Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#61

Post by Nevermark » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 12:54 AM UTC

spot5010 wrote: post #53

Nevermark wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The part that I have trouble wrapping around with many worlds interpretation is how I as an observer end up in one of the many bifurcations. Pour water down a hill. Water clings to water, and we have hills that already have lots of correlations. We get streams that break up into multiple streams. How did one stream end up where it is? It seems like a good question, but it is circular. The stream is defined by where…

What you said here makes sense. Forgive me, but I have trouble even articulating what it is that I don’t understand correctly. Maybe what I meant was this: if I perform a quantum experiment where the spin measurement of an electron could be spin up or spin down, the future me would end up in one of two branches: I measure spin up, or I measure spin down. There wouldn’t be any possible world where I measure a superpos…

Good questions.

> The future me would end up in one of two branches: I measure spin up, or I measure spin down.

The future "you's" would each see spin up, and spin down, respectively.

We are just as quantum as what we measure. There isn't a scale where entanglement and superposition turn into something else. No classical vs. quantum atoms.

Just as an up-spin qubit touching an up/down qubit results in an up-up qubit pair in superposition with an up-down superposition, conserving the qubit, when we touch a qubit we get "us"-up and "us"-down versions.

No information is created. None is destroyed. We experience a correlation = "collapse" (both versions of us), but the quantum information just continues on as before, qubit conserved.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#62

Post by fnordlord » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 12:55 AM UTC

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #20

uh_uh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's what having such senses feels like from the inside; the first-person view. The hard problem is that there is such a feeling at all.

It's not hard at all when you acknowledge that such senses exist in the world, and that you (like others) possess them. As an aside it tends to foster a certain tendency towards empathy. In essence, you're asking why there's an inside to being a self-modeling system. But "inside" isn't something extraneous, something additional -- rather, it's what "self-modeling" means. Really the "hard problem" has a very easy answ…

It's embarrassingly silly to say but I've frequently just boiled down the hard question to the question of "where is the experience of the color blue stored in the universe?" Even as a non-dualist, I still haven't found much of an answer that I like. I'm all ears if you've got a book recommendation.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#63

Post by danbruc » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 12:56 AM UTC

superposeur wrote: post #54

danbruc wrote: post #52

Do I get this right? Wave function collapse due to measurements is not real, the wave function evolves unitarily all the time. But as quantum states get amplified into the macroscopic world, superposition states are somehow amplified asymmetrically which makes it look like wavefunction collapse.

Yes, except for the “asymmetrically” part. In other words, Many Worlds.

But isn’t it conceivable, because the original quantum state contains probabilities of different outcomes, that one imprint might correspond to “up” and another to “down,” [...] [Zurek’s theory] predicts that all the imprints must be identical.

Does this not imply that there is an asymmetry, one half of the state gets imprinted, the other half neglected? This however also raises the question about the basis, what is a superposition and what is not depends on the choice of basis. Is there a special basis just as pointer states are somehow special?

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#64

Post by suhputt » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 12:56 AM UTC

outlace wrote: post #60

Highly recommend looking at Jacob Barandes’ formulation of quantum mechanics as non-Markovian stochastic processes. It was the first introduction to quantum mechanics I could actually follow. https://www.jacobbarandes.com/

might make sense to link to the actual material you're referring to

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#65

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 12:56 AM UTC

yoyohello13 wrote: post #39

Im fully willing to believe I just don’t “get it” but I took a pretty deep dive into quantum computing and the underlying mechanics and I kind of got the sense (with QC) that nobody really knows what they are talking about. I got this feeling so strongly that stopped studying the topic all together. I’m probably way off base and I’m probably missing some insights that I could get by going to school or something but t…

[deleted]

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#66

Post by Terr_ » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 12:58 AM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #46

yoyohello13 wrote: post #39

Im fully willing to believe I just don’t “get it” but I took a pretty deep dive into quantum computing and the underlying mechanics and I kind of got the sense (with QC) that nobody really knows what they are talking about. I got this feeling so strongly that stopped studying the topic all together. I’m probably way off base and I’m probably missing some insights that I could get by going to school or something but t…

>nobody really knows what they are talking about The mathematics of QM works extremely well. The interpretations of what the math is saying happens a varied and sometimes contradictory. We can predict what's going to happen extremely well, we just can't tell the story of what's happening. And there's been a century of trying to avoid the weirdness and failing. The problem might just be our brains evolved in a world t…

I often observe that humans are wired to create causal stories, whether we intend to or not, even in circumstances, we know are false.

A great example involves flipping a coin. Even people who know it's basically an independent 50/50 chance every time get drawn into thinking about "hot streaks" and "overdue for the opposite."

