Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Немного лёгкой квантовой механики (с минутной физикой)" video.

  1. There is no such thing as wave function collapse. That is just a poor mental model for what is really happening, which is irreversible energy transfer.
    1
  2. Awh, there is the scientifically uneducated fella with his boring simulation hypothesis. ;-)
    1
  3. The PE is the naive integral form of the SE. There are a lot of problems with it that are usually swept underneath the table.
    1
  4. Yeah, not any nonsensical combination of words is physics. ;-)
    1
  5. Quantum mechanics is neither random nor probabilistic. Random numbers don't satisfy any conservation laws.
    1
  6.  @DeJay7  Quantum mechanics is not probabilistic. It's uncertain, but even that is not the correct starting point. If you really want to understand the theory, then you have to realize that it is an ensemble theory where every single quantum experiment is independent, i.e. it is not possible to predict the outcome of any one measurement by knowing all the measurements. That is NOT the same thing as random, most people just don't think about it deeply enough. We know that the universe satisfies conservation laws event by event because we are observing them event by event. Hermiticity checks are part of every high energy physics experiment.
    1
  7. There is nothing to demystify. The entire theory is structured this way because the experiments it describes are histograms of statistically independent events. Statistics comes first. The theory follows from it in a trivial fashion.
    1
  8. We had classical formulas for that experiment since the 19th century. Anybody who tells you that it's a quantum experiment is lying to you.
    1
  9. It wasn't a matter of belief. He just didn't like it and on some level he didn't understand it well, either.
    1
  10.  @zoyxox0  If he thought that it was inconsistent, then he didn't understand it.
    1
  11.  @zoyxox0  The universe doesn't work on probabilities. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Individual quantum experiments have to be statistically independent to apply the theory (because that's the actual mathematical assumption behind it). There are physical experiments for which this is true (like radioactive decay) and there are some for which it is not (laser ight sources modelled with single quantum wave functions, particle tracks). Which experiment satisfies the assumptions of quantum mechanics and which one does not has to be tested individually. I haven't seen any indication in Einstein's writings that indicate that he was aware of this fact in the first place. Look, you have to cut these guys some slack. They basically guessed it right but they never developed a healthy intuition about it. Einstein's intuition was only fractionally worse than e.g. Heisenberg's or Bohr's. That's usually the case with scientific revolutions. It takes several generations of scientists to really learn to appreciate the fundamentals properly.
    1