Disproof of Qunatum Mechanics

Does the following disprove quantum mechanics, Veeky Forums?

Let psi be a wave function encoding the information that "quantum mechanics is false". If quantum mechanics were true, then by conservation of information no such information would exist anywhere in the universe, and thus the inner product with any vector with psi must be zero. However we can see from the form of propagators that any state has a non-zero chance of propagating to any state including psi, a contradiction.

To put it in plain English: were one to state that the universe is inherently uncertain, one could not also claim any theory (including quantum mechanics) to be true, thus my argument.

>form of propagators that any state has a non-zero chance of propagating to any state including psi

Find me the eigenstates of this "false" wave function and show me that there is a non-zero probability of evolving into such a state.

A wave function doesn't have eigenstates, only an operator does.

Would that include the theory in your argument?

I am claiming that it is absolutely certain that QM is false, so therefore no.

Find me the energy eigenstates

>Let psi be a wave function encoding the information that "quantum mechanics is false"

Explain this encoding

How exactly is not important. If a system is capable of representing all possible information, then any given idea can be encoded in that system.

Encoding a statement does not imply the statement is true. Information existing and information representing a truth are completely different things.

Then why should one believe that QM is true just because the professor says so?

>Information existing and information representing a truth are completely different things.
Given this, the truth of QM would still imply that it is possible to measure theoretically that QM is false since that information does exist (up to 5 sigma certainty if needbe). Then for any given theory one seeks to prove by correlating data with it then it is also a given based on my argument that one could also prove that theory is false.

"physicists" BTFO

What I want to know is, if psi is a wave function containing information as to the truth (or falsehood) of the Riemann hypothesis and proof thereof, how could I then use QM to pull it out of thin air.

>Let psi be a wave function encoding the information that "quantum mechanics is false".
Quantum states don't encode information, they just tell you what the system is doing at a particular point in time. Think about a classical system, like a single classical point particle; to tell you what that particle is going right now I just have to tell you its position. A quantum system can exist in a superposition of states, though, so to tell you the state of a single quantum point particle I have to tell you the amplitude for each classical state, or in other words tell you a complex number for each possible position -- that's what the wavefunction is.
>If quantum mechanics were true, then by conservation of information no such information would exist anywhere in the universe
That is a complete non-sequitur. Information doesn't exist somewhere: it's just the data needed to describe something.
>and thus the inner product with any vector with psi must be zero
Psi isn't a state, so it makes no sense to talk about inner products. It's like asking for the inner product of [7,0,2] and "apple" in that one is a vector in a particular vector space and the other isn't a vector (at least not in the same vector space)
>However we can see from the form of propagators that any state has a non-zero chance of propagating to any state
Even if psi were a real state this statement would be false. A state with an electric charge of 0 will never evolve to one with a charge of +1, for example.
I don't see how this version is supposed to match with the original, but the truth of quantum mechanics (or of any theory) can only be supported by experimental evidence, never proven. The fact that QM has uncertainty in certain situations doesn't mean one cannot collect data in favour of the theory. That data might have to be statistical, but again that is true of every scientific theory.

Everything you wrote is completely besides the point of what I said. = 0, that is to say.

In conclusion, it seems to me like you've just learnt about Godel's incompleteness theorems and have tried to apply the same sort of thinking to quantum mechanics, trying to encode some sort of liar paradox into quantum terms, the difference being that Godel created an explicit method of turning logical statements in a given language into integers, but you have not created such a system. Indeed, even with such a system you would have to show that such an encoding make QM self-contradictory and you have failed to demonstrate this, as I explained above.

I've explained how each step of your "proof" is either fallacious or ill-defined. Dismissing me (and every other poster in this thread) out of hand will not strengthen your argument.

>Quantum states don't encode information, they just tell you what the system is doing at a particular point in time.
Then everyone studying quantum computing is full of shit right?
>That is a complete non-sequitur. Information doesn't exist somewhere: it's just the data needed to describe something.
If a system contains the information "A is true", it necessarily contains the information "not A is false"
>Psi isn't a state, so it makes no sense to talk about inner products.
Yes it is.
>Even if psi were a real state this statement would be false. A state with an electric charge of 0 will never evolve to one with a charge of +1, for example.
QM implies that a particle can tunnel to any position, implying that any state whatsoever has a non-zero chance of being measured.

