Link in question: (youtube.com
My favourite extract from the comments:
>George Beedle: Is it possible that electrons are interacting with the mesh of space-time in the same way as these droplets interact with the surface of the oil?.
>Veritasium: That's the thinking - maybe zero point fields are making the particles bounce around.
Becuz it is weird lol.
No one but brainlets use the words *quantum mechanics*.
The theory itself is disgusting and physics as a whole repels me.
...
>materialism is based on the assumption that the behavior of basic particles dictates the behavior of more complex material aggregates
>people look hard enough at matter
>the harder you look the more functionally immaterial it gets
>the harder you look the more terrifying the initial assumption becomes
>its self-refuting nature is comparatively innocuous even to a stemlord
>draw an arbitrary (read: necessary to mitigate terror) line in the spectrum of observable material phenomena and claim nothing beyond it affects anything before it
>call what lies beyond the treeline "quantum"
>Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view - Max Planck
You know when your alarm goes off while you're dreaming and sometimes the dreamworld tries to assimilate the sound?
Maybe you should change your sign then
quantum physics gets a lot of weirdness because it's weird. it's evidence that the world does not work the way that centuries of rational thought have tried to convince us that it does. that effects can be their own cause, that it's impossible for an observer to know what a system looks like when he's not observing it. due to the timing it's pretty much eradicated the faith people had that science will eventually find an answer for everything, or anything, really, because anyone will bet 100 dollars that there are particles smaller than quarks. and particles smaller than the subquarks. and so on ad infinitum.
it doesn't help that science and 'studies' in general has become a complete laughingstock due to the race for partisan and government money. anyone can back any statement they wish up with science, and anyone can argue against them, so, science doesn't have the conclusive say that it once had anymore.
people still have faith in engineering, however, and pretty much every good thing that we're getting going forward is due to engineers. engineers are doing all the real work now, because there's no war, and scientists don't really work for the joy of it anymore and probably couldn't afford to.
brainlets love their science fiction
>You know when your alarm goes off while you're dreaming and sometimes the dreamworld tries to assimilate the sound?
I don't see the connection to the rest of the post.
QM is often misrepresented because of a faulty assumption that the mathematics you do corresponds to a physical process.
Schrodinger equation says that the probability of a measurement is described by a wave equation.
It doesn't say what electrons do.
It doesn't say what happens between measurements at all.
However, this doesn't stop people from trying to interpret the schroedinger equation as a physical process itself.
aristotelians pls go
Just stating the facts.
Schroedinger equation describes the probability of measurement. Nothing more.
To say it describes more is just an assumption you pull from your ass. It's non-disprovable.
Just BTFO
nerd
Thanks, user. You're helping a ton.
...
On a related subject:
People say that entanglement implies action at a distance.
It does not. There's no reason to suppose that one particle is affecting the other in any way.
What is affected is the probability of measurement. Not the particle itself.
I thought entanglement just meant that you have to account for the entire system when you want to measure something, and the items in the system cant be displaced by large distances?
If that's the case, how could those things be considered to not be interacting if their measurements cannot be taken independently?
watch me shut down your claim.
can you prove any of those statements?
First rule of youtube: don't comment or read the comments
>can you prove any of those statements?
Look up the definition of the wave function.
Any proof I can show you using quantum mechanics is going to be in terms of "The probability of measurement". That's what entanglement relates to.
Q.E.D.
>If that's the case, how could those things be considered to not be interacting if their measurements cannot be taken independently?
You have to be more specific, I don't know what you mean by that. Two particles being entangled means that their states are correlated. The probability of measuring A is related to the measurement of B.
what do you define as "affecting?"
>what do you define as "affecting?"
Reality exists. Electrons exist.
If one electron affects another it means that it applies a force. Like the newtonian sense of interaction.
not him but what do you define as a force then.
>not him but what do you define as a force then.
an acceleration or a torque. a change of momentum/angular momentum.
If you let me know where you're going i can probably give you a better definition, but that's the idea.
