This cannot be fundamentally correct, what if they are all just measuring wrong?
>>17079976why are physicists so against global variables?
>>17079976this is the type of conversation I would enjoy while having sex... why can't my wife be a physicist bros ( ._.)
>>17079976You and your twin share a common mother even if you were sent to different foster homes in far away countries.
>>17079984it's more like you share a common mother but which mother isn't exactly set.
>>17079976it's obvious (to me anyway) that when entangled particles are created, their spin is already decided and not decided when its measured which would somehow allow faster-than-light communication
>>17079987The ICC sealed all those records, Anon.But once unsealed, everyone knows.Identical scenarios.
>>17079976Anon, that is just your ape brain refusing to believe that fundamental particles don't behave like a banana.
>>17079994>not like bananwhy tho
>>17079984tf you say about my mom bro?
Of course it's bullshit. A particle can't be in two places at once. Anyone with half a brain cell can understand this basic fact. Scientists are just making shit up for the fun of it now. All quantum bullshit is fake.
>>17079976Entanglement is just a fancy way of saying you put two particles into matching phases. The idea that they're linked is totally incorrect as modifying one particle doesn't affect the other. Merely reading the state of one particle lets you infer the state of the other particle.Also most of astronomy is measuring errors or wrong theories of gravity and light at large scales.
>>17080011>Entanglement is just a fancy way of saying you put two particles into matching phases.proven to not be true. as in literally proven they're not collapse to some state you just don't know yet. it's not theory, it's like...proven. do you understand the meaning of proof?
>>17079989This is what's referred to as a Hidden Variable theory. Experimental evidence trends towards not supporting their existence.
>>17080007All "quantum bullshit" exists as a consequence of explaining why the emission spectrum of atoms only exists in discrete spectral lines.
Mass has to create it's own space/time for planets etc with the connection.
>>17080011I am not sure if "Phases" is accurate nomenclature?A description of identicality is more....entangled with the definition An identical copy that is moving with the same force in the exact same directional movement pattern A duplicate If you made a copy of yourself and you were both in separate completely round white rooms with no identifying features, at conception of the clone, you would essentially be thinking the exact same thought patterns.The input stimulus that alters your thought patterns, and thusly your actions, or, your actions, and thusly your thought patterns, would be identical, your minds, bodies, motions and directions would be timed and sequenced to the exact same state.I am not sure how long before decohesion and disentanglement would occur without stimulus inputPerhaps the nuclear decay rates and positioning of the air particles in the room, and the decay rates of the materials making the rooms boundaries would dictate. Small fluctuations in the energy powering the lighting sources..... The stimulus.....Lower the complexity of that down to a few particles.
>>17079997You won’t know who she is until the judge unseals the records. Then your twin knows too.It’s called physics and all the kids are doing it.
>>17080036They are lying. If you could have a same particular indistinct across space, then all electrons everywhere are a single electron.
>>17080154There isn't a single electron, but there is a single electron field. All electrons are merely vibrations in it.
>>17080156A field is redundant if spatial attributes are not real to the member in question. ie, I can distinguish between A and B, but A = B
>>17080154Think of it like this.Being that electrons are very small and simple in comparison to life, how many possible different action combinations can an electron possibly have?Is there a max limit to the number of differences in minute size, movement, angles of impact and collisions and energies of such that an electron can have? There may no no identifying features or markings that indicate one electron is different from another, perhaps they are all built to near identical specs and differentiation again does not come until higher up the Planck scale in size towards cellular life. Perhaps an impact with anything else is the same, only difference is in speed/energy of the impact itself because electrons are so uncomplex (from our perspective ratio being that we are made of gazillions of electron combinations and interactions)The smaller down the Planck scale we go, the less angle vector track lattice Aether matrix directions of gimbal movement we have to work with.Less complexity of individual movements, less complexity of forces, less interactions, less complexity of ratios to process at that scale. Down at the atomic scale, rotation and orbit has not been completely built up yet and so we call the jerky grid-like track movements of electrons around the nucleus "Intrinsic spin, angular momentum, cloud probability" Is it possible to model a single electrons total possibilities? Is so, multiple identical electrons moving in the same direction with the same energies would be identical until the universes forces separately interacted with them in different locationsIf you could isolate these electrons so that no outside universe forces interacted with them (absolute zero means zero slop is banging into them randomly), they could maintain identical coherence and produce identical results when measured identically. Then we upscale.
>>17080036>The input stimulus that alters your thought patterns, and thusly your actions, or, your actions, and thusly your thought patterns, would be identicalnah, different brownian noise, a lot of stochastic shit will add up quickly to different activity in the body and in the room. they start diverging as soon as they are both resumed, if I were to guess.
