this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
1041 points (93.8% liked)
People Twitter
5222 readers
2502 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just adding to this: any modern arguments using the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena to fight determinism are wrong. Einstein made a theory called 'hidden variable theory' saying there were causes we couldn't see (duh). A guy named Bell 'proved it wrong' by arguing against something einstein said in it about data being in multiple places simultaneously. Had nothing to do with whether hidden variables exist. But the headlines were 'hidden variable theory proved wrong' implying to the public that there are somehow no causes of things below a certain level and that an illogical foundation of 'probability' somehow underlies everything. Einstein once said it was silly to think an electron is in an undetermined state until measured when he can see it's path in a cloud chamber. It clearly is a thing constantly existing.
With the errors of the foundational days of quantum physics out of the way, how can one argue against a thought or action having causes preceding it? Even if we are in woowoo land where everyone is spirits with minds existing separately in different worlds, there are still variables determining what those minds think. Only seeming alternative explanation so far is the faulty quantum probability field... which is wrong.
Bell did prove mathematically that a local hidden variables theory is unable to explain observed quantum mechanics. This doesn't rule out nonlocal hidden variable theories, but a) that is called superdeterminism, and b) that would mean that there would be faster-than-light interactions, and that is in many ways weirder.
I disagree. "Einstein once said it was silly to think an electron is in an undetermined state until measured when he can see it’s path in a cloud chamber." I am definitely of the einstein view and not the mainstream quantum scientist view. According to me, things, like einstein's electron DO have actual states when not 'observed' and do not need to 'be observed and collapse in to a form at that time'. At every point in it's path thru that cloud chamber the electron has it's form WHICH IS SUPEROBVIOUS TO SEE even tho the quantum math has no idea what to do about it and is like 'no does not fit in the math thus cannot exist'. In reality, the electron does not need to be measured to have it's form. Same with the 'entangled' particles Bell uses. Just because it is measured later does not mean it did not have it's form while not measured ~which is common sense to me and blows up Bell's Theorem before even having to reach to exotic theories. Weird to me stuff like that is not common sense. But I personally think quantum physics went wrong waaaaaay at the start and is riddled with exotic theories based on good data but faulty definitions and conclusions (such as the doubleslit experiment being touted as 'a single photon being let thru' when it's a guy shining a very dim light for a month and taking a slow exposure pic. Shining light for 1 month = 1 Photon. Does not match common sense. Throws off future work. But is definitionwise accurate as quanta is 'a level of energy'). So meh. Disagree. Nice you know your stuff tho.
"You do not mention the path of the electron at all, Heisenberg. But yet when you look in a cloud chamber the electron's track can be observed quite directly." "Don't you think that it's strange to say that there is a path for the electron in the cloud chamber, but there is no path for the electron in the atom?" ~Einstein
Yeah weird it would then be pure probability with no causes when it's inside the atom because that's what matches the mathematical framework of Quantum Physics while when it's in a cloud chamber ITS EXACT LOCATION AS A DISTINCT OBJECT IS CLEARLY VISIBLE. So yeah I'm with reality instead of that mathematical framework and don't see any issue with the same concept of 'having a form' applying to entanglement ~which 100% blows up Bell's theorem before it gets to multilocation.
Bell's Theorem ---> 💥
Possibility of Hidden Variables ---> 👍