>I don't see how this version is supposed to match with the original, but the truth of quantum mechanics (or of any theory) can only be supported by experimental evidence, never proven.
Any statement whatsoever if shown to be self contradictory necessarily is false. "Evidence" only supports a theory under the assumption that A if and only if B, but B could just be a coincidence.

QM is bullshit you're right on that, but not for the reasons your described. It can be disproved in much easier ways.

>Quantum states don't encode information, they just tell you what the system is doing at a particular point in time. Think about a classical system, like a single classical point particle; to tell you what that particle is going right now I just have to tell you its position. A quantum system can exist in a superposition of states, though, so to tell you the state of a single quantum point particle I have to tell you the amplitude for each classical state, or in other words tell you a complex number for each possible position -- that's what the wavefunction is.
>believes particles have been proven to exist
>can only tell you where it's going not what it is
>Manipulated by electromagnetism yet somehow not related at all and intertwined instead in this stuff called "quantum glue/strings". Oh also gravity is it' own thing too, for some...reason
>"super position" is totally not the north and south pole of these "atoms" which are mostly empty space, but there's these things called quarks which are also mostly empty space and so on.
>"oh it "changes" its state when we bombard it with electromagnetic (insert instrument here) pulses".

How many more particles will they invent? How many more modalities must there be?

>how exactly is not important
Yes it does, because what you have said primarily is vague as shit. Do you mean that the statement "QM is false" is encoded somehow, or that the wavefuction is literally representing the probability that QM is false? The former would be meaningless, sense encoded information doesn't need to be true. The later is seriously absurd. You can't just decide that a quantum state is valid or makes any amount of sense just because muh uncertainty. Let me guess, you just started quantum 1 this week and already you think you have clever ideas?

It has an empirical basis stupid

You're the "spacetime doesn't exist" retard aren't you?

>Yes it does, because what you have said primarily is vague as shit
Fine, the information a waveform encodes is determined by how it can be expressed as a superimposition of eignstates of an operator (for example the fourier transform). It shares the same foundation as signals processing and information theory.

>It has an empirical basis stupid
Which could all be a coincidence.

Computers do not exist.

That is a statement currently encoded on a computer.

Woah, it still exists.

It doesn't matter to me how many times your jimmies get rustled and you continue not to disprove my point. Time is measurement only and I know that's hard to accept. You can go by the regular calendar, the Mayan calendar, or whatever it makes no difference.

Only mathematics can prove things.

Bumping so more people can see the brainlet

Let's put this in a different way. Let psi be the wavefunction of a particle put in such a state that it's fourier transform contains the true description of reality (whatever that may be). Suppose that reality contains the information that "quantum mechanics is true". However, the propagator of the particle allows the particle to tunnel to any position whatsoever, thus allowing any state, including "quantum mechanics is false". By conservation of quantum information, the information "quantum mechanics is false" must have been contained in the original state, a contradiction.

>thus allowing any state, including "quantum mechanics is false".
Thus allowing any state to be measured with probability amplitude > 0 is what I meant.

Do you actually understand what's a physical model?

>write "QM is true" on a piece of paper
>strike through "true" and write "false" instead
Wow I think I just disproved quantum mechanics.

Yes, if you write "QM is false" on a T shirt it is possible to measure that information by reading the T shirt. Doesn't mean QM is false. Do you have a mental illness by any chance?

Your mistake is in thinking any way of encoding information can actually contain meaning in this way. The message "QM is wrong" is not in itself information. Information, in the sense that we mean when we talk about QM, is a quantity that we measure and can calculate. Information is numbers, not statements. We can say that messages contain information, but encoding that message in any way is only meaningful because we have chosen a convention for representing the message physically. Encoding any message into a quantum state, however you think this would be performed, wouldn't give any actual significance to the actual message. You could literally encode any statement into a quantum state and nothing about how the state evolves would mean anything as far as how true the statement is.

No, but this renders it unnecessary.

>Which could all be a coincidence
Hence the statistical analyses of the empirical data