Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "CERN Looks for Origins of Quantum Randomness" video.

All of this can be explained with a tiny bit of relativity, i.e. second year undergrad physics. Either you know how or you have not been intellectually curious enough to find out. ;-)
1
@RFC3514 There is no random noise in quantum fields. That there can't be follows from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (also second year undergrad physics). Random systems also violate basic physics like energy and momentum conservation. Quantum mechanics does none of that. What quantum mechanics does is to introduce an element of UNCERTAINTY. We simply can't tell when the next quantum event will happen and where. THAT is what follows directly from relativity. Why? Because in a relativistic universe the local future depends on physics which in the local present happens in a space-like separated volume of spacetime. Here is a simple example: a Mars probe detects a radiation event on Mars, RIGHT NOW. We have to wait for ten minutes (that's the time the radio signals of the probe take from Mars to Earth) before the radio signal arrives. At the time it arrives, though, it is a completely new and unknowable physical event. Nothing we can do here and now can predict what that signal from our Mars probe contains. That unpredictability drives quantum mechanics. You can formalize this with ensembles and Kolmogorov axioms and then (somewhat unexpectedly) you will find Pythagoras in your calculations. Pythagoras leads to scalar products which are invariant under unitary groups... and suddenly you got the entire matrix mechanics thing popping up in a calculation that was all about statistically independent individual events. THAT is how you get RATIONALLY to quantum mechanics. It's pretty boring, actually, except for the Pythagoras bit. ;-)
1
@RFC3514 No, that's how you do real physics. And all you had to do to do real physics was to pay attention in school. Which you didn't. :-)
1
@RFC3514 Dude. Repeated confessions of your inability to understand physics are not physics. They are proof of your Dunning Kruger. ;-)
1
@RFC3514 Why do you keep repeating your lack of physics education to me? I don't care. ;-)
1
@RFC3514 Sounds cool. How about you give me the proper citation with chapter and paragraph? Just so we know that you have actually read the book. ;-)
1
@RFC3514 I did read it. It doesn't have what I am talking about. Townsend is a shut up and calculate textbook. ;-) Thanks for admitting that you never read a single physics textbook in your entire life. ;-)
1
There are always people, very good theorists included, who don't understand nature. ;-)
1
Awh, you are so cute when you are begging for attention. :-)
1
Where did she do that? ;-)
1
Superdeterminism is a religious point of view by people who don't understand quantum mechanics and chaos theory is a branch of Hamiltonian mechanics. No relationship whatsoever. ;-)
1
@AlexandruVoda That sounds really cool, except that in reality there is no such debate in the physics community about interpretations. Working physicists either use Copenhagen or they are doing quantum field theory. I have never met a single physicist in my life who uses MWI since it's pointless. That includes the folks who preach it like gospel like Sean Carrol. We know how quantum mechanics works. Quanta are small amounts of energy. We teach that in high school. Where and when a quantum of energy will be detected can not be predicted. We can only predict the average behavior of ensembles of quantum systems. There are two cases: 1) that quantum of energy stays in ONE isolated system. For that we need a unitary equation like the Schroedinger equation. 2) The quantum of energy gets transferred to a SECOND system which we call the measurement system. The physics of the measurement system is being described by the Born rule. Copenhagen is not some kind of random magic. It actually describes the physical reality of the physical measurement process. None of the other interpretations do. They try to avoid it. Hidden variables are ruled out by special relativity. The only mystery there is why Einstein didn't understand that when he co-wrote the EPR paper. Bell certainly did understand it. He even invalidated his own paper in the end by pointing that out. Most people simply don't read the Bell paper to the end (well, most people don't read the Bell paper, period), so they don't notice that Bell himself already knew that he was talking total nonsense. :-)
1