>>11187154dude, quantum phenomenons exist. now, it could not actually be random, but it's still something outside of what we can comprehend. and definitely not something you can explain using newtonian physics, or even conventional math.
e.g. quantum entanglement. whatever is actually going on there, might use levels of mathematics we couldn't even comprehend at this point.
so if you don't believe what quantum physicisits say is true, that's fine, a lot of them hold similar opinions about each other as well. BUT there is something that cannot be explained using conventional physics (possibly even mathematics). that IS quantum physics. regardless of what the actual explanation behind the observed phenomeons is.
>>11187158there's a lot of assumptions made in it. we don't know if they're the answer, they just described our very limited set of observations correctly. discovering a fifth force, or just making a radically new observation could crunch a lot of the existing theories.
not to mention even for likely correct and well accepted theories, practical applications are lacking.
quantum computing have been a FAD since the 80s. there's still no actually working quantum computer. only "scientists" whose living and name depend on it claiming they have made breakthroughs. that's it. 0 actual use cases.
so to be skeptical about this shit, i think, is reasonable. blindly believing something people say because they are called scientists is similar to blindly believing something a book says because it's called The Holy Bible...
