4 ms·

Unfortunate name for an interesting algorithm. In a very high level way, it reminds me of Stable Diffusion, where you also kind of cool a random state into a de

Unfortunate name for an interesting algorithm. In a very high level way, it reminds me of Stable Diffusion, where you also kind of cool a random state into a desired ordered state.

karmakaze 4y ago
Especially since we don't even know what actual wavefunction collapse means.
- criddell 4y ago
  Is there a leading theory about what the physical reality of wavefunction collapse is?
  - ablatt89 4y ago
    I think many "top" physicists (those with high citation counts in theory), generally believe in consistent histories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories That is, there is no collapse. QM is a description of the quantum level of the world relative to our fixed sized, such that it doesn't really make sense to ask "what is really happening" since "what is really happening" is relative to what we can measure and ask from a human perspective. The probabilisitic nature is the description we have to describe systems at the quantum scale since it doesn't really make sense to ask the question what a quantum system looks like at a quantum scale, since measurement devices are inherently classical. I guess you can say it's sorta like taking some algorithm for some problem, caching all possible inputs, and thus knowing the full solution to that problem but not really knowing the "true" algorithm that has no memory space optimizations. Some might say the problem should have a more "real" solution, but the infinite cache solution might be all we have and it doesn't mean the solution is worthless. While this may seam unsatisfactory to some, I think QM is a very consistent description to much physics, and alternatives like LQG are inherently problematic as it violates Lorentz invariance since it chooses a privileged reference frame (the reference frame with the smallest length metric). A lot of the hate comes from some physicists who want to introduce their own theories, want to full status and glory of being the next Einstein who disrupted physics, but will never address any criticism of their theories, berate others who work on QM or string theory for not wanting to work on their framework, and essentially saying those who are working on QM/theory don't deserve their jobs nor funding.
    - Koshkin 4y ago
      > it doesn't really make sense to ask "what is really happening" But something is happening. Really.
      - ablatt89 4y ago
        Something is happening, it's described by quantum mechanics. What is "really happening" is a moot question, because you're assuming that QM is in invalid description because it doesn't satisfy how you want the world to work. Sorry, physics doesn't care that you find some descriptions of the world troubling. Some might find the magnetic field troubling since the divergence of the magnetic field is zero. Some might find the fact that mass and energy are equivalent as troubling.
        tines 4y ago
        > you're assuming that QM is in invalid description because it doesn't satisfy how you want the world to work. That's an uncharitable interpretation. People have an objection to speculations like many-worlds because they aren't corroborated by observation, and by nature can't be (iiuc), and are therefore unscientific (though not necessarily untrue). Well-established physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder hold this position and it's not as clear-cut as "the facts don't care about your feelings" like some make it out to be.
        ablatt89 4y ago
        > That's an uncharitable interpretation. People have an objection to speculations like many-worlds because they aren't corroborated by observation, and by nature can't be (iiuc), and are therefore unscientific (though not necessarily untrue). Well-established physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder hold this position and it's not as clear-cut as "the facts don't care about your feelings" like some make it out to be. The disagreement with MWI and the general disdain for QM are separate issues. MWI is an interpretation that doesn't necessarily invalidate the framework, but attempts to extend it. However there's also been a general disdain for QM from various folk who attempt to completely replace it. Whether Sabine Hossenfelder likes a theory or not is not really an argument, given you're arguing from authority. As an example of her clickbaity title where she doesn't really seem to respect QM: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/05/quantum-mechanics-is-wrong-there-ive.html https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/05/quantum-mechanics-... I think it's well known in the theory community QM can be updated for a more complete framework (carefully obviously), but the idea that QM is "completely wrong" because it's incomplete or introduces some complexities she doesn't like, is completely laughable. It's akin to saying classical mechanics is "completely wrong" because it doesn't predict quantum behavior (despite many anti-QM people claiming QM is wrong because they want to impose their classical understanding onto the quantum world) and then ignoring modern engineering, which uses classical mechanics to describe buildings, cars, machines, etc...
  - magicalhippo 4y ago
    I'm just a layman, but once I learned about experiments like delayed-choice quantum eraser[1] any physical wave function collapse stopped making sense to me. As a calculation tool, like the algorithm in this thread, sure, but not as something that really happens. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

Unfortunate name for an interesting algorithm. In a very high level way, it reminds me of Stable Diffusion, where you also kind of cool a random state into a desired ordered state.

karmakaze 4y ago

Especially since we don't even know what actual wavefunction collapse means.

criddell 4y ago
Is there a leading theory about what the physical reality of wavefunction collapse is?
- ablatt89 4y ago
  I think many "top" physicists (those with high citation counts in theory), generally believe in consistent histories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories That is, there is no collapse. QM is a description of the quantum level of the world relative to our fixed sized, such that it doesn't really make sense to ask "what is really happening" since "what is really happening" is relative to what we can measure and ask from a human perspective. The probabilisitic nature is the description we have to describe systems at the quantum scale since it doesn't really make sense to ask the question what a quantum system looks like at a quantum scale, since measurement devices are inherently classical. I guess you can say it's sorta like taking some algorithm for some problem, caching all possible inputs, and thus knowing the full solution to that problem but not really knowing the "true" algorithm that has no memory space optimizations. Some might say the problem should have a more "real" solution, but the infinite cache solution might be all we have and it doesn't mean the solution is worthless. While this may seam unsatisfactory to some, I think QM is a very consistent description to much physics, and alternatives like LQG are inherently problematic as it violates Lorentz invariance since it chooses a privileged reference frame (the reference frame with the smallest length metric). A lot of the hate comes from some physicists who want to introduce their own theories, want to full status and glory of being the next Einstein who disrupted physics, but will never address any criticism of their theories, berate others who work on QM or string theory for not wanting to work on their framework, and essentially saying those who are working on QM/theory don't deserve their jobs nor funding.
  - Koshkin 4y ago
    > it doesn't really make sense to ask "what is really happening" But something is happening. Really.
    - ablatt89 4y ago
      Something is happening, it's described by quantum mechanics. What is "really happening" is a moot question, because you're assuming that QM is in invalid description because it doesn't satisfy how you want the world to work. Sorry, physics doesn't care that you find some descriptions of the world troubling. Some might find the magnetic field troubling since the divergence of the magnetic field is zero. Some might find the fact that mass and energy are equivalent as troubling.
      - tines 4y ago
        > you're assuming that QM is in invalid description because it doesn't satisfy how you want the world to work. That's an uncharitable interpretation. People have an objection to speculations like many-worlds because they aren't corroborated by observation, and by nature can't be (iiuc), and are therefore unscientific (though not necessarily untrue). Well-established physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder hold this position and it's not as clear-cut as "the facts don't care about your feelings" like some make it out to be.
        ablatt89 4y ago
        > That's an uncharitable interpretation. People have an objection to speculations like many-worlds because they aren't corroborated by observation, and by nature can't be (iiuc), and are therefore unscientific (though not necessarily untrue). Well-established physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder hold this position and it's not as clear-cut as "the facts don't care about your feelings" like some make it out to be. The disagreement with MWI and the general disdain for QM are separate issues. MWI is an interpretation that doesn't necessarily invalidate the framework, but attempts to extend it. However there's also been a general disdain for QM from various folk who attempt to completely replace it. Whether Sabine Hossenfelder likes a theory or not is not really an argument, given you're arguing from authority. As an example of her clickbaity title where she doesn't really seem to respect QM: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/05/quantum-mechanics-is-wrong-there-ive.html https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/05/quantum-mechanics-... I think it's well known in the theory community QM can be updated for a more complete framework (carefully obviously), but the idea that QM is "completely wrong" because it's incomplete or introduces some complexities she doesn't like, is completely laughable. It's akin to saying classical mechanics is "completely wrong" because it doesn't predict quantum behavior (despite many anti-QM people claiming QM is wrong because they want to impose their classical understanding onto the quantum world) and then ignoring modern engineering, which uses classical mechanics to describe buildings, cars, machines, etc...
- magicalhippo 4y ago
  I'm just a layman, but once I learned about experiments like delayed-choice quantum eraser[1] any physical wave function collapse stopped making sense to me. As a calculation tool, like the algorithm in this thread, sure, but not as something that really happens. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser