Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?" video.

  1. You need to start a church based on your beliefs. In the US religious income is tax exempt.
    2
  2. Physicists don't measure the position of a photon because photons are irreversible energy transfers and energy doesn't have a position.
    2
  3.  @anywallsocket  I thought we are talking about fundamental physics? The most fundamental physics we have right now is QFT. QFT tells you from first principles what can be measured "exactly" and it ain't much: scattering amplitudes. That's it. Everything else is an approximation based on semi-classical averages. Now, if you want to put philosophical bullshit on top of, that's fine with me. I will simply call it philosophical bullshit and move on.
    2
  4. Less alcohol will help. ;-)
    2
  5.  @TroyIII  You don't "change the momentum of a particle" because there are no particles. Quanta are small amounts of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges that physical systems exchange between each other. They are properties, not things. In the phrase "red car" the word "car" represents an object, while "red" represents a property of that object. "quantum" is like "red". It's not like "car".
    2
  6. Sabine like to talk about any and all bullshit as long as it gets her view count up. ;-)
    2
  7. People still can't believe that philosophy has been nonsense on a stick since 500BC. That's all there is to it.
    2
  8. Hard determinism was a feature of Newtonian physics, or at least 18th and 19th century physicists and philosophers thought so. You are absolutely correct, chaos and more generally, non-integrability destroys that idea very quickly even in the Newtonian case. There are only a dozen systems in classical mechanics that are long-term predictable. Every other (of an infinite number of) such system(s) is not predictable. As soon as we are getting into relativistic physics it gets worse, because now the local future depends on the state of the universe that currently resided in spacelike separated regions of spacetime. The state of those regions is fundamentally unknowable until a signal from there reaches us as the speed of light. What this boils down to is that the future is generally NOT predictable. Any notion of determinism is therefor limited to special cases in which we already know the state of the volume of influence on our local future and even that is severely limited to highly symmetric systems (weather is not one of those systems). The problem is therefor more complex than the usual false dichotomy of determinism/indeterminism. The philosophical discussion has, unfortunately, not even caught up with the state of physics at the turn of the 20th century.
    2
  9. @ All of quantum theory is evidence based. You simply don't understand the evidence and the theory. :-)
    2
  10. There is no randomness in quantum mechanics. There are only people who don't understand physics.
    2
  11. It violates more than that. It violates the principles of science just as hard as ghosts do.
    2
  12. Look up spontaneous parametric down conversion. It's a thing. ;-)
    2
  13. It's philosophy, but yeah, both philosophy and religion are on the bullshit level.
    2
  14. The standard model is quantum field theory and quantum field theory is quantum mechanics. I take it that what you are calling "quantum mechanics" is probably non-relativistic single-quantum quantization with the Schroedinger equation. The Schroedinger equation is, indeed, not a good theory.
    2
  15. What quantum randomness does is to ruin your education. We taught you in school that nature conserves energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge, at least locally. Random numbers don't do that, no matter how you try to arrange them. Not that you needed that tool to ruin yours, I guess. ;-)
    2
  16. That is not exactly what she is doing. She is simply trolling you for comments and subscribers. You can see the same phenomenon with every YouTuber. The algorithm rewards controversy by orders of magnitude over facts and truth. To be successful on social networks means that one has to provoke and bend the facts. Humans are flexible that way. Even the most intelligent are falling under this pressure. And that assumes already more about Sabine Hossenfelder than her actual scientific work supports if you ask me. :-)
    2
  17. A quantum number generator is as "random" as the measurement device that it uses. Effectively quantum mechanics is no better at creating random numbers than thermodynamic methods. There is no free lunch.
    2
  18. No. :-)
    1
  19.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  Whenever somebody says that the wave function collapses you can stop listening. That person doesn't understand physics. The wave function is an ensemble average, like a probability distribution. When you roll dice their probability distribution stays exactly the same, no matter the outcome. The same applies to the wave function of a quantum mechanical ensemble. It's always the same and completely unalterable.
    1
  20.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  A photon is the quantum of energy that a detector absorbs from the electromagnetic field. There is no such thing as a photon without that absorption process... so, yeah, if you pay attention in high school when they teach the photoelectric effect, then you won't be surprised about such a triviality. It's basically the definition of "photon". :-)
    1
  21.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  There is no assumption of randomness in quantum mechanics. The assumption behind the math is independence. Whether a series of measurements is independent is easily testable with well known statistical tests like correlation functions.
    1
  22.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  There are no particles in quantum mechanics. There are only quanta of energy. You aren't listening. ;-) A series of measurements are independent if the (n+1)th measurement is not correlated with the previous n. You were clearly not paying any attention in high school math, either, when they explained trivial statistics to you. ;-)
    1
  23.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  You calculate the correlation function. If it's zero, then the measurements are independent. A typical example would be radioactive decay. You won't be able to predict when the next nucleus decays from the previous n decays. If you were to measure the arrival times of photons from a laser, however, then you would find them highly correlated. In that case using a one-quantum wave function is simply not enough to characterize the laser's system. These are not assumption. They are experimentally testable properties of series of observations.
    1
  24.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  There are no particles in the double slit. There are only quanta of energy. ;-)
    1
  25.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  Energy is not particles. Never was. Energy is the ability of a system to perform work on another system. You were obviously not paying attention in high school physics. ;-)
    1
  26.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  That is correct. A photon is ONE outcome. Just like the number "3" is one outcome of a dice roll. What is the deep question here? :-) Or are you under the impression that quantum mechanics predicts single photons? No, of course not. Nothing can predict a single photon. That follows trivially from relativity. :-)
    1
  27.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  If you are measuring a double slit pattern you are not measuring one photon. You are measuring many photons. It seems to me that you are also having trouble distinguishing between "one" and "many". There is an episode of Sesame Street where Ernie and cookie monster are demonstrating the difference between one large cookie and many small cookies. Might be worth re-watching to get the basics about the difference between "one" and "many" grounded. ;-)
    1
  28.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  Look! There was ONE photon at x=-4.2 and y=7.1. How many slits am I holding up? :-)
    1
  29.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  What about "quantum mechanics doesn't predict single photons" did you not understand just now? ;-)
    1
  30.  @ruthlessoptimism1106  Yes, all of that is bullshit. ;-)
    1
  31. Bell didn't make any such assumption. That's just more internet bullshit. ;-)
    1
  32.  @ZoggFromBetelgeuse  Yes, the video is internet bullshit. All of her videos are. :-)
    1
  33. The Copenhagen interpretation is not deterministic. :-)
    1
  34. He wrote that in a condolence letter to the family of a dead friend. It was not a statement about physics. But thanks for lying, anyway.
    1
  35.  @kcstafford2784  OK, that did sound crazy. So what broke your mind, kid? :-)
    1
  36.  @kcstafford2784  More crazy? Why?
    1
  37.  @kcstafford2784  You are right, I should not call you a liar. That would assume that you actually know what you are talking about. I am not making that assumption anymore. My apologies.
    1
  38.  @kcstafford2784  But please get your story about Einstein straight next time. Now you know the facts. ;-)
    1
  39.  @kcstafford2784  The fact is that you are now clearly lying about it. :-)
    1
  40.  @kcstafford2784  And now you are projecting. ;-)
    1
  41. Now nothing. Changing the labeling on something doesn't change reality either way.
    1
  42. Why are you reading silly books? One does not have to eliminate non-locality. It does not exist in the first place. A cursory look at an introductory chapter of a quantum field theory book will suffice to understand why.
    1
  43. Quantum mechanics was always symmetric under time-reversal symmetric. What isn't is the measurement process. It wasn't time-reversal symmetric in classical physics, either. :-)
    1
  44. You don't have a wave function, kid. At least not unless you manage to find another infinity minus one copies of yourself somewhere. ;-)
    1
  45.  @Leif-yv5ql  The elder you doesn't have a wave function, either, if that helps. ;-)
    1
  46.  @Leif-yv5ql  You might want to discuss that with the English department. I am from the physics department. ;-)
    1
  47. The chances are zero for either. The chances that you weren't paying attention in science class, however, are 100%. ;-)
    1
  48. Yes, you could say that except for the problem that there are no particles. Nobody has ever seen one. ;-)
    1
  49. We have better ways, you just don't know physics. ;-)
    1
  50. Not everything is connected. You are living in a relativistic universe. What is happening "right now" on Mars is completely irrelevant to you and so is what is happening here on Earth to the Martians.
    1
  51.  @ASLUHLUHC3  Quantum mechanics does not change that. Indeed, quantum mechanics is, most likely, a direct consequence of it.
    1
  52.  @professornebula6545  How does what is happening RIGHT NOW on Mars affect you? ;-)
    1
  53. But it starts with everything and explains nothing. Real physics starts with nothing and explains everything. That's the much, much better magic trick. ;-)
    1
  54.  @planteruines5619  Why would I do physics? Because I have a strong left brain hemisphere that strongly dislikes bullshit. Physics is mostly free of it. ;-)
    1
  55. Can anybody tell me what the initial conditions of a universe are that doesn't have a global time variable? Can you guys even hear yourselves? :-)
    1
  56.  @skippy1729  Yes, that does, indeed, sound like a conspiracy theory. It does, for sure, not sound like science. :-)
    1
  57. Superdeterminism is intellectual nonsense. We know exactly what happens in quantum mechanical systems. We have known since the 1920s. It's amazing that people have been ignoring basic physics for a hundred years now.
    1
  58.  @professornebula6545  Huh? Can you name one physical scenario involving either radiation or matter that quantum mechanics can not describe (at least in principle, I am not talking about computational limits like in lattice QCD or for the prediction of molecular spectra)? ;-)
    1
  59. It's not who but what. What does the measurement? Infinity does. It adds an infinite amount of phase space, which freezes the quantum state to one possible outcome (the one measured at infinity). You can find this explained in textbooks as early as 1932 (Probably earlier, but von Neumann's book on quantum mechanics from that years is the earliest literature that I have seen on the topic. The relevant explanation is in chapter five or six if I remember correctly. I haven't read the book in many years.). What causes your agency (we don't have free will otherwise I could wish for world peace right now an all the idiots would put their weapons down)? Relativity does. That you won't find explained in any textbook because physicists don't care about the source of philosophical terms, but you can easily see it in every spacetime diagram. Look at the causal dependence of your local future and your forward light cone. If you think about it long enough, it will come to you why this allows for agency. :-)
    1
  60. There is no randomness in nature. There are only people who weren't paying any attention when conservation laws were explained to them in high school. ;-)
    1
  61. @ Thank you for confirming that you weren't paying attention. ;-)
    1
  62. None of these solve anything because all of them are completely wrong. Copenhagen is the only correct one. :-)
    1
  63. There are no particles in nature. :-)
    1
  64. It would mean that the stochastic parrot has been trained on nonsense put out by people who don't understand physics. ;-)
    1
  65.  @damon2550  Not really. It's a sad state of affairs, actually. We have known since the late 1920s, early 1930s latest, how quantum mechanics works and we have still been teaching it all wrong right from the beginning. The very people who figured it out did their worst to make learning quantum mechanics as hard as it can be by surrounding it with language constructs that give everybody all the wrong mental images about it. I did experiments with different AIs and they all stick to the language in the textbooks that they were trained on. That language is, unfortunately, false. By that I don't mean that the textbooks are false. All the formulas, the derivations, the results are all correct. It's the meaning of the formulas that is not at all what the textbooks claim. Their authors have simply been repeating the same mistakes from the early days again and again. Even the newest textbooks are containing 100 year old ontological errors. It's not a big deal if this happens to such a specialty as quantum mechanics... but I am sure it's not an isolated phenomenon. You will discover the exact same phenomenon in all walks of life. AI is an echo chamber amplifier. It doesn't correct human mistakes. It spreads them out over all of mankind. If people learn to rely on it, then AI will cause a decline of human intellectual effort and it will cement past mistakes for all eternity... or at least until AI learns to correct them for us. I am not sure I am less worried about the latter....
    1
  66.  @damon2550  The "observer" in physics is an irreversible energy transfer. A black piece of cardboard is enough to do that. No AI, no humans, no goats needed. You can find this mentioned in von Neumann's textbook published in 1932. I bet with you that AI won't be able to tell you that. ;-)
    1
  67. There is no measurement problem. There are only people who don't understand physics. Rovelli seems to be one of them.
    1
  68.  @ailblentyn  Not since the mid 1930s to late 1940s. There are only people who haven't been keeping up with the literature of the past seventy to eighty years, like Rovelli. :-)
    1
  69.  @ailblentyn  Rovelli is not a mainstream physicist. He is fringe. People at CERN are mainstream.
    1
  70.  @orinhickman1721  When two guys who both don't know anything about physics are talking to each other about determinism... is that an indication that I am on the internet? ;-)
    1
  71.  @orinhickman1721  It was an attempt at humor, but I can see now that I directed it at an immovable object. ;-)
    1
  72. I am sure that sounded better in your head.
    1
  73.  @anywallsocket  Yes, that's why I called it bullshit. :-)
    1
  74.  @anywallsocket  I am simply calling bullshit bullshit. All of you need to be reading up on the definition of science. It ain't the same as the definition of mathematics and it's definitely not the same as the definition of philosophy. Not even phrases like "hidden variables" belong into a discussion about physics and there are no "measurement choices" in physics. There are only people who don't know enough about physics. I suggest you read a few good books about quantum field theory, then you will understand what I am talking about.
    1
  75.  @anywallsocket  If you want to discuss bullshit, then you should participate in a roundtable of Christian apologists and atheists. I'll bring a plastic replica of Michael's flaming sword. Did you ever wonder what god needed angels for and why they were fornicating with the ladies on Earth? I did. ;-)
    1
  76. @ Light hallucinations can be caused by a keg of beer, stronger ones need several bottles of Tequila. Rumor has it that the variety with the worm is especially toxic. ;-)
    1
  77. Logic is not a prerequisite. It's an observation. One would hope that people would know that in the 21st century... but then, they don't even seem to know germ theory...
    1
  78.  @planteruines5619  I am not taking drugs, for starters. ;-)
    1
  79. So Leibniz spent a good deal of his brainpowers thinking about religious bullshit instead of useful things. That's so sad.
    1
  80. Feynman doesn't have anything to say about particles. What he calls particles are actually quanta of energy that are being exchanged by quantum fields.
    1
  81. Nature doesn't care what you are wasting your frontal lobes on, kid. The last person who did was probably one of your high school teachers and then even that person gave up on you and picked a student with higher potential. :-)
    1
  82.  @longcastle4863  My thoughts are fact driven. I simply call bullshit when I smell bullshit. :-)
    1
  83. Superdeterminism is not science. It's a useless conspiracy theory in which nature lies to you all the time.
    1
  84. Superdeterminists are simply super-conspiracy theorists. "The man" who is out to get them has become the entire universe. ;-)
    1
  85. We explained the double slit to you in high school. You must have been sleeping. ;-)
    1
  86. But it does get your attention, doesn't it? ;-)
    1
  87. Every single one of them. Superdeterminism is like the Boltzman brain and Jesus. You can't win against those "concepts" either. :-)
    1
  88. It's just too bad that there are not even entities in this universe. ;-)
    1
  89.  @Zoi-ai-art  Let there be intelligence in this universe. Just not where you are. ;-)
    1
  90. I haven't seen a single physicist in my life arguing about free will and I have seen thousands, if not tens of thousands of physicists. We have better things to do than to argue over philosophical bullshit.
    1
  91. As you can see, every "sciency" YT blogger is now following every other in trolling the internet with bullshit.
    1
  92. The difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is that in quantum mechanics angular momentum change has to be a multiple of 1 (or 1/2, depending on how you want to define the smallest angular momentum step).
    1
  93.  @TroyIII  Yes, you weren't paying attention in school and you are now stuck at the level of thinking of a ten year old, maybe younger. Nature doesn't care about your claims what can and can not be. Neither do I. ;-)
    1
  94.  @TroyIII  So you have been making a fool of yourself for 40 years? Why do I have to care about that, kid? ;-)
    1
  95.  @TroyIII  Are you OK there, kid? You can stop selling, by the way. You have my attention, already. ;-)
    1
  96. Quantum field theory is local but inseparable. There is a lot of bullshit floating around about that, none of which can be rationally addressed at the level of this discussion.
    1
  97.  @toyuniverses  The universe is not a computer. That's just 19th century philosophical bullshit that doesn't want to die. It wasn't even true by the standards of the folks in the 19th century who came up with the notion. Look at integrability of Hamiltonians.
    1
  98.  @toyuniverses  I don't know where you are picking up any of this bullshit. It's certainly not from physics textbooks. :-)
    1
  99.  @toyuniverses  That must make you roughly 90 years old, then.
    1
  100.  @toyuniverses  Well, you obviously also studied classical mechanics under Newton... so there's that. ;-)
    1
  101.  @toyuniverses  That's pretty good for a three year old who studied under Newton, Einstein and Feynman. ;-)
    1
  102.  @toyuniverses  Of course you will. Kepler just called and wants that Copernicus manuscript back the he lent you 450 years ago. :-)
    1
  103.  @toyuniverses  OK, I just got an email from a Dr. Charles M. Manson from Dunnshite University. Amazing, you told the truth, after all! Kepler still wants his manuscript back. :-)
    1
  104.  @toyuniverses  Kepler? No, he is in orbit. He always comes back to the same point. :-)
    1
  105. You could, for instance, use a single atom in a Penning trap. But why would you want to do such a nonsense setup? All it shows is that you don't understand quantum mechanics.
    1
  106.  @plamengardev6415  It's not a thought experiment. I can do that in my sleep, but why would I be filling a swimming pool by using a thimble???? One can not tell whether a swimming pool was filled with a thimble, a bucket or a fire hose. Water is water is water. The same is true here, you simply do not understand that the people who told you about "single photon interference" are ignorant about the actual physics of quantum systems. ;-)
    1
  107.  @plamengardev6415  Classical predictions of black body radiation are as correct as the statement that the devil is causing the plague. What's your point? :-) This is absolutely trivial stuff. That you weren't listening in high school when we told you that quanta are small amounts of energy is your problem. Next time you need to pay attention when the adults are telling you the important stuff, OK? ;-)
    1
  108. What in the world makes you believe that the universe gives a frell about your thoughts????
    1
  109. I am sure all these things sound way better in your mind. :-)
    1
  110.  @havenbastion  And that did, too. :-)
    1
  111. There was never a good argument for determinism. People didn't believe in determinism until Newton. They may have believed that god, the devil, demons, witches etc.. were throwing wrenches in their daily lives, but they never thought that the outcome of the world was set in stone. That's just not a strategy that one can live by. Then came Newton and he explained Keplerian motion. The philosophers picked that up right away and they said "We can predict ONE example of physical motion perfectly... from which it follows that we can predict ALL physical motion perfectly, from which it follows that we can predict EVERYTHING perfectly, from with it follows that everything is predetermined!". See, this is what binge drinking your own pee does to your brain in the long run. ;-)
    1
  112. Why would I be scared by something that doesn't exist? Determinism is a failed concept of the past.
    1
  113.  @joetonny5843  Yes, that's called a false dichotomy fallacy. It also doesn't understand the difference between causation and determinism. ;-)
    1
  114.  @joetonny5843  Well, since you are telling me that the universe is deterministic, I will expect you to predict next week's lottery numbers for me. ;-)
    1
  115.  @joetonny5843  See the problem now? :-)
    1
  116.  @joetonny5843  How many fingers am I holding up? :-)
    1
  117.  @joetonny5843  But you could see everything that happened in the entire universe before the box was closed. Since the universe is deterministic, that should be enough to calculate what is happening inside the box. Right? And for the same reason you can tell how many fingers I am holding up. Right? ;-)
    1
  118.  @joetonny5843  I am sure you can prove that an extremely powerful computer can do that? Or are you simply not aware that we can prove mathematically that the exact opposite is the case? Please look up the term "integrable (Hamiltonian) systems". :-)
    1
  119.  @joetonny5843  You clearly didn't understand what "non-integrable system" means. ;-) I will simplify this for you even further. Please predict the 10^1000th digit of pi for me. That's the source of the problem with Hamiltonian mechanics: the real numbers. ;-)
    1
  120. And it's completely wrong as well. What's there not to like? ;-)
    1
  121. The uncertainty principle is just as valid for water waves, so... no.
    1
  122. Yes, superdeterminism and free will belong in the same "philosophical bullshit" category.
    1
  123. Absolutely everything is quantum but it mostly doesn't matter.
    1
  124. Photons don't have a velocity. They are not objects. A photon is a small amount of energy. It's the amount of energy that the light source emits into the electromagnetic field and it's the amount of energy that the detector absorbs from the field. Both do NOT have to be the same amount of energy! There are simply no "photons" between those events. The human mind just likes to interpolate initial and final states using a classical object ontology. That, however, is not what nature does.
    1
  125.  @helpme6759  Yes, light, which is the average of many photons has a very well defined velocity.
    1
  126.  @helpme6759  Light behaves like many photons, but the problem with quantum mechanics is that while it describes atoms, it is not an atomistic theory itself. Thinking about a quantum field as being made of many constituents is a problematic mental model. It is much more complicated than that. You can see this in the differences between the statistical properties of bosons, fermions and classical (distinguishable) particles, among other things. So while there are (classical) states of light, there are many more states that can not be described by a superposition of classical field states (an entangled pair of quanta would be a low-dimensional example of such a state). That's the reason why Hilbert space is so much larger than classical phase space. I wish I could give you a good mental model for what a general excitation of a bosonic quantum field looks like, but I can't. It's way beyond my own imagination.
    1
  127. Hidden variables never work. You can see that in every spacetime diagram.
    1
  128. Why is there a lot of nonsense about this around? Because most people aren't paying attention in science class. ;-)
    1
  129.  @YngvinLion  Wave function collapse is not a thing. The correct way of looking at it is in the context of reversible and irreversible physical processes. Only the irreversible ones are "real". Why? Because a reversible process doesn't leave a long term trace in the world. It comes and it goes. It's forgotten, even by the universe. The intellectual challenge, of course, is to leave the confines of your mental nursery behind. In high school and in early undergrad education even at the university level we are building up this fantasy that the world is reversible. In reality, however, the reversible processes are irrelevant. Hamiltonian mechanics can't tell you how many times the Earth has been around the sun. Only rock erosion can. All we know and learn about this world comes from the very processes theorists dislike because they are hard to calculate. ;-) Similarly the randomness/determinism pair is childish thinking. The primary observation is not that the universe is random. It's that the future is not predictable. 19th century physics could not predict the future any better than we can and not for a lack of computing power. The future is simply not fixed, no matter how hard one looks. So how did they come up with that determinism fantasy? Because after an eternity (well, 300,000 years) of human evolution in an environment that seemed random and hostile, they finally managed to predict one thing: an elliptical orbit of a planet. That was it. They couldn't even do two planets. Today we know that two is already too many. One is it, plus a harmonic oscillator and a handful of other systems. It was that tiny success that lead to the hubris of "determinism". It's not a scientific term. It's philosophical nonsense. So that leaves the question where the universe seeds "indeterminism" (NOT the same as randomness!) from? Relativity. A simple look at a space time diagram can show you that it comes from space-like events. And that is the entire story here.
    1
  130. You can predict events? What are next week's lottery numbers? :-)
    1
  131. Physicists don't expect that. We teach you in high school these days that a quantum is a small amount of energy. It's the energy that irreversibly gets transferred from the quantum field to the measurement system. Why were you not paying any attention in high school? ;-)
    1
  132. That the world is not deterministic is determined by special relativity. You need to pay better attention next time. ;-)
    1
  133.  @Aguijon1982  No, I don't know who's rear that turd came from. I generally don't care about the cultural history of bullshit. There is just too much of it to keep track. I only care about proper physics. ;-)
    1
  134. There is nothing to get. The double slit experiment has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. You can tell simply by the fact that Planck's constant doesn't show up anywhere. Quantum effects always come with Planck's constant attached somewhere. And where, exactly, did you see particles?
    1
  135. If you are seeing circles, maybe you hit your head and have a concussion? Or you were staring into sun for too long like the folks at Fatima. Don't hit your head and don't stare into the sun, my friend. Neither are good for you.
    1
  136. Einstein simply didn't understand that quantum mechanics is caused by special relativity. That's a rather strange fact of science history. Without that insight quantum mechanics stays an enigma. With it it's a near triviality.
    1
  137. There are no particles for starters. What we are measuring is energy.
    1
  138.  @professornebula6545  Energy is the ability of a system to perform work on another system. Energy is so tangible that it costs money. Or are you trying to tell us that your parents are still paying for your electricity bill and that you aren't painfully aware of just how expensive energy is? ;-)
    1
  139.  @b43xoit  Yeah, tell that to the power company. ;-)
    1
  140.  @b43xoit  Whose rear end did you pull that from? ;-)
    1
  141. Does not paying attention in school imply that you don't understand physics? Yes. ;-)
    1
  142.  @b43xoit You missed that quanta are not particles. They are small amounts of energy. We have been teaching that for over forty years when we teach the unit about the photoelectric effect. "Quanta are small amounts of energy.". Six words. It takes a very short attention span to miss them. ;-)
    1
  143.  @b43xoit  Does that mean you aren't talking to yourself? ;-)
    1
  144. Who says we don't? What do you think they are doing at CERN, exactly? They are searching for patterns. ;-)
    1
  145. Why do all of you have this insatiable desire to prove that you weren't paying any attention in undergrad physics?
    1
  146. So basically both of you are spreading fake news. OK. :-)
    1
  147.  @davidcanatella4279  Yawn. :-)
    1
  148.  @davidcanatella4279  I am generally bored by people feeling sorry for themselves on the internet. ;-)
    1
  149.  @davidcanatella4279  You are still feeling sorry for yourself. I still don't care. ;-)
    1
  150.  @davidcanatella4279  Why are you feeling so sorry for yourself, kid? What did they do to you? :-)
    1
  151.  @Thomas-gk42  Hard determinism means predictability. The first necessary assumption for that is that there is a theory that can reliably predict everything if we have enough information that we can stuff into it. That is mathematically provably not true. There are no such formulas. The second assumption is that you have all the information that such a formula would need. That is physically provably not true. So you are striking out on two necessary conditions for determinism. Look, determinism was always false. It was an overextrapolation. For 300,000 years man couldn't predict anything. Then man learned to predict the motion of one planet and suddenly man thought that he now could predict everything. That was always just a psychological delusion. Why do you want to continue being delusional? What's the upside here?
    1
  152.  @Thomas-gk42  Well, there is a kind of soft determinism that assumes that a godlike being can predict everything, even if man can't. Often that's a animist kind of belief system that assigns some form of personality to nature. "Nature knows what is going to happen next." is, of course, a completely nonsensical idea. What does it even mean that nature knows if she can't tell you because of relativity???? Technically hard determinism falls flat on its face even classically, see e.g. Maxwell's demon as an example for the consequences of such a perfect predictor. If you want to take it from there, then a perfect prediction machine can predict at your birth who will marry you, when you will die and, most importantly, it can resurrect you by turning the motion of your molecules around! Wait a minute... how can a machine that can resurrect you at the same time predict the time of your death? ;-) As with all things "perfect", one can produce trivial contradictions by consistently applying that attribute. It is, logically, pretty much like an argument for a perfect, all-knowing god.
