/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10904207

48KiB, 650x569, c.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 21:31:32 2019 No.10904207 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10904220 >>10904223 >>10904224 >>10904283 >>10904421 >>10904427 >>10904495 >>10904652 >>10905208 >>10905441 >>10905494 >>10907565 >>10907640 >>10910204 >>10910261

despite quantum mechanics isn't the universe still deterministic?

If you have two universes with the same initial conditions the two universe will evolve in exactly the same way with the exact same quantum events that are supposedly random.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 21:36:32 No.10904220 Report

Quoted By: >>10906742

>>10904207
We can't be sure either way. Not to mention it's a semantic argument at best. Anyone who really argues about this shit one way or another is retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 21:37:34 No.10904223 Report

Quoted By: >>10904246

>>10904207
You're asking if the initial conditions of the universe can be measured.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 21:37:56 No.10904224 Report

Quoted By: >>10904428 >>10905382

>>10904207
That is probably only the case if you accept non-local hidden variables. But I still believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 21:46:29 No.10904246 Report

Quoted By: >>10904441

>>10904223
doesn't matter if it can be measured. we can just imagine it as two numbers separated by an equal sign such as x=x

for any operation you perform on one side of the equation the same operation performed on the other side will give you the exact same result for every possible operation. we don't have to know what's in x to know this is true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 22:04:03 No.10904283 Report

Quoted By: >>10904432

>>10904207
Well if the quantum events are truly random, then no, the two universes would not end up the same. But we don’t know if true randomness is a fundamental property of the universe, or there’s just hidden mechanisms that explain the apparent randomness.

Modern physics doesn’t say, but quantum mechanics and it’s assumption of randomness is the most accurate theory we have to explain and predict what we see on the smallest scales.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 22:56:34 No.10904421 Report

Quoted By: >>10904458

>>10904207
>If you have two universes with the same initial conditions the two universe will evolve in exactly the same way with the exact same quantum events that are supposedly random.
Only until you make a measurement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:01:26 No.10904427 Report

Quoted By: >>10905377

>>10904207
>If you have two universes
You don't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:02:02 No.10904428 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904224
No, he's talking about quantum effects not mattering, not a loophole for Bell's Theorem. What happens on the quantum scale doesn't necessarily have any impact beyond that scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:03:38 No.10904432 Report

Quoted By: >>10904485 >>10905432

>>10904283
>if the quantum events are truly random, then no, the two universes would not end up the same.
For your statement to be true you would need to show the quantum level events make any difference to the end state of the entire universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:08:24 No.10904441 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904246
^This. I get the impression the rest of you are for some reason assuming quantum scale activity impacts anything else beyond that context. The entire reason normal physics works is because of the opposite assumption that the quantum scale events don't matter and instead end up coalescing into deterministic impacts on the rest of the world and its phenomena.
That's kins of the whole reason behind even making a distinction for quantum scale events in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:13:08 No.10904450 Report

Quoted By: >>10904467

OP seems to be talking about quantum events being random vs deterministic, but now the topic somehow shifted to whether quantum events matter in the first place. Which is an incredibly stupid question. The fact that we can observe them occurring at all means they matter. We wouldn't be talking about them if they didn't matter, because we wouldn't even know about them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:17:49 No.10904458 Report

Quoted By: >>10904462 >>10905494

>>10904421
Well that's really the crux of OP's question. If you believe wave function collapse is real then you say it is not deterministic. If you don't (e.g. many worlds), then it is deterministic

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:21:00 No.10904462 Report

Quoted By: >>10904468

>>10904458
Nothing about wave function collapse is necessarily nondeterministic. Nothing about non-local hidden variables implies many worlds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:23:27 No.10904467 Report

Quoted By: >>10904476 >>10904482

>>10904450
They clearly don't matter in a number of common scenarios. The fact you can disregard them and use regular physics for almost any macro scale phenomenon tells us that. The fact we have a quantum scale at all tells us that. It's the entire point. The probabilistic weirdness stops mattering past certain conditions involving scale or temperature and instead the results start turning into classical results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:23:33 No.10904468 Report

Quoted By: >>10904482

>>10904462
>Nothing about wave function collapse is necessarily nondeterministic

I would call this "not believing wave function collapse is real" (or just complete nonsense)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:29:52 No.10904476 Report

