> In other words, this isn't actually a superposition.
Obviously. That was my point: it is but a simple analogy. There are no actual bubbles in bubble sort, either.
As for my theory -- I suspect that whenever quantum physics is mentioned, a certain brigade of users like to take the opportunity to look smart by showing off their (in this case largely irrelevant) knowledge of quantum physics. (While simultaneously showing how they fail to grasp the concept of simple analogies, and so actually appearing the opposite. But then I'm zero_iq, so what do I know...!)
> This is a big problem for physics; confusing the modelling for truthiness
I'm pretty sure it isn't ; ever since quantum mechanics physicists have been very good at separating the two. Popsci, not so much, but the actual physics is very clear about it being a model.
>It’s trivial to falsify EQM — just do an experiment that violates the Schrödinger equation or the principle of superposition, which are the only things the theory assumes. Witness a dynamical collapse, or find a hidden variable.
This isn't too surprising, because it's a QM interpretation that's designed to be indistinguishable from the others. The MWI is unfalsifiable (you can't see the other worlds) and Copenhagen is too (you can't? see wave function collapse actually happen).
> you cannot express the truthiness of a statement in the system within the system itself.
Of course not; I'm not talking about truthiness; I'm talking about truth.
> that what you stated above would be a huge result in mathematics
Not really; it's the same sort of trivially-blatantly-obvious thing as "two-boxing on Newcomb's problem is irrational" or "quantum superpositions never actually collapse".
> No pure classical reality learner could ever come up with quantum mechanics. They must have a sensory organ to feel the eigen states.
That's obviously not true, as biological organisms who lack such organs have still arrived at learning quantum mechanics (granted, we spent a few billion years inventing language first, but still, those tiny little microbes evtually learned how quantum mechanics works).
I should also mention that we don't yet know whether the eigenstates exist in any sense, or are just a cool modeling trick to predict probabilities, or are actually wrong and there is some better way to model particle physics that perhaps doesn't require them at all.
Exactly. I'd recommend the other 100 commenters or so who posted a similar reply to learn some basic quantum mechanics. Contrary to popular belief it's not that hard if you have a grasp of math.
> You understood correctly that quantum mechanics cannot be based on some hidden variable we haven't or cannot find.
That's not true. The only thing we know is that the above appears to be true, but since we do not actually know the mechanism behind quantum mechanics we will be in this limbo until (if ever) we find the actual rules.
It has led to a great deal of mental clarity for me. YMMV.
> Before you said that “Before teleportation C is in a pure state”. But thats surely impossible, because wherever C is coming from it’s entangled with a gazillion things already...
That's right, and indeed figuring out how a laser actually works is quite challenging.
> If the original state C can be “pure”, then the final state B can be “pure” as well (and identical to C).
Only if you are willing to explain how B was transformed from its initial state into its final state, and more to the point, when this transition happened.
> I think you have a problem with the probabilistic nature of QM
Huh? What have I said that leads you to believe that? It's not true.
> if you only can accept a statistical mixture as being part of an entangled pure system
That has more to do with philosophy than physics. Does an apple really fall because gravity is pulling down on it? No, but it's a good enough approximation to the truth that it's usually not worth quibbling over.
> This, of course, is a physically verified phenomenon
No it's not. There are interpretations in which collapse does not exist, so these experiments are not measuring what you think they're measuring unless you already assume the conclusion.
Also, your view on other interpretations of QM are outdated. Arguably one of the more famous results on quantum mechanics, Bell's theorem, would have never existed if not for Bohmian mechanics.
Don't discount the value of explanatory power. The fact that other interpretations provide far more explanatory power than Copenhagen makes them far more valuable. Many important results in quantum foundations would have never happened if everyone were a Copenhagenist.
>seems for just a second like a normal, intuitive process that's just been obscured through poor explanation--then you learn a little more and realize it's far more bizarre than you'd imagined.
This is a great explanation of the process of learning about quantum mechanics.
> I did my doctoral work in the area of quantum dynamics
Then why would you have any understanding of terms of art from outside of that field? I understand the confusion, but there's no need to imply that the OP is objectively wrong just because you don't like that (someone else) named their algorithm wave function collapse.
> Guys, the bio side of things is incredibly complicated
I always find it amusing when physicists talk about how mind-blowing it is that at the quantum level, things aren't entirely predictable. Over in biology, that's the starting point for everything rather than the final frontier - you don't need ridiculously expensive tools to get to the point where you're finding unpredictable stuff.
> I always thought that wave function collapse does not require any human intervention and that this can be shown.
It is, in principle, impossible to determine this, because eventually humans will see the output of the experiments. However, we can say that if humans are special, the only things able to cause “measurement”, then our specialness also gives us time travel powers that can only be used for “measurement”, and Occam's Razor says that's probably nonsense.
> "quantum superpositions never actually collapse"
Popsci is fun,
Never stop learning, even if it's obvious.
reply