    1
  153.  @Thomas-gk42  Determinism doesn't do anything to anybody. It's just a failed mental model. Well, you could maybe say that determinism proves those who believe in it to be stupid, but that's about it. :-) Nothing in quantum mechanics is random. Random variables break all conservation laws. You just failed high school physics. ;-)
    1
  154.  @Thomas-gk42  Whether you stay or leave is irrelevant since you don't have anything to say that comes even close to reality anyway.
    1
  155.  @Thomas-gk42  I am simply giving you the attention that you deserve for asking so nicely. ;-)
    1
  156. I don't know what Hawking said, but you can forget about everything Bell said. It's unphysical.
    1
  157. How do you guys come up with strange ideas like that? Are you watching too much YouTube?
    1
  158. Is something that doesn't exist linked to extra dimensions that also don't exist? Absolutely. :-)
    1
  159. Which particles are you talking about? There are no particles in this universe. There are only quanta of energy and those only exist as part of a measurement process. Without that there aren't even any quanta. How are property changes that have not even realized yet supposed to know since the beginning of the universe what they would be? None of you are making any sense here.
    1
  160.  @MattiasDavidsson  Listen to me, again: there are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. That is what we are measuring. A quantum of energy is like the outcome of a dice toss. It's like one of the numbers one to six. The universe doesn't know anything about that outcome before it happens. It's just as ignorant about it as we are. THAT is what quantum mechanics deals with. This total ignorance of both the universe and the physicist. Nothing more, nothing less.
    1
  161.  @MattiasDavidsson  That's not semantics. I have measured trillions of quanta of energy myself. Now, tell me, how many particles did you observe in your life as an experimental physicist? Zero, right? ;-)
    1
  162.  @MattiasDavidsson  What does a particle look like? I have never seen one. I have only seen particle tracks. How those emerge from quanta was explained in 1929 by Mott. You are clearly not aware of the literature of the last 95 years. ;-) I have not seen a cloud chamber outside of a museum, either. Have you? Can you give me a link to a modern experiment? :-)
    1
  163.  @MattiasDavidsson  I have a PhD in experimental high energy physics as well. I have never produced a measurement by myself. I always did it as part of a very large collaboration of hundreds and often thousands of people. You are full of it, my friend. ;-)
    1
  164. The universe is not deterministic. We even teach non-deterministic processes at the high school level. Think classical friction. If they ever made you do a friction experiment, then you have experienced a macroscopic non-deterministic process yourself: sticky friction can not be predicted. The force at which the body starts moving against sticky friction is random within a certain range. There are many other such phenomena in nature. The delusion that nature is deterministic is simply based on an extreme case of scientific tunnel vision during the 19th century when orbital mechanics was the best physical theory we had. Physicists have overcome this state of delusion about a hundred years ago (119, if you count special relativity, which gives you the microscopic explanation why nature CAN NOT be deterministic). The philosophy department is still totally into this nonsense, it seems. Please try to catch up. If you don't know why Copenhagen is 100% correct, then you simply didn't study it enough and if you don't know why MWI is total nonsense, then you didn't read Everett's thesis. The major mistake is in the second sentence. Philosophers are clearly not reading the literature. :-)
    1
  165.  @ZekeRaiden  I am sure you can prove that. If so I would like to know how you would go about it. Your turn, chief. ;-)
    1
  166.  @ZekeRaiden  Try not to feel sorry for yourself now... but I am a physics PhD. :-)
    1
  167.  @professornebula6545  Where did I mention randomness with regards to microscopic processes? I didn't. One can actually prove pretty easily that the microscopic world can not be random. Random process inevitably create dissipation and we don't observe dissipation. There is even a fitting name for this proof: fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Energy, momentum and a few other quantities are perfectly conserved locally as far as we know. This is so both at the macro- and at the microscopic level. What is locally not "conserved", so to speak, is our knowledge about the world. How comes? It's caused by phenomena like non-integrability for classical Newtonian systems (which make the claim that everything can be calculated nonsensical, even at the most primitive level of physics) and even more so by relativity once we look at the world the way it really is. In a relativistic universe all systems are necessarily open. Energy, momentum and angular momentum are constantly "escaping" towards infinity. That leakage is what makes the local state unpredictable. We can't do the local accounting unless we "collect" all the missing energy etc. with some "hermetic" detector array that surrounds our local coordinates. To get the information about the measured results back we also have to wait for the finite time that a measured signal takes to propagate back to us from our distant collecting array. So that means that the current state can only be fully known in the future and even then only if we are extremely diligent (which is not even possible). In practice this means that the present is entangled with the future. It's not just any near term future. It's the entire future of the universe. THAT is what causes the world to be non-deterministic. It doesn't mean that it's random, but it means that it's not knowable, neither to us nor to nature. If you want a poetic description, try this: How do you know what you look like? You need to look into a mirror. Well, surprise! So does nature and because she doesn't have a mirror, she can't tell you what she looks like, either. Makes sense? You are correct about one thing. Whether I have a PhD or not makes no difference to my arguments. It does make a difference to me, because it means that I have been thinking about this very thoroughly for a very long time. Much, much more thoroughly than most people. That causes a level of mental clarity that is otherwise hard to achieve. You can get there, as well, you just have to spend the fifty years on this stuff that I put in, already, and unlike you I am exercising every day on the internet by trying to explain physics to people, whether they want to hear it, or not. Every time I am repeating my argument I am learning, whether any of you are listening, or not. I am much, much more knowledgeable about the basics of physics than I was 20+ years ago when I began talking about physics on the internet. I used to tell people a lot of bs about quantum mechanics back then, but then I noticed that I was talking bs and I began learning. Today I know better. I am self-correcting. Can you do that, yet?
    1
  168. No, this is what YT looks like. :-)
    1
  169. No, there are no such experiments. Superposition is not a property of quanta. It's a property of the theory. That property is there BY DESIGN. Whenever you measure a quantum you get exactly one outcome. Same for quantum computers. The final state of one run has exactly one physical value. Depending on the algorithm multiple consecutive runs of the quantum computer can result in different outcomes or they can result in the same outcome.
    1
  170. @ Seriously. Quantum mechanics is not a big deal. It's the natural explanations for the behavior of systems that make "click-click-----click" like a Geiger-Mueller counter. On a slightly more theoretical level you can derive it from the sentence "Quantum mechanics is the unitary representation theory of the Poincare group.". The only thing between you and quantum mechanics, at this moment, is the amount of learning to parse that 11 word sentence. Admittedly, that requires years of effort. There are no more shortcuts here than between not playing the piano and playing the piano. ;-)
    1
  171. If everything is determined, then you certainly won't mind telling me next week's lottery numbers. In return I will tell you last week's. ;-)
    1
  172. Quantum mechanics is complete. What is incomplete is your education about it.
    1
  173.  @msf559  Dude, physics is not fanboyism. You can't just pick your favorite physicist and believe everything they say. The entire wormhole thing is horrendous nonsense. ;-) Not being able to predict the next number in a sequence and randomness are NOT the same thing. The first property is called "(statistical) independence". Quantum mechanics and probability theory are both based on the assumption that series of events/measurements/picks from a set of possibilities are independent, i.e. that we can not predict the next outcome based on any of the previous ones. That doesn't make these outcomes random. Truly random events in physics would not satisfy conservation laws and can therefor be ruled out. Locally independent events are entangled with events in spacelike separated regions of spacetime. It is relativity that supplies this "pool" of independence. Nature doesn't have to compute anything. It gets it for free.
