some stragglers through, relying on a siddhi for your wormhole services is NOT gonna pass for the competent and right solution.

regardless of interpretation it is clearly think that the quantum state objectively does no more than carry information about probabilities. its very easy to go into detail how this is exacyly objectively the case. this doesnt help interpretation but rules out all ontological interpretations like objective collapse and many worlds, the latter of which is internally inconsistent and therefore impossible anyways.

imo the only true problem in quantum theory interpretation-wise is bell violations because you have to choose between nonlocal bullshit or completely unsatisfying nonreality

>>17069476
The photons are not all that well described in standard QM. The space wave function is not the same thing as electric field. A complete description of everything is done only in QED.

>>17069476
A very early example of your line of thinking is the thinking of Planck and other statistical (or thermodynamics) physicists who lived in around 1920. The idea was that, let’s say in the context of the double-slit experiment, that the electrons (or whatever particles) were basically a field that would propagate around like water waves, but that the interaction with matter was intermediated by discrete exchanges. So the discrete electron was just a relic of the transferring of energy from the electron field to a different medium. But electrons didn’t inherently have a particle nature during their pass through the slits, instead it was a wave field up until the interaction with the detector.

Einstein was the one to refute this logic in his paper about photons and the way the statistics of photons imply the must have some bosonic nature. The statistical properties of how photons behave imply some behavior of their wavefunctions and how those wavefunctions correspond to a system of bosonic particles.

But if you step back and look at this from a more modern perspective, i.e. the perspective of Quantum Field Theory, really the idea that things are fields all the way down is not all that radical, and then the way electrons interfere is pretty much what one would expect. The details of bosonic/fermionic vs. identical classical particles is the hinge thing to worry about, and really what that shows in this context is how the fields behave in terms of quantum exclusion, state occupancies, and statistics.

So from a truly modern perspective it is quite acceptable to just say it is all fields all the time (akin to waves in water), they are just “quantized” meaning the fields observe the *statistical* rules of quantum bosonic/fermionic fields

>>17072319
PS there are a bunch of “Pilot Wave” shills here who would like to enact Bohm’s Marxist Material Determinism Dialectic or some woo-woo modern zombie version of it, but these folks are basically brainwashed internet groupies of a few California Marxist Hippie Commune people who contaminated the early internet with a bunch of propaganda; don’t listen to them. they should snap out of it and realize that they are talking into the wind for decades and anyone with a real physics education has realized they are retarded for like 40 years. Bohm just spent a lot of time at Esalen and in Ojai with Ramamurti so a bunch of New Age boomtards got tricked into his Marxist delusions

>>17072321
>Ramamurti
Sorry, I meant Krishnamurti.

If you want to see how retarded Bohm was you can find videos on youtube of Bohm asking Krishnamurti about physics. Krishnamurti obviously knows nothing but rambles with sophistry in your typical jeet charlatan way, and Bohm, the supposed genius physicist, just rides his dick constantly like “omg Krishnamurti that’s amazing you are so good at physics”. pathetic

>>17072221
>>imo the only true problem in quantum theory interpretation-wise is bell violations because you have to choose between nonlocal bullshit or completely unsatisfying nonreality
You can also go for "nonlocality" in time aka non-Markovian quantum mechanics. An event that happened billions of years ago has absolutely no influence on a particle until suddenly it does

>>17072332
yes im not sure about this notion. it is quite vague what it actually means. fits a broad umbrella potenttially of odeas that fit "temporal non-local". whereas spatial nonlocal hidden variable very easy to understand what neans

>>17072221
>imo the only true problem in quantum theory interpretation-wise is bell violations because you have to choose between nonlocal bullshit or completely unsatisfying nonreality

you actually don’t… Have you read what Bell wrote about Bertlman’s Socks? Have you read the relevant chapter in The Quark and the Jaguar where Murray Gell-Mann explains the real version of Consistent Histories (before Hartle got off track and turned it into some bastardized version)?

You don’t need nonlocality nor non-“realism” to explain Bell’s theorem experiments. All you need is a version of Bertlman’s Socks that admits that quantum variables (like spin) are not the same as classical variables.

No superluminal signal propagates. The particles are created in a correlated state and the outcome is determined from how their state was when they were created (Once you see Bertlman’s left sock is one color, you know instantly the other sock is a particular color. No superluminal signal needs to happen.) The fact that spin variables have unusual properties does not imply anything about realism or locality except that quantum variables like spin don’t agree so straightforwardly with classical ideas of “realism”

I posted extensively here about consistent histories like 10-8 years ago but the perennial confusions always crop back up. It’s sad that people don’t read Gell-Mann’s book

>>17072931
>the outcome is determined from how their state was when they were created
Like a hidden variable?

>>17072981
No, a “hidden variable” refers to something that is not measurable. In this case the spin variable is the relevant variable, and it is measurable

>>17072982
But in what way are they different than classical variables?
>Once you see Bertlman’s left sock is one color, you know instantly the other sock is a particular color
Yeah but they don't have a defined color that we just don't know (hidden variable) prior to measurement so some non-local stuff has to happen to give them both a color

>>17072988
>they don't have a defined color that we just don't know (hidden variable)
>some non-local stuff
Pick one and only one. If "non-local" stuff is acceptable, you can have non-local hidden variables.

>>17069497
>>17069476
pilot wave is such old debunked boomer bullshit. in fact if a QM discussion goes on for more than a few minutes without anyone mentioning QFT it's probably loads of bullshit. idk who is funding the popsoy channels to keep ancient qm debates going and to avoid just talking about QFT

>>17072321
holy never listen to this schizo

>>17073148
It's not that clear cut. There has been work done that makes PWT (mosty) work with QFT. It's ugly as fuck though.

>>17069476
>Photons act as a wave in the electromagnetic field and transmit their energy as a particle.
Light transmits as a continuous wave until absorbed as a small chunk of energy by some bit of matter. When light is traveling through space, it is a continuous wave at all times. It is not a bunch of "photons" traveling together looking like a continuous wave. It is infinitely divisible. Ok, well at least divisible until the wavelength gets so long that you can't distinguish it using any "measurement" to where it's practically zero. Light can be emitted as a small chunk of energy by a bit of matter, but once it's traveling through space, it's a continuous wave.

>>17073021
>If "non-local" stuff is acceptable, you can have non-local hidden variables.
Yeah but according to you we don't need non-locality to explain Bell's inequality

>>17073152
Not only is it "ugly as fuck." The modifications to pilot wave have rendered it nearly identical to many worlds.

>>17072988
No, like I said before, if we interpret Bertlmann’s socks in in the proper original Consistent Histories picture, then his socks had a definite color from the instant Bertlmann put them on when he got dressed that day. If we are talking about quantum spins, the outcome of what you would see when you look a spin along the x, y, or z direction is encoded into the spin when it and its pair-produced spin-nonzero particle is encoded into both the particles when they are created. The fact that they are represented as an “indeterminate” state is simply because these are quantum variables and that’s simply how quantum variables work. But the way you get perfect (anti-)correlation across space like separated distances when both particles spins are measured along the same axis arises from the fact that they were (anti-)correlated from when they were produced. Nothing nonlocal, it’s just that you anre mistakenly trying to interpret [(up1+down2)+(down1+up2)]/[sqrt(2)] as a classical thing. Just accept that it is a quantum variable and that does not mean it isn’t fully (locally) encoding anticorrelated measurements from the production of the particles

Read Quark and Jaguar, please. The relevant section is a short 4-5 page explanation and it’s written by one of the greatest physicists of the last 100 years. You can find it screenshotted in the archive of this board on warosu.org. You can search “Flapdoodle”

>>17073346
>Light can be emitted as a small chunk of energy by a bit of matter, but once it's traveling through space, it's a continuous wave.
and that doesn't sound weird at all. I mean I'm not saying it's not real, just that it's weird. like seriously weird. like everything you've ever seen as fantasy or scifi but ^1000^1000^1000 more weird and strange.
or the fact that we even fucking exist. like what the fuck is this and why??

>>17072931
i mean this is menaingless unless you explain exactly what these non-classical variables are and how they work. if you could do that then resolving bell's theorem would no longer be an unresolved issue ... but it still is unresolved. you dont have a coherent alternative that doesn't fit into categories like nonrealism or retrocausality

and to be clear in my view i think non-realims is still non-local. but i fink that non-realism allows you to avoid violating relativity. tae do this you need retrocausal influence (or perhaps you might call it non-causal, linked to time-reversal invariance). but if you dont have reality "retrocausality" isn't really a problem anymore because even if you frame causation as retrocausal or non-causal, you have no underlying hidden variables that actually need to change

>>17073536
Actually transmitting a photon doesn’t really need to be done as a “small chunk”. If you think of a big antenna, or even better if you think of a black hole emitting hawking radiation, then that sort of emission doesn’t really admit a QFT description where a photon is popping off of one particular atom. In QFT you would model that as some extended, macroscopic object pumping energy into an extended “boundary region” of the QFT description and causing various photon “modes” to get excited over that entire extended region. And on the absorption side of stuff like this (like a big antenna to detect radio waves, or a very big photodetector without any granular pixels) you would also probably have a similar thing where the appropriate model considers that interaction/measurement using an operator that is spread out over a macroscopic area

It is good to think a bit about how the formalism of scattering theory in QFT works. The micro-physics, usually described using Feynman diagrams to do perturbation theory, does break things down as point particles interacting at discrete points in spacetime (and then superposes them in the path integral). But that is just the matrix-element part of the S-matrix calculation. The S-matrix also has the amplitudes travelling off “to infinity” which basically means your large macroscopic detectors, so that’s implicitly a part of QFT as well

>>17073545
I don’t think there is anything in my explanation that differs from the variables you see in an ordinary Intro QM textbook. Just ordinary wavefunctions. The point is that your thinking is getting fucked because you are trying to retrofit your understanding of classical variables onto ordinary wavefunctions. The formalism gets it right but classical intuition can’t be used. Quantum variables are just different. I think this boils down to questioning the definition of “real” or “realist” means in the usual Bell dialogues. In a good Consistent Histories interpretation there is a concept of “locally realist” but it doesn’t map neatly onto what classical realism à la Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen had in mind

>>17073564
well this is meaningless if you dont know what the wavefunction means. this will mean different things depending on your interpretation. in a naive realist wavefunction framework this is still non-local

>>17073564
then what is local realist in consistent histories

>>17073569
It’s what I said: that the outcomes of the measurements you make on entangled particles are guaranteed to be (anti-)correlated because the wave function encodes that from the moment of the particles’ pair production (which is local)

I am happy to answer GOOD questions or discuss things at a level where it seems like you are actually reading and responding, but right now this is rather tiresome because I am just repeating things you could just scroll up and read without me doing these repetitions. I also asked you to read a short excerpt from book that you can easily find and apparently you have not

>>17073572
but guaranteeing they are anti-correlated means that one particle needs information about the other particle's outcome. this is non-trivial because you can freely choose the measurement setting and you can make the choice even just a moment before the measurmeent is made, well after the particles are created and when they are many miles apart. yeah you can say something like "quantum variables are just different" but its obviously non-local

>>17073567
A wavefunction is not “local” nor “nonlocal”. A wavefunction is a description of a physical system that exists on paper; it doesn’t physically exist within space and time. To even ascribe the concept of “local” or “ nonlocal” to a wavefunction is the wrong thing to do. The particles and measurements made on them, and any potential signals propagating between them is what needs to follow the rules of locality. Not wavefunctions.

to make it brutally obvious, you realize that wave functions (or state vectors) live in something called Hilbert space (or its multiparticle generalization, a Fock space), right? And you realize Hilbert and Fock spaces have many many more dimensions than just 3+time, right ?