I'm talking about the question of whether these particles are genuinely interacting with eachother.
>Reality exists. Electrons exist.
Nice meme bro.
It's quite nice IMO.
I'd like to bring it back.
This is why Philosophy will always be fucking trash tier.
>LMAO DUDE BEFORE WE ARGUE ABOUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THE BLOCK IF I PUSH IT WE GOTTA DEFINE REALITY FIRST XDDD
kill yourself and get off Veeky Forums,
>He thinks science doesn't rely on definitions
>He thinks science is not a branch of philosophy
A true plebe has entered the ring
>he thinks science is a branch of philosophy
that's what philosophers tell themselves to feel important and smart while real scientists tell them to fuck off
I came here to shitpost but now I'm genuinely curious about why nobody here likes physics.
it's a meme, everyone knows physics is the most respectable science
Maybe they do, that doesn't make them wrong.
t. philosophy undergrad student
t. Head chef at Wendys
Your definition of "affecting" is not broad enough in my opinion. A particle is essentially it's wave function. To say that entanglement affects the wave function IS saying that it affects the particle. You're claiming it's effecting the probability of measurement of the particle without affecting the particle, yet on a fundamental level all we can know about the particle is it's probability of measurement. It's like saying "force" is a different quantity than "change in momentum". The two interpretations are two sides of the same coin, we can never really know which one is strictly correct so what's the point of arguing about it.
>A particle is essentially it's wave function.
No it isn't. The relationship between the particle and the probability distribution is similar to that in statistical mechanics.
It may be that in a thermodynamic box, all i can know is the probability distribution... but denying the existence of the particles themselves is insanity.
>all we can know about the particle is it's probability of measurement.
For now, yes. But the distinction may be related to the fact that we can't unite QM and relativity.
Not to mention the fact that it avoids people talking about electrons in nonsensical, self contradictory ways. This nonsense is the reason QM is so confusing to so many people.
not that guy, but why cant a particle be modeled after its wave function if it exhibits behavior predicted by its wave function? I thought that was the whole point of the wave-particle duality, or does that only apply for light and not massive particles?
>not that guy, but why cant a particle be modeled after its wave function if it exhibits behavior predicted by its wave function?
If you say that "the electron IS its wavefunction as a physical entity" then you have to talk about nonsense like "Wave function collapse". That moves faster than light and is nonlocal and has all these peculiar facets that violate all of our intuitions.... You're talking about a probability amplitude as if it's a physical thing.
But if you instead say that the wavefunction is MERELY a probability amplitude associated with the measurement, then all of these nonsense counterintuitive ideas go away.
>No it isn't. The relationship between the particle and the probability distribution is similar to that in statistical mechanics.
I haven't taken statistical mechanics, could you explain what you mean?
>all i can know is the probability distribution... but denying the existence of the particles themselves is insanity.
Why? Let me redirect you to something you said in an earlier post:
>Schroedinger equation describes the probability of measurement. Nothing more.
>To say it describes more is just an assumption you pull from your ass
If all we can know about a particle is it's probability distribution, then what gives you the right to assume the particle exists? We should instead just talk about the particle's wave function ONLY. This is exactly the interpretation you seem to be against, yet you have no reason to be against it other than it being against your intuition. Again, we cannot know either way so there is no point in arguing about this. It's a philosophical debate until GR and QM are unified, which I doubt either one of us will do.
Quantum is a cool word dude
>I haven't taken statistical mechanics, could you explain what you mean?
In statistical mechanics the idea is that you only know certain pieces of information about the particles inside of a box.
Using this information, you can construct a probability distribution that describes what you expect to measure if you try to measure, say, the velocity of one of the particles in the box.
The quantum student might suggest that this implies that each particle in the box is actually literally in a superposition of velocities... and doesn't have a velocity of its own.
He might say that inside the box no particles exist at all... that instead, there only exists a probability distribution associated with their positions and velocities.