    1
  174. Where do you see randomness here? :-)
    1
  175. Why are you lying about being a physicist? ;-)
    1
  176. Wolfram is a very smart guy, but in this case he exhibits physics DK, like so many people. Computation is part of the universe. That does not imply that the universe is computation. Much worse, of course, is that anybody who talks about "free will" simply bought into philosophical bullshit.
    1
  177. Tests of Bell's inequality are not lying to you. They are simply confirming that quantum mechanics is the correct theory. You know what it's called when somebody thinks that everybody is lying to them when they are not? Paranoia. :-)
    1
  178. When was the last time you saw a particle?
    1
  179. OK, Cliff, what's next week's lottery numbers? Take your time. Nobody will fault you if you announce them after the drawing. ;-)
    1
  180. That determinism was somehow broken was already known to Newton, he just didn't have the mathematical tools to work out how it was broken. That had to wait for the mid to late 19th century.
    1
  181.  @ssergium.4520  Superdeterminism is trivial bullshit. A simple look at a spacetime diagram can tell you why. Now, why was determinism always bullshit, as well? Because we always knew that the future was not predictable. People never stopped playing games of luck. Not after Newton, not after Lagrange and not after Hamilton. We are still playing the lottery. Why would we do that if we knew that the future is completely determined? So, if the future is not determined and the world is causal, what does that mean for the present? It means that the present is uncertain. Guess what quantum mechanics tells us? It tells us that the present is uncertain. Easy, right? ;-)
    1
  182. Free will doesn't exist because it is a nonsensical definition. Not all words and not all sentences make sense. Philosophers still haven't learned this trivial lesson.
    1
  183.  @charliemeyer7226  Of course. Sorry that you have never been loved. :-)
    1
  184. Do you understand why that design choice was made? I doubt you do. ;-)
    1
  185. Good luck with your beliefs in front of judge and jury. ;-)
    1
  186. Should have read more Galileo and less Plato. It would have made him significantly smarter. ;-)
    1
  187. We tried to teach the double slit in high school to you. Why weren't you paying attention? ;-)
    1
  188. Only people who didn't pay attention in science class believe that nonsense. ;-)
    1
  189. Uncertainty vs. determinism is a false dichotomy fallacy. In a relativistic universe it's much more complicated than that. And, no, you can not determine which choice I will make. You can't, I can't and not even the universe can.
    1
  190.  @PathFinder-t6p  Yes, that was bullshit. ;-)
    1
  191. @ Yes, that was totally 100% bullshit. ;-)
    1
  192. So you are saying that sitting underneath a tree all day long and panhandling for food is the way to go in life? Your parents screwed you up big time, kid.
    1
  193.  @canyoncreekster  Sitting idly underneath a tree is not determinism. It's laziness. Don't be a lazy bum like the buddha, kid. :-)
    1
  194. Good luck with that suggestion. Be careful, otherwise they may lock you up.
    1
  195. No. :-)
    1
  196. For starters, there are no particles. There are only people who don't know that quanta are small amounts of energy. Why is that important? Because if a detector can not detect e.g. a 2eV quantum, then such quanta simply "do not exist" in experiments with that particular detector. This is not a matter of retrocausality. It's already "encoded" in the setup of the experiment due to the use of such a special detector.
    1
  197. @ Energy is a system property. It does NOT behave like particles, which are objects. All of the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics stems from the unhealthy idea that everything has to behave like an object (with position, path, size etc.) when clearly many phenomena are not objects or caused by objects. There is no such thing as non-locality in quantum mechanics, either. Most people simply do not know the difference between non-separability (a property of elements of an abstract high dimensional Hilbert space) and non-locality (a non-existent property of physical dynamics in three dimensional space). Most folks don't even notice that not even the dimensionality is the same. That, unfortunately, is a side effect of the way we teach quantum mechanics in chemistry classes, which is 100% wrong from a physics perspective, even though it is useful for the limited needs of chemists.
    1
  198. @ There are no hidden variables. You can see this trivially in every spacetime diagram if you look at it long enough, we simply don't teach this in undergrad classes and most undergrads don't take the time to figure this out on their own. The same argument also destroys superdeterminism. I would suggest you draw yourself a spacetime diagram and you stare at it for a couple of hours. You will see it, eventually. ;-)
    1
  199. @ The probability distribution doesn't evolve. That's also just a total misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. ;-)
    1
  200. @ There is no such thing as a probability distribution in nature to begin with. What we are measuring are relative frequencies. Every time we are making a measurement we are destroying the system. There is nothing open to interpretation here. The physics in the lab is 100% obvious. Draw yourself a spactime diagram. Move up the y-axis to a future point of the local observer. That's the measurement you are going to make. Draw the light cone through that point. All the physics on the backwards light cone (i.e. the past of the future point) is what determines the outcome of that measurement. What is the relationship of that subset of spacetime to the present of the local observer? It's in a spacelike separated region of spacetime, i.e. it can not causally influence the present observer, nor can the present observer influence it causally. It is completely independent of the present. In other words, what happens in the future is NOT determined by anything we can possibly know about in the present. THAT is what causes the uncertainty in quantum mechanics. It is an absolutely trivial effect that rules out any and all local hidden variables and it rules out superdeterminism.
    1
  201. Nah, Sabine is just a German four that appeals to lonely guys without science education. ;-)
    1
  202. You are correct. They are both wrong. :-)
    1
  203. It does to 99.9% of all physicists and it's not clear that the few who don't like the notion are doing important work, anyway. ;-)
    1
  204. Scientists don't believe anything, kid, they simply collect facts. You need to come down from the Christmas tree that Santa brought to your house when you were three years old. :-)
    1
  205.  @georgegordon8860  You also need to look up the definition of theory. :-)
    1
  206.  @georgegordon8860  No, kid. That is not what a theory is. Go look for an actual definition.