>>17073573
no, this is the crux of the matter. I claim that they are quantum variables, which are different from classical variables, but nevertheless it is not at all nonlocal. Nothing in the entire chain of my explanation ever resorts to non-locality. You are the one conjuring that up because you are trying to impose some classical concepts where they don’t apply

>>17073578
It is pretty unnerving how many people fail to get a premise this trivial, measurement is not what gives it value. There is not a magical point of appearance when we finally get around to measuring it, the universe already knows and we had to blind ourselves/the instruments for the quantum values to keep from decohering. We are "loud" up here in the chemical realm, keeping our noise low /makes/ measure possible, it doesn't rewrite physics for us to choose an experiment.

>>17073596
I think you basically have it right. Kind of a poetic way of expressing it but I think you and I are on the same page

>>17073578
>dictatorial handwave
>with the deBroglie/Bohm formalism all this gets resolved
>mein Bell... Bohm... Bohmians couldn't muster enough brains to make the theory relativistic. Bohm's revolution did not succeed
>ES WAR EIN BEFEHL!!!

>>17073661
ah shit I missed a line there
>*drops glasses on table with a trembling hand*
>there will remain in the room only Klauser, Aspect, Zeilinger... and Aharonov

>>17073661
>>17073667
Honestly I don’t get your point. I have the utmost respect for Aspect and Kalusonger/Zeilinger. In fact I think if you look through the archives of this board (as I have instructions about earlier in this thread) I was saying that Aspect should be getting the Nobel years before he actually got it . So with that in mind, what are you trying to say?

>>17073678
that qm is in a state of zugzwang which you seem to not recognize, yourself
Bell proved theoretically and Aspect et all by experiment that there is no way to maintain the illusion of local realism and more importantly that HIDDEN VARIABLE THEORIES CAN'T EXPLAIN QM OBSERVABLES
you keep handwaving hitleriannily about how quantum variables are just built different, but that's just copium

>>17073681
It’s not me, it’s Murray Gell-Mann. I am not trying to appeal to authority since I have been trying to defend this perspective on my own with logic and facts for hours, even days now. But my argument is basically
just trying to reiterate what Murray Gell-Mann said. he expressed it in his own word in the book i mentioned several times here. I plan to continue arguing with you shills but i’m putting my cards in the table, unlike you fuckers (i assume you are all retired boomers. that gives you an advantage on the time you can devote to this shit since you are all retired boomers, but at the same time you are all so hopelessly lost and out of touch that it makes me pity you)

>>17073693
I don't think we disagree in the way you believe we disagree

>>17072931
>You don’t need nonlocality nor non-“realism” to explain Bell’s theorem experiments.
yes you do. you need to abandon locality, realism or the arrow of time
>Gell-Mann
one of the boldest scientific fraudsters of the 20th century, introduced renormalization because QED kept blowing up on uncensored infinities (it still does), made up quarks because QCD didn't work (still doesn't work, new "colors" of ever smaller particles keep being added, it's epicycles all the way down), was great friends with Jeffrey Epstein
>>17073564
>Quantum variables are just different.
>>17073578
>I claim that they are quantum variables, which are different from classical variables
different how?

>>17073518
>But the way you get perfect (anti-)correlation across space like separated distances when both particles spins are measured along the same axis arises from the fact that they were (anti-)correlated from when they were produced.
Bell proved that local hidden variable theories can be constructed for a few special cases like this one but he also proved that they can't exist for arbitrary detector orientations.

>You can find it screenshotted in the archive of this board on warosu.org. You can search “Flapdoodle”
I can't find it

>>17073702
renormalization group, sorry
renormalization was introduced by Feynman who at least had the decency to observe that it was a mathematically dubious, physically meaningless kludge and a new theory will be needed to do away with it...
which Gell-Mann and friends took as license to instead EXTEND the theory they knew was no good and introduce an infinite tower of kludges to hide the inevitable fuckups under the rug

>>17073765
btw, any interested anons should read the wiki talk page, it's high comedy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Renormalization_group
>I have a question. The article speaks about the "renormalization group", but nowhere does the article prove that there is a structure that forms a group. Is the renormalization group a group, or is it just another bad name in Physics?
>I consider myself quite familiar with elementary group theory, but even I can't understand the relation of this object with the mathematical notion of a group.
>Electrons consisting of electrons(??????), positrons and photons. Bare electrons, dressed electrons, clothed electrons? It feels like someone is cheating here.
>Not understandable. What is given, what is sought, where is a (monoid or semigroup) action?

>>17073729
>I can't find it
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/11086778

>>17073702
>QCD didn't work (still doesn't work, new "colors" of ever smaller particles keep being added, it's epicycles all the way down)
are you seriously this retarded? The Standard Model of particle physics was basically formulated in the 70s by Wilczek and Politzer (Gross took credit for Wilczek’s work, and ‘t Hooft had the answer before any of them but that is another story). The theory was complete over 50 years ango. And by 2000 the top quark was observed and in 2012 the Higgs was discovered. The standard model has basically been completely settled and it makes extremely accurate predictions. The current crisis in particle physics is exactly the opposite: nothing new at all has been added to the standard model for decades, and all proposals (GUT particles, supersymmetry, dark matter particles) have failed to materialize, leaving the standard model untouched for decades. I don’t know what kind of insanity you have but it is causing you some serious delusions

>>17073576
I mean the whole thing that kickstarted the locality debate was a debate about the wavefunction where Einstein was concerned that the wavefunction requires nonlocality if it collapse. so the ontology and interpretation is relevant.

>>17073578
theres no point in saying there are quantum variables different to classical variables if you cant specify what that even means. i have just given a valid question in response to the account you gave and you can't even comment on how my concern would be alleviated. if you are going to say that we have some new quantum variable different to classical notions of non-locality, then you have to explain why

>>17073957
>it makes extremely accurate predictions
it's a curve-fitting exercise lol, fuck knows what's actually going on, physicsniggers certainly don't seem to care
>muh fine structure "constant"
>muh renormalization "group"
fuck off

>>17073957
>muh detections
you're aware that nobody has ever detected a gluon or a Higgs boson ever, right?
there is no Higgs detector, you bloody mongoloid, it's all traces of other, vanilla particles that are CLAIMED to have been in an interaction involving an ALLEGED Higgs boson sometime before slamming into a detector you fucking sperg
how many collisions per second? how many seconds of observation? how fucking DARE you talk about statistical significance when you discard 99% of the data before looking at it?
seriously, fuck the fuck off

>>17073957
>The current crisis in particle physics is exactly the opposite: nothing new at all has been added to the standard model for decades
there would not be a need to add anything if the model was actually predictive you fucking waste of oxygen
it fucking isn't, it has mathematical and physical holes in it you can drive a truck through, just like your precious basedentifical supercollider

>>17074133
it’s different because as I said, a state like [(up1+down2)+(down1+up2)]/[sqrt(2)] does not mean that particle 1 and particle 2 are both half-and-half up or down and until particle 1 is measured and some knowledge of the result of the measurement gets to particle 2 somehow (locally or nonlocally) then it doesn’t know how to anti-correlate with particle 1 (this is what a native classical interpretation would say). instead the state encodes the anti-correlation the instant those particles exist in that state, i.e when they are produced at the same spot. So it is local.

Did you read the book passage in the warosu link I posted yet ? Or am I speaking to someone with Zoomer brain who refuses to read six pages and instead needs to be spoonfed waters-down explanations of the source material?

>>17074149
>>17074153
>>17074157
Wow, someone is seriously triggered! You are obviously so egregiously mal-informed and going off on some emotional episode that all I can say is that you really need to calm down and learn how to discuss things without emotional outbursts. I realize that some people have emotional connections to some “alt-science” stuff (maybe because of religious convictions that don’t jive well with the consensus understanding of the scientific community) but even still, some decorum is warranted instead of chomping out and throwing f-bombs repeatedly

>>17074287
wow, someone is seriously full of shit
>muh consensus
that all you have? appeal to authority?
>b-buh something slammed into our detector really fast!
no shit? in a fucking supercollider? gee, let's give you three Nobel prizes for bouncing billiards really hard until some jump off the table
fuck off back to lebbit

>>17073569
Consistent histories manages to be local by sacrificing realism.
>The cost of this strategy is that the formalism permits multiple incompatible but equally valid frameworks, so no unique, framework-independent account of past quantum events is selected.

>>17069476
All the quantum weirdness comes from one assumption:
You can choose to carry out a certain measurement causally independent from the rest of the universe which in turn forces the universe to non-locally respond to your decision.
Of course that's bullshit.

>>17073944
>branching histories
>>*slaps hood* haha this baby can fit so many universes in it
where does the energy to create all these branches ex nihilo gajillions of times per second come from?

>>17074351
I already said that I admit that Consistent Histories brings the definition of “realism” into the spotlight. I actually said this *repeatedly*. But there is still some concept of “realism” in Consisten Histories, it is just not a straightforward thing if you are thinking in terms of classical intuition

anyhow thanks for pointing this out. Consistent Histories is very stringent on canonical locality but where it causes confusion is in terms of how we think about “realism”

>>17074360
>the photons telepathically tell Alice which way to orient her polarization filter this time
ayy lmao

>>17074363
No, it's just physically impossible to orient the filter any other way

>>17074361
where does the Path Integral get the privilege of doing a superposition of infinitely many different particle trajectories from?

Let me guess, you don’t like path integrals either?

>>17074365
mine's a mathematical object, yours an allegedly real physical process which is allegedly required to explain some observable physical phenomena and to do so by allegedly creating vast amounts of mass energy out of nothing

and let me try to help you out of your Everettian delusion in yet another way: these universes need to contain all possible outcomes for all observers, so does one need to get created for every observer that gets Lorentz boosted anywhere?

>>17074364
>just
propose another mechanism by which the spin of the photon and the orientation of the filter are causally bound

>>17074370
Everything is causally bound

>>17074368
I think now you are falling into the trap where Consistent Histories sort of diverged into different schools. If you look on Wikipedia’s entry about Consistent Histories, the misguided wikipedians make the conclusion that Consistent Histories is basically an improved Copenhagen interpretation. Those folks pushed it in the direction completely opposite anything “Everettian”. It’s not Copenhagen and neither is it Many-Worlds. It is a way to reconcile quantum variables with the fact that there is just one history of the universe subject to the fact that quantum variables have some randomness in them.

Gell-Mann uses the “branches of history” vocabulary but one does not need to think of those branches as physically real (or even more stupidly, requiring some supply of energy to produce them). Consistent Histories, in a proper form (not the Wikipedia form nor the bastardized Many Worlds read on it you seem to have stumbled on) just has some quantum variables which take randomized outcomes, but they follow from one single timeline through history (one real branch, the other “branches” Gell-Mann refers to are things that could have, but did not happen). it is not a deterministic interpretation

>>17074372
not enough, nigger
not enough
you see, the filter has to be rotated JUST SO, and EVERY GOD DAMN TIME, not just once or twice
you need a mechanism for that, some sort of evolution rule for the universe that makes that particular sequence of events happen, not just some bs handwavy "it's all determined from the Big Bang", I mean, okay it's determined, but why is it determined to happen this particular way? why do events exhibit this regular pattern? you're not off the hook, your nigger ass still has to do some physics, ya feel me?

>>17074375
>why do events exhibit this regular pattern?
That's just how the universe works. I could ask that about anything. Why do the constants have the values that they have? Why does space have 3 dimensions? Etc. ...

>>17074377
yeah, that's called doing physics, discovering the rules of the game. if you're not interested in discovering the rules of the game, you just a basic bitch nigga

>>17074374
>there is just one history of the universe
and which would this preferred foliation be? and what do you propose to use instead of GR and SR which you've just thrown out the window?

and for the second time, what do you mean by "quantum variables" and how do you believe they differ from regular-ass variables?

>>17074383
> and which would this preferred foliation be?
there is no preferred anything. The random outcomes of measurements of systems like (up+down)/root(2) are just what they are, we accept that and move on.
>and what do you propose to use instead of GR and SR which you've just thrown out the window?
I absolutely never said anything like that. SR and GR are valid

>and for the second time, what do you mean by "quantum variables" and how do you believe they differ from regular-ass variables?
i have explained this several times already. I would appreciate big you could refer to specific points in the discussion above where I already had this conversation

>>17074389
there has to be, because various observers see events occurring in different orders, and the only way you could assemble those into One Coherent History is to claim there is One Preferred Frame where it all makes sense and you can Lorentz transform all the observed sequences of events into that frame and they would all coincide
>i have explained this several times already.
nope

>>17074285
but the correlations that come out of the state are all in different bases that depend on the setting of the measurement device. it cant all be encoded at source because the correlation depends on the measurement device which you only know about later. so your logic is wrong. yeh sure if we were only talking about anti-correlations of two devices with the same setting you could determine at source. but you can make the devices different directions to eachother freely and in order to get the correct quantum correlationa each particle needs to know both measurement device settings. it cant be decided just at source

>>17074394
You are making a linguistic error. The Consistent Histories interpretation doesn’t insist that there is a preferred reference frame for ordering events that are spacelike separated. Maybe you intuited that from the vocabulary of the name? But Consistent Histories does not make any claims to that sort of nonrelativistic ordering

>>17074817
but it can be determined at the source if you don’t insist on some inappropriate classical interpretation. The choice of measurement device or orientation of spin measurements does not affect the state. The state encodes the correlations at the source. Whether you choose to do one measurement or another is fine for the state; the state you perform the measurement on doesn’t care what measurement you do on it (it only decorrelates as a result of the measurement process, i.e. it changes when you measure the particles described by the initial state, but the incoming state on which you perform the measurement doesn’t react to what measurement you are doing to it). So the correlations; no matter whether you are doing the measurement that implies perfect anticorrelation or whether it’s a measurement where there is no correlation, is all handled in the state that gets encoded at the instant of pair production

>>17074372
prove it by predicting when an atom will decay

>>17074952
the information about correlations is "encoded" in the state at source, whatever that means, but what those correlations say is the measurement outcome of one device depends on the other that can br arbitrarily far away. the state is encoding non-local correlations. the measurer has free choice over their measuring device and bell proves these correlations cannot have a hidden variable description.

they are non-local. that is the consensus unless you believe in superdeterminism or retrocausality. it doesn't matter if they are "encoded" at source.

sure you can say quantum variables are just different to classical. but why does that mean they aren't non-local in virtue of that. its hard to think of ways of making correlations look local without hidden variables. and you havent offered a coherent alternative that doesn't require outcomes to know what the other measurement is doing in a way that isn't non-local

>>17069476
Spacetime has to be an emergent property.
Every attempt to explain the double slit experiment has been disproven by some other experiment.
We don't get it.

>>17074149
>it's a curve-fitting exercise lol,
said by the exact kind of person I expect to make a "physics+AI 2027, saar" thread
>>muh renormalization "group"
do you even know what a group is?

>>17069476
>quantum mechanics thread
oh god finally
>look inside
>word salad
never fucking mind

Very interesting interpretation and honestly haven't heard the comparision with water that much before, and I truly like that comparison. "Either it's a drop of water or a wave in the ocean".

But, yea my interpretation or view of the Double/triple/quadruple slit experiment(s) was actually changed after learning about how photons actually travel.

We say "light speed" because well duh it's photons moving at the fastest known speed in the universe (Yea I know of Quantum entanglement etc, but we are talking about lightspeed, not 2 entangled particles).

And according to experiments, theories etc photons can technically travel backwards in spacetime. the reason for this is how photons (light) are always looking for the fastest way to travel somewhere, and in doing so have the potential of meeting another photon. What happens when a photon travelling at the speed of light crashes into another photon travelling at the speed of light??
Obviously they bang and out comes the Graviton!!! /j

And basically what I'm trynna say is, if photons can decide to travel back in time to find their fastest route of travel, so then in the double slit experiment (with photons, not electrons) we ares seeing the result of many photons that have collided into eachother deciding to each and every one of them go "a little bit further to the left" or "a little bit further to the right" thus creating the "wave function".

This is Extremely hypotetical and indeed just a theory, I just combined different quantumbased science together, but because I love QuantumPhysics so much.

a few sources I guess:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/light-can-travel-backward-in-time-sort-of/

https://www.physicsmatt.com/blog/2016/8/25/why-ftl-implies-time-travel

In other news, me the Consisten Histories guy is sitting here waiting to continue the argument. It’s rare for one interpretation shill (joke: CH is my hobby interpretation and nobody pays me for it. unlike most of the Bohm of Copenhagen or MW shills) to defeat all the others and let the Quantum Interpretations discussion just die out. Did I just achieve victory for Consistent Histories?

it is a Sisyphusian effort anyhow because I have been pushing this on this board for 8 or more years ; Gell Mann tried to publish on it in the early 90s; it’s a longstanding way to interpret Bell experiments and it gets no press or clout because it is just telling everyone that no, nothing faster than light happens and no, the reason why is not exciting if you already understand QM.

anyhow if we want to continue the shills’ forum please continue, i can limit my opinions to specific objections as opposed to expounding on CH all the time

>>17075400
>Spacetime has to be an emergent property.
Of matter/energy. There is no space or time without.