... but it would be insane to suggest that just because the probability distribution describes what you will measure that it IS the reality itself.
No, >We should instead just talk about the particle's wave function ONLY. This is exactly the interpretation you seem to be against, yet you have no reason to be against it other than it being against your intuition.
No, I'm OK with this. What I disagree with is treating the wave function as something more than a probability distribution.
Probabilities are not physical entities (and neither are their square roots). A probability is a conceptual thing. When I talk about a probability I'm not JUST talking about a single thing, I'm talking about the fraction of ALL possible scenarios where the measurement is taken. This is where people get the "many worlds" interpretation... where they say that because the wavefunction is real, all the universes that are implied by the probability are also real and are informing my measurement.
This is insanity.
A probability is a different kind of entity than a particle is. A probability wave is a different kind of entity than a physical wave. Confusing the two is a grave mistake.
>But if you instead say that the wavefunction is MERELY a probability amplitude associated with the measurement, then all of these nonsense counterintuitive ideas go away.
Except for the nonsense counterintuitive idea that there is a nonphysical thing (the probability amplitude) associated with a physical process. Somehow, perhaps by magic, the probability amplitude interacts with the measurement. There is no difference between claiming a nonphysical association and claiming ftl particles exist in these systems. In both cases it's out of the realm of current physics.
>Except for the nonsense counterintuitive idea that there is a nonphysical thing (the probability amplitude) associated with a physical process.
Everything in reality has a probability distribution associated with it.
Why do you say that this is counter intuitive?
There is a probability distribution associated with how quickly and how many times I will respond to your posts, for example.
All probability distributions are "non-physical". They're conceptual things.
>but it would be insane to suggest that just because the probability distribution describes what you will measure that it IS the reality itself.
The concept of uniqueness would disagree with you. If a model of reality makes accurate predictions, we have no reason to dismiss the model.
>All probability distributions are "non-physical". They're conceptual things.
If they are nonphysical conceptual things, how do they affect physical processes? You have to describe a physical mechanism, otherwise you're just a closet dualist and we're back at square one of this thread
>The concept of uniqueness would disagree with you. If a model of reality makes accurate predictions, we have no reason to dismiss the model.
You explain why clearly in the below part. It doesn't make sense to have probabilities interacting with physical entities. Probabilities are not physical. It's a different category of thing.
>If they are nonphysical conceptual things, how do they affect physical processes?
They don't affect a physical process.
The wave function DESCRIBES the probability that you will measure a particular state of the particle. That's what I mean when I say it's the probability associated with the measurement.
The schrodinger equation doesn't talk about what happens inbetween measurements.
>You explain why clearly in the below part. It doesn't make sense to have probabilities interacting with physical entities. Probabilities are not physical. It's a different category of thing.
But if the wave function is a physical thing, it would make sense. The only thing stopping it from making sense is your refusal to admit they are physical.
>The wave function DESCRIBES the probability that you will measure a particular state of the particle.
>The schrodinger equation doesn't talk about what happens inbetween measurements.
Since we have no theory in physics about what happens between the measurements, we cannot say anything about the particle unless we are measuring it (that includes claiming that a particle exists between measurements). The best way to describe what's happening between measurements is by using the probability of measurement, I'm sure we can agree on that. Therefore, up to our current understanding in physics, inbetween measurements the only thing we can be certain of that "exists" is the wave function (we know this exists between measurements because we use it to predict our measurements).
You claim that between measurements, a particle exists (as intuition would tell you). So, between measurements, we have two options. The particle does physically exist and the wave function which describes it lives in some transcendental mathematical universe beyond the physical. Or, the wave function is not transcendent but instead physical. Since you claim the particle physically exists between measurements, the only reconciliation would be the wave function IS EQUIVALENT TO the particle. This is my view as a materialist who thinks that nonphysical (conceptual) things are not real. If you want to put probability into another category of thing, as you put it, you cannot claim to be a materialist.
>The only thing stopping it from making sense is your refusal to admit they are physical.