    1
  207.  @georgegordon8860  Well, it is obvious that you know a lot about "not knowing stuff" yourself. You are a real expert in not knowing. :-)
    1
  208.  @georgegordon8860  I wasn't insulting you. I was merely stating facts about you not knowing enough. Your teachers always told you the same. Say it ain't so. ;-)
    1
  209.  @georgegordon8860  You mean with facts. Me, too. ;-)
    1
  210. Why are you so keen on telling everybody that you had a really crappy time in school? ;-)
    1
  211.  @animalbird9436  Yes, quanta are "just energy", or to be a bit more precise, they are combinations of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges. And you would be absolutely correct to say that this process is classically forbidden. It does not exist for classical electromagnetic waves. We can "upconvert", e.g. with frequency doubling or tripling and we can mix two waves of frequencies f_1 and f_2 into f_1 + f_2 and f_1 - f_2. We can classically not produce f/2 with optical materials (even though we can with non-linear electronic circuits that are externally powered) for all I know. Quantum mechanics does not have that restriction and there are non-linear crystals where the crystal can absorb just the right amount of angular momentum to produce a two-quantum state with quanta of half the energy and a total spin of zero, even though the incoming quantum had a spin of 1. Surprising but both experimentally and theoretically fully understood.
    1
  212. What about bullshit? It's bullshit. ;-)
    1
  213. If you keep paying better attention in school, then you will eventually catch up. ;-)
    1
  214.  @kemalturgut9127  Superdeterminism is simple nonsense. One can easily explain why the world looks like it's superdeterministic, but at the end of the day the concept is both useless and irrelevant. It doesn't produce any testable predictions.
    1
  215.  @kemalturgut9127  I am pretty sure they teach the same physics in Turkey as everywhere else.
    1
  216.  @kemalturgut9127  Quantum mechanics isn't probabilistic. That's just nonsense that you keep hearing from people who don't understand it. Quantum mechanics is the math that applies to certain ensembles of INDEPENDENT experiments. Whether a series of measurements can be described by an independent quantum mechanical ensemble depends on the measurement. There are plenty of measurements that can't be. There is no mystery here. There are only people who don't understand physics.
    1
  217. Well, it is a necessary assumption of the legal system. Other than that it is incoherent philosophical nonsense.
    1
  218. Physicists don't care about philosophical bullshit like "free will". Don't confuse YouTube videos for physics.
    1
  219. No. Rovelli is simply hunting the snark. If he had spent even ten minutes in an atomic physics lab in his life physics would be much clearer to him.
    1
  220. Yeah, that's not it. ;-)
    1
  221. Experiments are extremely consistent about quantum mechanics being an extremely good theory. It is, however, also an extremely good theory to test human intelligence. If you don't understand it but you rant about it, then you are simply not intelligent.
    1
  222.  @maninblack6  What do you mean "zero useful information"? It is very important for you to learn that you are suffering from physics DK. How else would you ever wake up from your delusion and start learning how it really works?
    1
  223.  @maninblack6  Einstein totally messed QM up in 1905, already. He is the last person you need to listen to on this matter. :-)
    1
  224.  @maninblack6  More than I need to and certainly more than I want to. :-)
    1
  225.  @maninblack6  No, kid, I am a physics PhD who has actually read Einstein's papers in English and German. What's your favorite book? Harry Potter? :-)
    1
  226. So you were never reading about quantum mechanics. OK. Whatever. :-)
    1
  227. Yes, the explanation is that you weren't paying attention in high school when we explained to you that the double slit is a classical wave experiment. And then you weren't paying attention, again, when we explained to you that "a quantum is a small amount of energy". And then you weren't paying attention, yet again, when we explained the Copenhagen interpretation to you in undergrad physics. And then you weren't paying any attention again, when we explained the solution theory of linear wave equations to you in undergrad classical electrodynamics. And you weren't paying any attention in experimental physics 101, either, when we explained Rayleigh scattering. It's all rather trivial... and you just keep asking nonsensical questions about it. :-)
    1
  228. Ma! I found the great wall of bullshit on the internet! ;-)
    1
  229.  @AmericanBrain  Ma! I found a humongous wall of bullshit on the internet! :-)
    1
  230.  @AmericanBrain  Ma! The walls of bullshit are getting higher and higher! :-)
    1
  231.  @AmericanBrain  Why would I ask a clueless person any questions? :-)
    1
  232.  @AmericanBrain  Ma! The bullshit gets thicker!
    1
  233.  @AmericanBrain  You seem to love my attention for you. I will continue to provide more. It's all free of charge. :-)
    1
  234.  @AmericanBrain  I can tell that you love my attention. :-)
    1
  235.  @AmericanBrain  See, there is it, again. ;-)
    1
  236.  @AmericanBrain  I read all of that and I don't agree with any of it. ;-)
    1
  237.  @AmericanBrain  I am hanging on your every word, kid. :-)
    1
  238.  @AmericanBrain  Dance for me. :-)
    1
  239.  @AmericanBrain  Jump once more! :-)
    1
  240.  @AmericanBrain  Jump again! ;-)
    1
  241.  @AmericanBrain  I am still here. :-)
    1
  242.  @AmericanBrain  Yes, I am still here. Don't worry. I am not going away. ;-)
    1
  243.  @AmericanBrain  I am still here. Don't worry. :-)
    1
  244.  @AmericanBrain  I am still totally listening. :-)
    1
  245.  @AmericanBrain  I am still with you. Don't worry.
    1
  246.  @AmericanBrain  I am totally here for you. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. ;-)
    1
  247.  @AmericanBrain  Still listening. :-)
    1
  248.  @AmericanBrain  I think we should get a room. :-)
    1
  249.  @AmericanBrain  You didn't tell me if you prefer Queen or King. I am a pretty big hairy guy, so I would go with King. ;-)
    1
  250. What you just wrote was: "One piece of philosophical bullshit conspiracies are even spookier than another piece of philosophical bullshit; so it's no improvement on a third piece of philosophical bullshit.". And you didn't even notice the stench. :-)
    1
  251. There are no particles in physics. You are simply misinformed about quantum mechanics. Hint: it's called quantum mechanics for a reason. If we had wanted to talk about particles, then we would have called it "particle mechanics".
    1
  252. It's neither. The universe is uncertain. The present is entangled with an open future and therefor no more knowable than the future will be. One can't roll back the clock because there is not one clock. There are an infinite number of them and they don't agree with each other.
    1
  253. There is no such thing as a particle path. There isn't even such a thing as a particle. What there is is plenty of bullshit on YouTube, especially on Sabine's channel. ;-)
    1
  254. In which universe did you see probability waves? Certainly not in this one. In this universe one can only see people who don't know what the word "probability" means. :-)
    1
  255.  @longcastle4863  That's the problem with laymen. They see bullshit and they immediately swallow bullshit without even doing a smell test. No, "probability wave" is not an actual concept in physics. It doesn't even make sense as a word. A probability is the imaginary continuation of a measured frequency of events in the limit of an infinite number of experiments. First of all it's not even possible to perform the same experiment an infinite number of times, hence not even probabilities are physical, and secondly the process of repetition of experiments does not spread as a wave. This is irrespective of the fact that quantum mechanics talks about uncertainty and not about probability, to begin with. Uncertainties can be time reversal invariant (and quantum systems are). Probabilities, which are the results of stochastic processes, can not be. You are not just barking up the wrong tree here, layman, you are not even in the right forest. And, yes, that's not your fault. Nearly 100% of the "information" you can find outside of the better textbooks on the subject is about as fake as one of Trump's speeches.
