61–70 of 132 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
She communicates with equations regularly in actual science papers: https://arxiv.org/a/hossenfelder_s_1.html
Someday I'll get around to reading some of them, and I'll find whether that assumption is wrong.
I got a bit lost at the double slit experiment with superdeterminism. Can someone clarify what is supposed to be going on? * We send one photon at a time through a double slit, don't measure them, and an interference pattern is formed, presumably because the probabilities of the particle going through each slit interfere with each other. * If we measure the position of the particle, it goes through only one slit, and…
> Once you understand what’s going on with the double slit, all the other quantum effects that are allegedly mysterious or strange also make sense. Take for example a delayed choice experiment. In such an experiment, it’s only after the particle started its path that you decide whether to measure which slit it went through. And that gives the same result as the usual double slit experiment. Delayed choice seems prett…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Superdeterminism, arguably misnamed, simply argues that QM is deterministic This is incorrect. QM is already deterministic. Where oh where do people get the idea that it is not?
The born rule for starters.
E.g. the master equation for a quantum density matrix governs its evolution when the environmental conditions are not completely known or modelled. Classical ensembles or 'decohered' states occur as a consequence.
QM is formulated as a deterministic theory. When you try to model an open, interacting system without tracking its environment, you have to sacrifice determinism in that model, because you are failing to track all the information in the system. You settle for probabilistic quantities. Nothing quantum about it either-- same thing happens in classical mechanics. They call this "classical thermodynamics".
I got a bit lost at the double slit experiment with superdeterminism. Can someone clarify what is supposed to be going on? * We send one photon at a time through a double slit, don't measure them, and an interference pattern is formed, presumably because the probabilities of the particle going through each slit interfere with each other. * If we measure the position of the particle, it goes through only one slit, and…
Where did you get this from? I don't think Sabine implied that. From what I understood, it is more like the measurement interacted with the particle and it changed its behavior. I don't see why we need to consider that it was always meant to be that way.
I got a bit lost at the double slit experiment with superdeterminism. Can someone clarify what is supposed to be going on? * We send one photon at a time through a double slit, don't measure them, and an interference pattern is formed, presumably because the probabilities of the particle going through each slit interfere with each other. * If we measure the position of the particle, it goes through only one slit, and…
Well, the thing is, neither the standard (non-local) quantum mechanics nor the superdeterminism answer this question, as they both simply talk about a wave function and its taking a different shape depending on what measurement is made; the only difference is that one completely gives up on futher clarification of what the wave function physically represents while the other encourages looking for hidden variables.
But in superdeterminism, it seems as if there are no probabilities in that sense, or am I missing something?
I got a bit lost at the double slit experiment with superdeterminism. Can someone clarify what is supposed to be going on? * We send one photon at a time through a double slit, don't measure them, and an interference pattern is formed, presumably because the probabilities of the particle going through each slit interfere with each other. * If we measure the position of the particle, it goes through only one slit, and…
I got a bit lost at the double slit experiment with superdeterminism. Can someone clarify what is supposed to be going on? * We send one photon at a time through a double slit, don't measure them, and an interference pattern is formed, presumably because the probabilities of the particle going through each slit interfere with each other. * If we measure the position of the particle, it goes through only one slit, and…
> Superdeterminism says that the initial state of the universe determined that we would measure the particle, and therefore it goes through one slit and there's no interference. Where did you get this from? I don't think Sabine implied that. From what I understood, it is more like the measurement interacted with the particle and it changed its behavior. I don't see why we need to consider that it was always meant to…
So it's not the measuring that does anything in superdeterminism apaprently, it's that if you do measure it, that was "known" in advance by the state of the universe.
If not that, what is supposed to be going on (physicists please respond).
I got a bit lost at the double slit experiment with superdeterminism. Can someone clarify what is supposed to be going on? * We send one photon at a time through a double slit, don't measure them, and an interference pattern is formed, presumably because the probabilities of the particle going through each slit interfere with each other. * If we measure the position of the particle, it goes through only one slit, and…
> Superdeterminism says that the initial state of the universe determined that we would measure the particle, and therefore it goes through one slit and there's no interference. Where did you get this from? I don't think Sabine implied that. From what I understood, it is more like the measurement interacted with the particle and it changed its behavior. I don't see why we need to consider that it was always meant to…