"The probability that a particle will be measured at position x is a physical thing".
What does that mean? Why would I say that?
A wave function doesn't have any physical properties. It doesn't have a position. It doesn't have a momentum. What exactly is physical about it?
>The best way to describe what's happening between measurements is by using the probability of measurement, I'm sure we can agree on that.
No I don't see why you say that. How does that follow?
The best way is to talk about the particle. Even if we don't have a theory of exactly what's going on, we know that energy and momentum are conserved generallly. We can still talk about particles having these things in the same way that we do in statistical mechanics.
>Therefore, up to our current understanding in physics, inbetween measurements the only thing we can be certain of that "exists" is the wave function (we know this exists between measurements because we use it to predict our measurements).
Probabilities don't exist temporally. They don't exist anywhere or anywhen. They are defined through an infinite ensemble of systems that are imaginary.
>This is my view as a materialist who thinks that nonphysical (conceptual) things are not real.
Define probability. What does probability mean. There's no way to define it in a physical sense that doesn't appeal to imaginary conceptual events that will never occur anywhere.
If you're a materialist, there's no way for probabilities to be physical objects.
>If they are nonphysical conceptual things, how do they affect physical processes? You have to describe a physical mechanism, otherwise you're just a closet dualist and we're back at square one of this thread
All of your confusion comes from the assumption that the Material World is basal.
It describes the wavefunction, which contains not only probability amplitude but complex phase information as well. This phase stuff causes interference between measurements which causes different outcomes. At the measurement stage it is just probability but I think it's going a bit far to say that nothing strange is happening in between the measurements.
>The schrodinger equation doesn't talk about what happens inbetween measurements.
The schrodinger equation describes time evolution of a quantum system, arguably it ONLY describes what happens in between measurements.
>A wave function doesn't have any physical properties. It doesn't have a position. It doesn't have a momentum. What exactly is physical about it?
A particle does not have an exact position of momentum either, so why are you claiming it is physical? You need to change your definition of physical because of the un-intuitiveness of quantum mechanics.
>Even if we don't have a theory of exactly what's going on, we know that energy and momentum are conserved generallly.
>generally
But this is not always the case, and in special cases like very small systems it has been observed to not be true (virtual particles). And since we're discussing these very small systems, that isn't a valid point.
>They are defined through an infinite ensemble of systems that are imaginary.
>imaginary
Just because mathematicians called them imaginary numbers doesn't make them nonphysical. Again, unless you claim to be a dualist, you cannot claim that things exist outside of reality. I have no problem with dualists, I'm just trying to get you to admit that your beliefs are in accordance with that philosophy.
>Define probability. What does probability mean. There's no way to define it in a physical sense that doesn't appeal to imaginary conceptual events that will never occur anywhere.
>If you're a materialist, there's no way for probabilities to be physical objects.
Again, your definition of physical is not broad enough. For a materialist, everything is physical, even imaginary things. It's just information, which has a physical meaning. You need to change your definition of physical, just because you want it to be synonymous with "intuitive" doesn't mean it is.
>All of your confusion comes from the assumption that the Material World is basal.
I'm not sure what this means exactly but I have a feeling I addressed it in my post. I claim that the material world is all there is. Thoughts, imagination, everything has some material physical "meaning".
>The relationship between the particle and the probability distribution is similar to that in statistical mechanics.
It really isn't.
There's a whole formalism of quantum statistical mechanics based on the fact that quantum randomness and statistical randomness are different things.
It soundss to me like you subscribe to some idea of local hidden variables that define what state a particle is REALLY in. Bell's theorem has shown that to not be the case.
>A particle does not have an exact position of momentum either, so why are you claiming it is physical?
If it does not have a position, then it is not a particle. You can't talk about a particle without admitting it has a position.
>"there is a particle"
>"where?"
>"nowhere"
>"?????"
When you say things like that, you're violating the concept of a particle.
Of course it does have a position, it's just that if I choose to measure it, I will disrupt the momentum.
>But this is not always the case, and in special cases like very small systems it has been observed to not be true (virtual particles).
This is because you cannot get external noise to zero. When you have small systems, obviously environmental effects are going to hugely effect the system. It's statistical.
>Just because mathematicians called them imaginary numbers doesn't make them nonphysical.
I'm talking about probabilities. Not imaginary numbers. Probabilities are un-physical.
Define probability. This is a serious challenge to you. When you try to do that, you will see that it is absolutely a conceptual thing.
>There's a whole formalism of quantum statistical mechanics based on the fact that quantum randomness and statistical randomness are different things.
Similar doesn't mean the same. It means analogous.
>Bell's theorem has shown that to not be the case.
People say that, but it's not really clear that that's true.
What bell's theorem says is that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory.
But quantum mechanics doesn't talk about particles. It talks about probability of measurement.
Anyway, I'm not here to prove the hidden variable theory. I'm here to remind people that a probability distribution is not a physical object.
>At the measurement stage it is just probability but I think it's going a bit far to say that nothing strange is happening in between the measurements.
I'm not saying nothing is happening between measurements.... I'm saying Schrodinger equation doesn't tell us what is happening.
The phase of the wavefunction keeps track of some information that is necessary to predict the measurement, that's true... But what that algebra corresponds to in reality is unknown.
>Of course it does have a position, it's just that if I choose to measure it, I will disrupt the momentum.
So at the time of measurement, the particle has a position, yet it's momentum is undefined. Doesn't this also violate the concept of a particle?
>Define probability.
probability is the ratio of one or more specific outcomes to the total number of outcomes possible. If is information about a system. Information is physical. It's similar to multiplicity and entropy, these things do not have physical units yet they are physical entities. You may claim it's not an object, but again you must learn to broaden your definition of "object". If it is not physical, can you explain to me what it is? Saying something is un-physical is saying that it doesn't exist, otherwise you are not a materialist. That's all I'm asking you to admit.
>What bell's theorem says is that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory.
>I'm not here to prove the hidden variable theory. I'm here to remind people that a probability distribution is not a physical object.
Again, if it's not a physical object what is it? A mathematical object that can travel FTL? IMO that's just as absurd sounding as saying a particle is equivalent to a wave function.
pretty cool and +1 for talking about pilot wave
:)
this is why I never come here
A novel is just ink and paper.
Naive materialism in a nutshell.
>So at the time of measurement, the particle has a position, yet it's momentum is undefined. Doesn't this also violate the concept of a particle?
Every particle has a position and momentum. It doesn't mean that we know what its momentum is. It's an unknown.
There's a difference between saying "the position is unknown" and "the position does not exist". The latter violates the concept of a particle. Same with the momentum/velocity.
>probability is the ratio of one or more specific outcomes to the total number of outcomes possible.
Do you recognize that when you calculate a probability you're counting up events that have never happened and never will happen?
>It's similar to multiplicity and entropy, these things do not have physical units yet they are physical entities.
Why?
What makes them physical entities?
You can never point to a multiplicity. It's an abstraction. It's just a number.
Numbers aren't physical entities.
>Saying something is un-physical is saying that it doesn't exist, otherwise you are not a materialist.
Yea. Numbers don't exist in the same sense as a table. They're concepts. Probabilities don't exist in the same sense as electrons.
They are concepts.
A glass of water is a physical object. A multiplicity is not. There's a difference between the two.
>Again, if it's not a physical object what is it? A mathematical object that can travel FTL?
Probabilities don't travel. They don't have a position. They can't move from one place to another if they never occupy anywhere. They exist as a concept. It's one number of imaginary scenarios divided by another number of imaginary scenarios.
>How fast does the number 1 travel?
It doesn't go anywhere.
>A novel is just ink and paper.
But that's true.