    1
  256.  @longcastle4863  I apologize that I wasn't gentle. Please understand, I am merely here for my own amusement. This ain't physics to me, either, but entertainment. And, yes, I do have a mean streak, but then... I am not asking for your friendship, am I? If you really care about physics, this isn't the place. The best place on the internet that I know about (and it is fabulous) is the physics stackexchange. There are hundreds of extremely smart people on there who can actually walk you through all the details, if you want. Take care and peace to you, too.
    1
  257. Good luck explaining that to a judge and jury.
    1
  258.  @FrancescoIW0DJC  He did? I think somebody wasn't paying attention in signal processing class. ;-)
    1
  259. You have scientific evidence that we can't do science? Please tell. :-)
    1
  260.  @tomirendo  In other words... you don't. NEXT! :-)
    1
  261.  @tomirendo  That was obvious. :-)
    1
  262.  @tomirendo  I asked a simple question. Do you have scientific evidence that one can't do science? Absolutely every bit of rational experience of humankind indicates the opposite. The damn stone age people were doing science by observing the moon and the sun. They had observatories that could tell them the equinoxes and solstices already. A stone thrown into the air flies along a parabola. It does that over here as well as in Madagascar, on the moon and three billion light years away. You don't seem to "believe" in these facts. Was this more to your liking? :-)
    1
  263.  @tomirendo  There is a fundamental issue with all of philosophy. It's all bullshit. Superdeterminism isn't science, so it has zero impact on science. A stone flying along a parabola, that is science. You don't need superdeterminism for that. All you need is a table of height over distance. I don't know why so many people are having trouble keeping science and philosophy apart. There is no resemblance. The philosophy department hasn't done a thing for the world since 500BC and the science departments have changed the world completely in 450 years, or so.
    1
  264. No, quantum processes are NOT symmetric with respect to time. The Born rule is the description of an irreversible energy transfer.
    1
  265.  @jimjimmy2179  Yes, that was bullshit. ;-)
    1
  266. Yes, you don't understand physics. ;-)
    1
  267. @ I am simply here to feed attention to little children while they are waiting for their Mommy to come home. ;-)
    1
  268.  @Bomba_drastic  Sure thing, kid. Grab your high school text book and start reading the chapters about energy, momentum and angular momentum conservation. :-)
    1
  269. So you don't know anything about modern mathematics, either. ;-)
    1
  270.  @chucksalvo2944  Where did you get the nonsense from that hidden variables have to be random? :-)
    1
  271. Also 100% false. ;-)
    1
  272. That's standard quantum mechanics. We had initial and final state since Heisenberg wrote his matrix mechanics papers. It's even more obvious in those papers than in the standard formulation of Schroedinger and von Neumann why that has to be so. It does not take care of the measurement system dependence of the outcome. Nothing can because that is a real physical effect. The uncertain nature of individual quantum measurements is a direct consequence of relativity, so nothing can change that, either.
    1
  273.  @ppinheiro76  You would be much better off realizing that free will is untestable philosophical bullshit. It belongs into religion, just like the holy spirit does.
    1
  274. So you basically don't know anything about the double slit and measurement but you think that you are a physics philosopher by using both in a sentence in a YouTube comment. Cool!
    1
  275. Ma! I found the great wall of bullshit on the internet!
    1
  276. There never was spooky action at a distance. That's just physics bullshit that sells well on the internet. You don't even have to think about it.
    1
  277. We can easily prove that the universe is not random. That's undergrad material. We usually teach it in an introductory thermodynamics/statistical mechanics class.
    1
  278.  @sebbbi2  Fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Look it up.
    1
  279.  @sebbbi2  The fluctuation-dissipation theorem predicts that random fluctuations are inevitably linked to dissipation. Quantum mechanical systems are not dissipative. That's the end of randomness. That the opposite of randomness is NOT determinism is something you will have to work out for yourself. You are simply suffering from false dichotomitis.
    1
  280. Nobody has ever seen particles. The only thing we have ever seen are quanta of energy. The theory unequivocally says that these quanta only exist as system property changes. The theory matches all observations perfectly. That pretty much settles that question. :-)
    1
  281. Quantum mechanics is perfectly local. Why are you telling us that you didn't read the textbooks? They usually say this in the first chapter. :-)
    1
  282.  @Bolidoo  "Locally real" is not a physical term. It's philosophical nonsense. That there can be no hidden variables follows directly from relativity. There is no need to even think about this for as long as three seconds. You can see this in every spacetime diagram if you know where to look. Quantum mechanics is local because of relativity. If it were otherwise, we would all have ansibles in our cell phones. On the downside the universe would not exist, of course. ;-) Determinism never existed. It's an 18th and 19th century phantasy like the phlogiston and the aether. Also not worth discussing from an empirical standpoint.
    1
  283. Less weed. Way less. ;-)
    1
  284. Kidding? No. The double slit is an intelligence test and you just failed it. :-)
    1
  285. So what have you been drinking? ;-)
    1
  286. There is nothing to prove. We know what the detectors are doing. :-)
    1
  287. @ You look at the sales literature of a company called "Hamamatsu".
    1
  288. The really amazing part is that there are no hidden variables. Nature can do everything without that level of OCD. ;-)
    1
  289. It's just good that there are no particles, which completely solves your problem.
    1
  290. They are both failed 17th-19th century concepts. ;-)
    1
  291.  @maxwelldillon4805  Sabine has a tendency to change her opinion faster than the wind changes. ;-)
    1
  292. Yes, there is a lot of nonsense like that out there. It comes from people who weren't paying attention in school when we explained quantum mechanics to them. ;-)
    1
  293. No. ;-)
    1
  294. Irreversible energy transfer. The same as in classical mechanics.
    1
  295.  @Belti200  No offense to anybody, but this is trivial second year undergrad physics. We usually discuss this in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics classes (briefly). A measurement has to be an irreversible process because it has to leave a lasting record in a system that is different from the system we are performing the measurement on. Why do we have to transfer energy? Because everything has an effective temperature (third law of thermodynamics) and the amount of energy that gets transferred has to be >kT or else we can't distinguish the result of the measurement from a random thermal noise fluctuation. What is a measurement in quantum mechanics? It's the transfer of a quantum of energy from the quantum system to the measurement system. The measurement outcome is the amount of energy of that quantum. This is clearly expressed in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics papers, for instance. It's completely obvious in any textbook about atomic, molecular or nuclear physics. It's obvious in any experimental paper in high energy physics. If you ever meet a physicist who talks about measurement but can't tell you this stuff, it's time to stop listening to that person. They simply don't know what they are talking about. Peace!
    1
  296. It's not complicated, but you still need to stop drinking. It's not good for you. ;-)
    1
  297.  @robertbutsch1802  Why do you have to rule something out that is not even scientific? Do I have to set a lower limit on ghosts by setting up ghost detectors in decrepit mansions?
    1
  298. It looks like your skull is an exception. It's pretty dark in there. ;-)
    1