>>17075629
The Schwarzschild solution describes a space time in GR where all that exists is a single black hole and nothing else. The Minkowski spacetime is a flat spacetime with nothing in it. The de Sitter spacetime has nothing in it yet it expands infinitely.

My point is that if you think General Relativity is a credible theory for the universe (which it is) then you should not make such claims. There are very good models of spacetime/universes which have nothing (no matter) in them and yet Minkowski and de Sitter spaces are prototypical for modeling our universe. even Anti-de-Sitter is useful too, sometimes

>>17075651
>GR
>a single black hole and nothing else
>then you should not make such claims
what is a black hole made out of genius?
>Minkowski and de Sitter spaces
mathematical confabulations

>>17075651
i think he describes machs principle. A 1 particle universe is effectively 0D.

>>17075622
you literally have not offered any coherent account of quantum behavior and consistent histories is grabage interpetation

Consistant histories sound like Copenhagen with more retarded steps. Realism is generally defined as "Every physical quantity has a definite, objective value independant of measurement"
CH cultists just do a lot of mental gymnastics to say noooooo, we're gonna redefine what the word means just to say that our interpretation is (((realist))). Pure cope.

>>17074377
The universe appears to be deterministic at first glance, but non-deterministic after the discovery of QM, but actually it's deterministic because ever since the Big Bang the universe has conspired to give misleading results every time anybody in it decides to a Bell test? Seems awfully specific to me.

>>17075582
This is not a correct understanding. Photons don't travel back in time. They exist as an abstract probability wave until observed.
I recommend avoiding Scientific American and popsci channels like Veritasium.

>>17069497
so depending on the type of observation (the measurement device) the Pilot wave (or deterministic wave as you put it) takes on a different geometry?

And this geometry determines how the electrons interact with the slits?

>>17076363
Nta, but in QM there's no "depending on the type of measurement device".

I'm starting to understand why they burned heretics in the good ole days because I'm starting to want to do the same to pilot wavers.

>>17076370
...really? You can't shape this deterministic field of probability? Wouldn't it be in a way similar to shaping lines of magnetic potential (A)?

>>17076374
does heuristics model these deterministic waves more accurately than whatever we're doing?

>>17076379
>...really? You can't shape this deterministic field of probability? Wouldn't it be in a way similar to shaping lines of magnetic potential (A)?
I'm not well versed in pilot wave heresy, but yes, you can change the wave function by changing the physical setup. You can change the experimental setup, which changes the wave function and its evolution. But that's not the same as shaping a hidden deterministic field. In standard QM, the wavefunction evolves according to the physical interactions involved.
You mentioned a "deterministic field of probability", I assume this to mean a probability wave that evolves deterministically, which is a correct understanding.
Pilot wave posits that this wave is a physical entity thus violating special relativity.

perceived randomness is a meme by philsophical idealists/free willers banking on incomplete understanding

>>17076314
>>17076315
go ahead, seethe as much as you want Bohmtards, Consistent Histories won and you have no argument

>>17076406
Fundamental randomness is backed by both quantum mechanics and special relativity. What is your conviction of "perceived randomness" backed by? Other than outdated 19th century Marxist philosophy that is.

>>17076418
What experimentally observable prediction does CH make that Copenhagen does not?

>>17076434
I'm more curious if it's actually noise or just nearly perfectly compressed.

>>17075001
Sure, just give me a machine with enough precision to measure the subatomic field fluctuations.

>>17076434
its backed by science like balancing the humors was backed by 19th xentury science

>>17074360
>>17074364
>>17074372
>>17076530
>Sure, just give me a machine with enough precision to measure the subatomic field fluctuations.
>just measure the field fluctuations bro
source: I made it the fuck up
You're just assuming hidden variables determine decay times and calling it physics. What field, what variables, what equations? You haven't even proposed a mechanism. I suggest graduating from middle school first before you even think about quantum mechanics.

>>17076374
I take it back. At least pilot wavers have an actual model, however much it goes against Occam's Razor. I want to do it to determinists who don't even understand wtf they're talking about: >>17076530

This is why the physics should be reserved for the thinking man and popsci media is cancer.

>>17076540
Of course it's just a hypothesis at the moment. It will be proven with more precise measurements.

>>17076540
QM has no mechanics behind it, though, all the supposed experiments are just statistical analysis with zero models of what actually happens geometrically on the quantum level at interaction points.
>dood it's all just probabilities
Okay? And what determines the probabilities? And just like that we come full circle back to determinism.

>>17076545
The probabilities are determined by the Born rule, which makes precise quantitative predictions that experiments confirm. Asking what determines them doesn't magically establish determinism. You're confusing "QM doesn't give the answer you want" with "there must be hidden variables that do." That's the very thing you're supposed to demonstrate.

>>17076554
>born rule
>the probability of finding something at a position x is determined whether or not the thing is at position x
lol
>which experiments confirm
Yes, because all the QM experiments are constructed in a specific way to yield the results that were already expected, it's like making a calculator that says 2+2=5 and then claiming that 2+2 must be 5 because the machine you constructed to give you the answer you wanted gave you that answer.

>>17076588
>Yes, because all the QM experiments are constructed in a specific way to yield the results that were already expected
You realize that a CT scan or an MRI scan (that doctors send e.g. suspected cancer patients to) are both essentially QM experiments, right? Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, the key effect they utilize, is about as quantum as it gets. However according to your schizo logic, whether the scan shows a cancer tumor or whether you’re cancer-free is just a conspiracy by the guy who set up the machine

>>17076328
>but actually it's deterministic because ever since the Big Bang the universe has conspired to give misleading results every time anybody in it decides to a Bell test? Seems awfully specific to me.
kinda disapointed Sabine is into this nonsense. but hey everyone is free to take a position

>>17076647
Correction, just MRI; CT is based on x-rays. (but still a CT machine is based on quantum concepts too like how an x-ray tube works)

>>17076530
what about electrons tunneling?

If you believe that the math of relativity describes the actual geometry of the universe and isn't just an abstraction, you have to let go of non-locality, ontologically speaking. It just doesn't fit into the geometry of your universe

I think it would be funny if superdeterminism turned out to be true

>>17076698
fake chaos would be a sick joke ngl

>>17076544
No it won't, because local hidden variables have been ruled out. So either you abandon determinism, or relativity, or free will.
Which?

>hidden variables
>but they're not hidden, you just haven't measured them yet
???

>>17076647
Okay? That doesn't invalidate that there are variables which determine the probability of one thing happening over another.
>>17076870
There are no hidden variables because they're just calles variables.
QM schizos unironically be like
>if we take polarized light and a polarization filter and change the orientations then that determines whether or not any light comes through
>but actually there are no variables and it's just probabilities *pulls out equation that has 100 different variables*

>>17076898
I think you need to take some middle school physics classes first, then high school, then university quantum mechanics class. You're misunderstading some very basic concepts. See you in six years.

>>17076870
Free will doesn't even have a logically coherent definition so I won't lose sleep over abandoning the idea.
Also I would say that there's a 50% chance that spacetime is just a mathematical abstraction that doesn't really exist in that form. Similar to how the universe isn't really a single point in a 6N dimensional phase space as Lagrangian mechanics would suggest.
>No it won't, because local hidden variables have been ruled out
Nobody is talking about hidden variables. You're aware of the fact that there have to be non-hidden variables that we can't measure yet in the form of quantum gravity, right?

>>17076926
>Free will doesn't even have a logically coherent definition
Free will does have a logically coherent definition in this context: measurement independence.
>Nobody is talking about hidden variables
>immediately proposes unmeasured variables determining quantum outcomes
Calling them "non-hidden variables" doesn't change anything. If they're unmeasured variables determining outcomes, they're hidden variables by definition. Bell's theorem doesn't care whether your mechanism involves quantum gravity. You still can't reproduce the observed correlations while retaining realism, locality and measurement independence. You can reject any of these assumptions, but just invoking unknown physics doesn't get you out of the dilemma.

>>17076931
>>Free will does have a logically coherent definition in this context: measurement independence.
That's random will, not free will as most people understand it. Basically a quantum coin flip in your brain makes you randomly do shit. I wouldn't even call it will. Just random action.
>You can reject any of these assumptions
Yeah I reject statistical independence so Bell's theorem doesn't hold anymore and invoking unknown physics might get me out of the dilemma

>>17076935
>>17076931
Also how can you believe in the block universe of relativity but reject superdeterminism? One of these beliefs has to give

>>17076925
QM isn't physics though

>>17076968
You say this on a level of qualification that unironically makes you believe shit like
> pulls out equation [Schrodinger equation] that has 100 different variables [one constant and otherwise the same ones you need in classical mechanics]
While actual physicists with experience, education and practical knowledge to back their shit up disagree.
Exactly the kind of fraud that is the reason /shill/ doesn't have a QM general and never will.

>>17076968
You're probably the same retards that push aether or michelson morley.

>>17069476
QBismsisters... RISE UP!

its obvious from the existence of phase space formulation with quasi-probability distribution functions equivalent to density operator that qm operators are just designed to carry information about statistics. the use of operator is because non-commutativity of different bases. quasi-probabilities just a way of encoding statistical disturbance. many operator properties are just there to enforce axioms of classical probability in the context of complex numbers. density operators itself just consequence of normalizing classical probaability space. density matrix expression of born rule is just an expression for joint probabilities using povm elements

>>17076936
I don't "believe" in the block universe. There's no such theory. Relativity is an actual theory and until a better one is found, that's the theory to go with. Beliefs are for religious faiths.

>>17076935
If you reject measurement independence, you believe in superdeterminism. So just say that at the beginning next time so I can put you on the pyre without all this time wasting.

>>17077229
Are you saying QM is a statistical framework for predicting measurement outcomes, or that it's fundamentally reducible to classical probability? Because the latter doesn't follow from a phase space reformulation, especially when the Wigner function can be negative and Bell inequalities rule out local hidden variable models.

>>17077331
>I don't "believe" in the block universe. There's no such theory.
Of course there is and it's called special/general relativity. There is no unique present in relativity where you could make choices and adjust your polarizations filters. It all exists as a static 4D manifold. So yes, if you do an experiment there's only one physically possible filter orientation and only one physically possible outcome.

>>17077413
A 4D spacetime manifold doesn't imply determinism, let alone superdeterminism. You're conflating a way of describing spacetime with a claim about what causes measurement outcomes. GR doesn't say your filter settings have to be correlated with the photons. That's an extra assumption you're sneaking in.
You're treating a *philosophical* (yuck) interpretation of relativity as a proof of superdeterminism.

The only thing SR backs up is locality, which is why standard QM drops realism instead, because if you drop measurement independence, then all experiments, all science, since the beginning of time to today would have all been meaningless.

>>17077419
Instead you derive all meaning from an unexplainable magical mechanism called free will. What makes you think that having a random number generator in your brain lets you come to accurate conclusions about nature?