The additional meaning it holds is an emergent property of the ink's specific configuration, just as with barcodes and QR codes. The "rules" we have constructed to interpret them are precisely that.
why? because people want to know what's up and look for an explanation that doesn't take them 6 semesters.
don't you be dissing dr. derek miller, mah nigger!
>Every particle has a position and momentum. It doesn't mean that we know what its momentum is.
If a quantity fundamentally cannot be known when taking a measurement, and is unknown between measurements, why the hell are you saying it exists?
>There's a difference between saying "the position is unknown" and "the position does not exist".
Except you're not just saying "the position is unknown" you're saying "the position cannot be known". The difference is subtle but it's still there. I disagree that "the position cannot be known" and "the position does not exist" are different statements. In both situations, you're given the same information about the particle, so the two conclusions are equivalent to one another.
>Do you recognize that when you calculate a probability you're counting up events that have never happened and never will happen?
These exist physically in the sense that they are different configurations of physical objects. See >Why?
>What makes them physical entities?
The fact that everything in the universe is physical. Physics is the study of the physical.
>Yea
So you're agreeing you aren't a materialist?
>They're concepts.
Define concept
>Probabilities don't travel. They don't have a position. They can't move from one place to another if they never occupy anywhere.
So basically you're saying they transcend physical reality? This is the definition of dualism. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but you should accept it instead of arguing it's a materialistic viewpoint.
>>How fast does the number 1 travel?
This is a legitimate question that can be answered in terms of computer engineering (which is physical).
I don't really know much about QM but I find your general argumentation convincing. Any papers I can read on this?
>ITT: People who don't know QM or QFT tries to argue with a guy who has.
This is why I stopped reading posts on Veeky Forums, what that guy is saying makes sense if you actually take a moment to read what he is saying.
>if you actually take a moment to read what he is saying it makes sense
>This is why I stopped reading
Yeah, your opinion is discarded.
any undergraduate course of qm, jesus fucking christ does anyone here actually have a basic education?
>Does not know how structuring in the English language works
kill yourself
>If a quantity fundamentally cannot be known when taking a measurement, and is unknown between measurements, why the hell are you saying it exists?
It's part of the definition of a particle. If you say a particle exists, the concept you're communicating is that there's a thing that exists somewhere in space. It's either moving or it's not moving.
The wavefunction of an electron is the wavefunction of a particle. It describes the probability that I will measure the electron to be in a particular position.
The idea that reality exists even when you're not looking at it is a fundamental axiom that most people accept. This is one of the problems I have with your position.
This thing you're arguing for is solipsism in disguise.
>These exist physically in the sense that they are different configurations of physical objects.
So you think imaginary friends exist? It's merely a different configuration of physical objects than the ones we see in the world. Therefore they exist?
>So you're agreeing you aren't a materialist?
No. I said numbers don't exist in the same sense as a table. I agreed with you that they don't exist.
>Define concept
A conceptual object is an object that only exists in the mind/brain of the one imagining it, and not in the physical space being studied.
>So basically you're saying they transcend physical reality?
I believe they exist in people's minds. But it's not something relevant to the quantum system being studied. It doesn't move faster than light. It's not part of the physical system we're interested in.
>This is a legitimate question
No it isn't. Computer scientists are talking about the rate of transfer of information... but what's actually happening in reality is that photons or electrons are going through a tube. What's moving are electrons, not numbers.
Not even the majority of people working with quantum physics consider the Copenhagen interpretation reality, you act like there is an agreement in the field, that is just plain wrong.
There is no argument over if the math works or not, but so does Newtonian physics, they weren't wrong, they just dont describe reality. You have to interpret the math, and when you do, you have to make assumptions. They can be correct, but if you dont even have a complete mathematical understanding of the world(and we don't, give me a generally accepted theory of quantum-gravity, and we can discuss this point further), it is very arrogant to then say that your own interpretation of the math is physical reality. There is no agreement in this field, on this topic, dont pretend there is.
>What's moving are electrons, not numbers.
You mean charge. Electrons themselves are very slow and change direction.