It's arguably a superpower that has given us lots of agriculture and tools and technology and culture, but like hunger and obesity we can't just turn it off when it gets maladaptive.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#67

Post by sampo » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 1:02 AM UTC

yoyohello13 wrote: post #39

Im fully willing to believe I just don’t “get it” but I took a pretty deep dive into quantum computing and the underlying mechanics and I kind of got the sense (with QC) that nobody really knows what they are talking about. I got this feeling so strongly that stopped studying the topic all together. I’m probably way off base and I’m probably missing some insights that I could get by going to school or something but t…

> I’m probably way off base and I’m probably missing some insights that I could get by going to school

A school would usually teach the "shut up (about philosophy) and calculate" approach. These philosophical problems about the meaning of quantum mechanics have been with us for 100 years, and mainstream physics sees them as too hard or even intractable, and thus as waste of time.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#68

Post by ur-whale » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 1:04 AM UTC

suhputt wrote: post #64

outlace wrote: post #60

Highly recommend looking at Jacob Barandes’ formulation of quantum mechanics as non-Markovian stochastic processes. It was the first introduction to quantum mechanics I could actually follow. https://www.jacobbarandes.com/

might make sense to link to the actual material you're referring to

> Highly recommend looking at Jacob Barandes’ formulation of quantum mechanics as non-Markovian stochastic processes.

seconded

>might make sense to link to the actual material you're referring to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sshJyD0aWXg

In a fews sentences: the evolution of a physical system (quantum and classical) can very successfully be modeled as a stochastic process, and ...

1. state of the system is a real-valued "vector" (could be a vector of with continuous indices), or to put it another way, a "point" in state space.

2. system evolution is described by a real-valued "matrix" (matrix in quotes because it is also possibly a matrix with continuous indices), defined by the laws physics as they apply to the system

3. evolution of the system is modeled by repeatedly applying the matrix to the system (to the vector), possibly with infinitesimal steps.

The major discovery Jacob made is that, historically, folks working on stochastic processes had restricted themselves to studying "markovian" stochastic processes, where the transformation matrix has specific mathematical properties, and this fails to be able to properly model QM.

Jacob removes the constraint that the matrix should obey markovian constraints and lands us in an area of maths that's woefully unexplored: non markovian stochastic processes.

The net result though: you can model quantum mechanics with simple real-valued probabilities and do away entirely with the effing complex numbers.

The whole thing is way more intuitive than the traditional complex number based approach.

Jacob also apparently formally demonstrates that his approach is equivalent to the traditional approach.

Really worth taking a read/listen at.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#69

Post by lukol » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 1:12 AM UTC

kikokikokiko wrote: post #44

To me, the fact that quantum mechanics is intrinsically "random" and unknowable beforehand, is what makes living bearable in this universe as a sentient being. If we, two legged viruses that we are, could reach a level of understanding that could show the universe to be fully deterministic and every future state to be knowable given that you know the current states, then this human condition would be impossible to st…

#1: You do not want randomness. You may believe you do until the Titanic crashes into your front yard and your significant vanishes into thin air. You want quite a lot of predictability, up to a degree where it might not even matter if things at the lowest level of existence are not perfectly deterministic.

#2: What's so bad about thinking about life as an exciting rollercoaster ride? The tracks are laid but the ride is still fun.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#70

Post by Nevermark » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 1:12 AM UTC

borissk wrote: post #10

Nevermark wrote: post #3

> None of the leading interpretations of quantum theory are very convincing. They ask us to believe, for example, that the world we experience is fundamentally divided from the subatomic realm it’s built from. Or that there is a wild proliferation of parallel universes, or that a mysterious process causes quantumness to spontaneously collapse. Actually, the "many worlds" "interpretation", simply treats the highly suc…

I think you're right, the many worlds interpretation makes the most sense. Unfortunately out current technology is very far from delivering any experimental confirmation or denial of any of the mainstream interpretations.

You are right, but I think there is a more positive viewpoint.

All experiments agree with the many worlds interpretation (again, better described as a quantum web interpretation), and it is the plain Occam's Razor interpretation.

No additional flourishes are needed. That is strong theoretical support. It is the default (plain reading) interpretation already.

And it is the interpretation that doesn't just conserve in one history (i.e. conservation of energy etc.), but conserves information universally.

So again, very strong specific theoretical support.

It is the conjectures about experimentally unmotivated elaborations, like "collapses", that would also break universal conservation of information, for no theoretically necessary reason, that need dramatic new evidence to prove themselves.

If I lack any optimism, it is for conjectured complications with no evidentiary support and weaker explanatory/conservation powers. In any other context, nobody would be entertaining the need for such conjectures.

The "Quantum Collapsers" are right up their with the "Flat Earthers", or solar system "Epicycle Theorists", for not being happy with accepting a working and successful theory as is. Even though their imagined shivs introduce more questions than they answer, and would dispense with its unique advantages.