>another quantum woo thread where none of the participants ever studied qm
>>17080330>there is much to study in quantum
>>17080318*You itch your noses*
>>17079980>why are physicists so against global variables?Violates causality
>>17079989Clauser, Zeilinger and Aspect got the Nobel prize in 2022 for proving this cannot be correct (i.e. experimentally disproving Bell's theorem)
>>17080332yeah, unfortunately there isn't much to study in quantum mechanicsin particular the evolution of physical systems in time is completely unexplained>>17080528wtf is a causality even? can you write an equation describing the action of causality?
>>17079976>This cannot be fundamentally correctit can. it just means the intuitive notions of space and time are illusory, and why wouldn't they be?
>>17079984It's more like your mom having a black and a white baby and the soientists assuming that since the black baby turned into a criminal then the white baby must be a billionaire
>>17080528Causality doesn't exist
>>17080833Tell that to the police.
>>17080528only if information can be exchanged faster than lightfor all its problems, the wavefunction collapse interpretation doesn't violate causalityin classical EM, the coulomb gauge is interesting because it depends on the state of the potentials everywhere in space at a given instant w.r.t. a given reference frame. it, too, does not violate causality.
>>17080652>in particular the evolution of physical systems in time is completely unexplained>wtf is a causality even?that's funny because of the cognitive dissonance you see...
>>17079976You and other person get a box with either a spoon or fork in it. The other person goes to Mars. Once they arrive, you both open your boxes. Your box contains a spoon, and now you know their box has a fork in it.Spooky action at a distance.
>>17079989no goy it cant be solved because they will cut our funds
>>17080027wrong
>>17080900yeah your cognitive dissonance is something to behold indeedone thing causes another, you say?the quantum wavefunction is global, retard, and there's no way to slice it up into anything you might call "objects" that "cause things to happen"
>>17081104just read Bell's paper, or watch any Maudlin presentation about it if you want the painfully verbose explanation of what is already an extremely clear explanation of why you're wrong
>>17079976Oh yea, I forgot about that time they did that experiment on two different sides of the galaxy.
>>17079976This is fully explained by particles being quanta of spacetime; entangled particles are just the same bit of space so the distance both in space and time between them is zero
>>17080839He can't, the Causality Police also do not exist.
>>17081111No you
>>17080875>only if information can be exchanged faster than lightEntanglement fundamentally allows for information to travel faster than light. More to the point, global variables would mean global time, which means causality gets fucked regardless.
>>17081367Entanglement does not allow information to travel faster than light because the dynamics of an entangled system does not reveal anything to an observer unless you know the state of the entire system. Changes to one side otherwise have no visible impact on the other.
>>17081375>Entanglement does not allow information to travel faster than light because the dynamics of an entangled system does not reveal anything to an observer unless you know the state of the entire system.This only holds true if you arbitrarily exclude the other entangled particle from being considered an observer. Which is fucking dumb.
>>17081383It doesn't only hold true, then. There's literally nothing to see; a change to one side of the system looks identical to nothing happening at all unless you know what's going on on the other side.
>>17080650>for proving this cannot be correctThey didn't. They disproved Bell's Theorem, but not the original statement.:>it's obvious (to me anyway) that when entangled particles are created, their spin is already decided and not decided when its measured which would somehow allow faster-than-light communicationThis can still very well be true through superdeterminism; that the spin and the experiment itself were determined to happen back already during the singularity, or straight after it. Superdeterminism is just ruled out in Bell's Theorem without any sort of justification, so many assume that the original statement was disproven. Instead, only Bell's Theorem was shown to be wrong. Either the world is not locally real or superdeterminism is true.
>>17081592>“There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.”-Bell, the egotist himself.
>>17081592>it's obvious (to me anyway) that when entangled particles are created, their spin is already decidedwhy is it obvious to you? maybe some kind of classical good ole intuition you are trying to use for it?
>>17081624Does the change in typing style not directly indicate to you that we are two different individuals?
>>17081632that is intuition yes, which can obviously be wrong.intuition is a black art with no guarantee. we use it because it's statistically helpful, not absolute.and, in the end, it's based around models. models you learn, and apply. I am not saying having a quantum intuition is impossible. I am saying classical intuition will fail at quantum stuff. because the models we are used to, our classical intuition, do not apply in the quantum realm, thus it will most likely fail. statistically it's not a good tool, for quantum. with classical models
>>17081635Are you a bot? You didn't even read my post.
>>17081637I did read your post, but it seems my reply just went over your head.
>>17081639So you read it and intentionally took absolutely nothing from it so you could monologue as if you weren't actually talking with someone? Peak autism.
>>17080197electrons are point-shaped
>>17079976its a coincidence
>>17081592>They disproved Bell's TheoremThey didn't. You're confusing terminology you don't actually understand.
>>17080156>There isn't a single potato, but there is a single potato field. All potatoes are merely outgrowths in it.