>>17077425
The same way measuring rain droplets on a circle and a square lets you estimate pi

>>17077425
Who said anything about free will being magic? Measurement independence just means the measurement settings aren't correlated with the hidden variables in the very specific and conspiratorial way superdeterminism requires. A RNG is a much simpler explanation.

>>17077425
see>>17076328

>>17077425
>Instead you derive all meaning from an unexplainable magical mechanism called free will. What makes you think that having a random number generator in your brain lets you come to accurate conclusions about nature?
RNG in brain can be the monkey on typewriter situation. at random, something makes sense. it's a reservoir of change, of ideas. think of it like TV static that at times forms coherent shapes, randomly. that you find useful. it's...options. it's good. you want that. and that's what free will havers are conflating their "free will" with. it's basically RNG. I have explained this before, here. some of them even understood it, as much as they didn't like it. they funnily don't have a choice in the matter, it's their only refuge

>>17077335
yes quantum theory is purely a statistical framework and thats what all its formalism explicitly objectively means. everyfing about the formalism is explained by it being a statistical theory with non-commutativity. its like non-commutative statistics superimposed on classical mechanics action. someone explicitly looking at it this way of hf hofmann. who decompose all the components of qm exactly this way. when you look from this way there is no reason to interpret quantum formalism as having ontology. it is just about the random statistics of measurement regarding physical properties and the transformation dynamics between these physical properties, and because measurements of different properties may not commute and so disturb or change eachother's statistics, the parts of quantum formalism describing transformation dynamics of these properties are what generate or carry information about those changes in statistics, which are virtually everything about quantum behavior. there is no need to think of quantum formalism as about ontology. it is silent on that

>>17078486
>holger hofmann
i've briefly encountered quasiprobabilities and tried to read his papers but to me it seemed like a lot of babble. i couldn't bring myself to care. maybe its because quasiprobabilities just don't work well for the broad part of quantum information (which i care about). they're good for optics but for everything else you just have to use the operator formalism because it's so much more convenient. and yes, they're equivalent, but the fact the latter works so much better makes me think that metaphysically QM has to be more than just generalised statistical distributions

>>17079611
quasi-probabilities and operator formalism is not mutually exclusive. hf hofmann work based on operators. its just another equivalent formulation of quantum theory. but quasi-probabilities phase space formulation make it much more transparent what quantum theory is actually about. operators can be seen as a way to carry information about probabilities. constraints on operators like being hermitian, complete, positive semi-definite are there to ensure they respect the axioms of probability theory

ok if a particle's position is in superposition, which place does it gravitationally affect? can't be all of them at once. but which one is it? is it split between all places it can be? like some kind of multiplexing or what? how tf does that work?
and could this explain "dark matter"? if it's the gravitational effect of particles in superposition? that would be fucking wild

Quadratic gravity is real and retrocausality is permitted at the Planck scale and greater. Yes you can quantize it.

>>17079642
>like some kind of multiplexing or what?
and would very high gravitational pulsing even be detectable? would it average out like PWM signal on a fan's speed?

>>17079642
but if it's split, you ca extract information about how many places it's in superposition. so it can't be split.
the mere gravitational effect would leak information about the system. sdo what does it mean for it to still have gravitational effect but also not leak any kind of info about the system?
bruh I need answers

>>17077419
>because if you drop measurement independence, then all experiments, all science, since the beginning of time to today would have all been meaningless.
And that's true. You can take one look at a basic epistemological thought experiments like the Münchhausen trilemma and realize that all knowledge is uncertain and nothing can truly be falsified or proven. (Or can it? We just don't know)
Scientists are notoriously anti-philosophical, but some epistemology should at least be understood.

>>17080324
it means the probability distribution has a probable center of mass and you'd be seeing that all the time, plus or minus sone n-th order corrections
not like anyone can "see" gravity waves on that scale anyway

File: 1788065162.png (134 KB, 862x692)

134 KB PNG

>>17082173 >>17082196

>>17082059
you can experiemntally derive G with two baseball size chunks of metal, on your desk. by measuring how much they distort space-time around them. with a quite primitive setup, provided you have a laser. like any pointer laser.
so you don't need something like the Moon to test this.
so is it possible "dark matter" is matter which is in superposition on all possible paths it could take? I'm a brainlet just trying to intuitively understand it somehow

>>17082171 me
>dark matter
since if it's in superposition it would be "dark", because it wouldn't interact with anything, but in this case it's gravity effects would "leak"

>>17082171
>you can experiemntally derive G with two baseball size chunks of metal, on your desk. by measuring how much they distort space-time around them. with a quite primitive setup
Most certainly not. You underestimate how small the effects are.
If we could measure gravity that easily we'd already have a theory of quantum gravity

>>17082196
>Most certainly not.
is that some kind of hunch or?
https://youtu.be/70-_GBymrck?t=450

>>17082213
That's not measuring the distortion of spacetime

>>17082215
of-course it does. what the fuck?? you calculate G, and you also have the mass of the object, density, size. what??? meds, now!

>>17082218
Yes very nice experiment to verify newtons law of gravity but it's way to imprecise to measure anything related to general relativity, let alone quantum mechanics. That's why you need a fucking solar eclipse to see the gravitational distortion of light

>>17082222
But time distortion is already experimentally verified, that's not in question here. The point is that you can derive G on your desk. Once you have it you can also calculate the time distortion.
My point wasn't that you can derive quantum mechanics from metal balls on your desk. Rather that you do not need a large mass to derive G.
But still, metal balls are way too large to be put in superposition. But if you could, you would be able to figure out what's going on with the gravitational effects of a system in superposition.
Also doubt metal balls are needed, they surely have way better testing setups for mass space distortion, no need for a metal ball. But even what they now have is not small enough for superposition. And doubt you can measure the gravitational effects of an atom.