Quoted By: >>10909853

>>10904467
Cosmologists think quantum fluctuations when the universe was much denser were the seeds of large scale inhomogeneity in the visible universe today

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:31:09 No.10904482 Report

Quoted By: >>10904487

>>10904467
They matter in some scenarios, which should be enough to put an end to discussions of whether they matter at all. Quantum events led to this conversation occurring, which is an easily citable example of quantum events causing macro scale phenomenon. Regarding classical physics, It's almost like the average result of magnitudes of chaotic and probabilistic events tends to have an incredibly predictable outcome.

>>10904468
Something can be real without knowing all of the information that goes into the interaction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:35:21 No.10904485 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904432
We're going to need a cat.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:35:54 No.10904487 Report

Quoted By: >>10904517 >>10905137

>>10904482
From Wikipedia

>Collapse of the universal wavefunction never occurs in de Broglie–Bohm theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:40:13 No.10904495 Report

Quoted By: >>10905141

>>10904207
QM doesn't make claims of non-determinism or determinism. Read about the difference between QM and Interpretations of QM.

Some QM Interpretations claim non-determinism (ie, copenhagen) others claim determinism (ie, pilot wave)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 23:47:26 No.10904517 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904487
I took your example to be about quantum observation "wave function collapse" and not the universal wave function. What appears to be "wave function collapse" is consistently reproducible and observable, but the mechanism behind it is the question.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO eirin_bog.png, 116KiB, 273x385

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 00:37:08 No.10904652 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904207
Congratulations anon, you are beginning to understand that QM is a completely deterministic model, just with a different ontology than classical mechanics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 01:01:25 No.10904710 Report

Quoted By:

Last night I dreamed that particles are just a Gaussian distribution of charge formed by the mediation of pressure between neighboring cells of charge. Each charge corresponded to a motion of the extracellular matrix of superfluid around each cell.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 05:37:37 No.10905137 Report

Quoted By: >>10905397

>>10904487
And what happens when one observes the universe?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 05:39:35 No.10905141 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904495
Huh? Pilot wave has collapse, and is nondeterministic. Collapse can't be deterministic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 06:21:25 No.10905208 Report

Quoted By: >>10909608

>>10904207
QM and QFT is in some sense even more deterministic than classical mechanics. One of the assumptions in QM/QFT is the existence of the propergator/time evolution operator that ensures that any wave function will evolve uniquely. This is not the case with classical mechanics, see for instance Norton's dome (a system of classical mechanics with an infinite amount of solutions).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 07:55:33 No.10905377 Report

Quoted By: >>10906745

>>10904427
it's called a hypothetical

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 07:59:50 No.10905382 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904224
No, MWI is completely deterministic to its core.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 08:09:51 No.10905397 Report

Quoted By:

>>10905137
In MWI, there's a universal wave function in which everything we interact with is already part of a static universe. There's no magic observer needed for MWI since splits in quantum decision making happens regardless to all particles everywhere in the universe at all times. In copenhagen, wave function is limited to only 1 single quantum particle at a time and requires an "observer" for things to happen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 08:31:11 No.10905432 Report

Quoted By: >>10909853

>>10904432
>For your statement to be true you would need to show the quantum level events make any difference to the end state of the entire universe.
Well they very obviously do. I mean, the entire distribution of all the galaxies is entirely defined by quantum fluctuations in the very early universe for a start.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 08:37:26 No.10905441 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 09:21:53 No.10905494 Report

Quoted By: >>10906734

>>10904207
Technically, the wavefunctions should evolve exactly the same.
If you were external to both systems and measured them at the same time, you could still get different measurements.
>>10904458
The real issue is if you are part of the system or external to it.
If you are a part of the system, you would experience many "wavefunction collapses" that could yield many different trajectories (many-worlds).
If you are external to the perfectly insulated system, you could model the system with the usual schroedinger equation without any collapses which is "deterministic".
Both of these are consistent because the external entity could still get many possible measurements upon observing the system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 21:34:27 No.10906734 Report

Quoted By: >>10907006

>>10905494
>If you were external to both systems and measured them at the same time, you could still get different measurements.

if you were to measure them in the same way and time the results would be the same.
if you were to measure them at the same time but in different ways then the results my differ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 21:37:56 No.10906742 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904220
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 21:39:45 No.10906745 Report

Quoted By: >>10908808 >>10909850

>>10905377
No it's not. The actual definition of "universe" includes all real and non-real possibilities, there cannot be two.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Aug 2019 00:19:10 No.10907006 Report

Quoted By: >>10907612

>>10906734
someone didn't understand undergraduate QM

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Aug 2019 03:55:28 No.10907565 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904207
The past is deterministic (general relativity) the future is probabilistic (QM). Now is a gift, that's why they call it the present (Kung Fu Panda).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Aug 2019 04:18:09 No.10907612 Report

Quoted By:

>>10907006
if two systems are evolving in the same way and we perturb them in the same way they will continue to evolve in the same way.

if x = x it does not matter what we do. if we do the same thing on both sides they will always remain equal

if the systems are truly random it doesn't matter if you're inside or outside of the them they will not evolve in the same way given the same initial conditions because quantum events occur within the system and quantum events are supposedly random

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Aug 2019 04:28:50 No.10907640 Report

Quoted By: >>10908572

>>10904207
brainlet here
if a new universe whose very forces depend on random shit is created, what are the chances it will be an exact copy of another one? I mean yeah a formula will give the same value twice provided you insert the same constrains twice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Aug 2019 16:58:09 No.10908572 Report

Quoted By: >>10908586

>>10907640
that's the question. will two universe with the same initial conditions evolve in the same way.

if quantum events are truly random then the answer is no if not then it's yes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Aug 2019 17:06:38 No.10908586 Report

Quoted By:

>>10908572
that would necessitate the existence of a force that can act on (at the very least) a subatomic particle but possibly larger things as well, which itself relies on no other variables. That force, in my opinion, is the most scientific and corporeal definition of god, the embodiment of true random. true random becomes man-in-the-sky god when we project human characteristics on to it, which we do with everything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Aug 2019 18:48:56 No.10908808 Report

Quoted By:

>>10906745
go tell more about your actual definition to all the cosmologists who talk about the multiverse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Aug 2019 02:19:57 No.10909608 Report

Quoted By:

>>10905208
Interesting example, I hadn't heard of it before.

But it's not fair to compare phase space points to states I think. The Hamiltonian of Norton's dome still generates a flow on phase space. If this flow acts on appropriately defined distributions on phase space everything should be deterministic. The finite time behavior of the trajectories is still a little unusual in that a distribution with simply connected support wont stay simply connected (imagine what happens when you try to roll a blob in phase space up the dome).

In quantum mechanics too there are all sorts of annoying mathematical conditions on what really counts as a valid operator or state. I think these are not something worth making a big deal out of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Aug 2019 04:35:55 No.10909850 Report

Quoted By:

>>10906745
>The actual definition
No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Aug 2019 04:37:40 No.10909853 Report

Quoted By: >>10910066

>>10905432
>Well they very obviously do. I mean, the entire distribution of all the galaxies is entirely defined by quantum fluctuations in the very early universe for a start.
>>10904476
>Cosmologists think quantum fluctuations when the universe was much denser were the seeds of large scale inhomogeneity in the visible universe today
Do we have proof of this or is it just speculation?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Aug 2019 08:04:12 No.10910066 Report

Quoted By:

>>10909853
>Do we have proof of this or is it just speculation?
Somewhere in between. "Just speculation" makes it sound like something one of you neets thought up in the shower. Look up "primordial fluctuations."

Real or not it is an example of how quantum effects can lead to very big differences on macro scales

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Aug 2019 10:00:40 No.10910204 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904207
not sure about that

forecasting the weather, or triggering cucks by saying donald trump would win the election months before it actually happened isn't the same as predicting the entire course of the universe. there are too many variables and things we just dont know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-mxjaeqScY

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Aug 2019 11:07:41 No.10910261 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904207
Just because we don’t know the mechanism doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
>cartoon frog shit porn parodies were predetermined in the beginning of time,
The universe is absurd. Try not to think about it

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Aug 2019 11:16:38 No.10910269 Report

Quoted By:

Its untestable.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches