joigus

🫥

Again, a theory of everything is a name that became popular in the '90s, if I remember correctly, and does not mean a theory of "every thing". Nobody would be silly enough to engage in such an endeavour. A so-called TOE sets out to explain parameters of the SM (standard model). A theory of every thing (every single thing that is out there) is just an mirage stemming from a basic misunderstanding of what those words mean.

Science is not about rebuttals. It's rather about an optimum fit to the facts that's conceptually and mathematically economical. If it turns out to be predictive, so much the better! What bias? Maximal entanglement is the perfect paragon of non-bias. Every direction is the same, every particle is the same, everything that can be measured is on an equal basis. Every \( \boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\boldsymbol{n} \) projection produces the same odds. It has no particular spatial-direction or particle-identity feature. It's the paragon of featurelessness, of non-bias. Informational curvature. Can you define the term? Entanglement a geometric feature? I don't know of such geometry.

As that never happens for professional physicists who understand quantum mechanics, I'm going to guess the reason is just something along the lines of "I'm gonna find a reason that satisfies me" --like @swansont said. I don't care about that "every thing that can happen will happen" nonsense, the non-argument goes. But that's what QM says: Every single event that could happen has an amplitude that affects what will happen. Astronomical observations are not in the domain of a so-called theory of everything. TOE is about masses and angles and coupling constants. Not about why Mercury is so different from the Earth.

Why do people keep thinking quantum entanglement needs predicting or explaining beyond what QM already tells us? Is there some kind of epidemic I'm not aware of?

By the way, your AI engine of choice got this wrong (among other things): The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is neither classical nor quantum. How do you think Planck proved the right graph for the spectrum of the black body? Exactly. Maxwell-Boltzmann. It is true that Maxwell-Boltzmann cannot give you the entangled state. I didn't say it does. I implied it must be consistent with it. Exchange of identical particles doesn't give you an energy difference. MB demands that statistical weights be the same. It's the principles of quantum mechanics that complete the rationale.

Exactly. Be minimalist. Establish a useful formalism.

All correlations in quantum mechanics can be explained in terms of the Schrödinger equation, or a mixture of it and things in the way of Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, etc. A maximally-entangled state is a trivial case of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, when you think about it. No need to endow the universe with hidden higher-dimensional tunnels to explain those. They are perfectly explained. No mechanism is needed, and that's the beauty part.

Science is not about refutation. It's about picking the simplest idea that explains the facts. Quantum mechanics does derive those correlations. It doesn't assume them as a premise. You need QM plus Nature's drive towards maximum entropy. There you are. You let the system "relax" to a maximum entropy and apply the superposition principle: The state is automatically the Bell state --mod an arbitrary global phase. It's been prepared that way by just letting it be. It's your idea that seems to assume some "internal" machinery to explain the idea that in quantum mechanics is totally natural.

No. They are built-in quantum correlations. When a quantum system cools down to a maximally entangled state, the amplitudes are what quantum mechanics dictates and Von Neumann's entropy becomes maximal. Then you decide to split up the system spatially and, after however much time you let pass, the odds for different "strings" of observables of choice are exactly what they were at the beginning. It's all initial correlations. No need for extra dimensions to find a shortcut.

In so-called quantum teleportation, the measurement outputs must be sent at regular speeds (as @KJW told you). We've discussed this before on the forums. There is no teleportation of anything and no violation of locality. But, as I told you, misnomers die hard.

No. @KJW 's point is deeper than you think. QM is not a random theory. It is a deterministic theory (with a huge arbitrariness) that gives rise to all the microscopic randomness by way of this element (extraneous to the dynamical theory itself) that we call measurements. Oh, and there's nothing non-local about it. Not a bit.

I know all that, "dude". I'll wait for your doh! moment, don't worry.

Dude, we don't know anything today we didn't know back then about this particular point. And Gell-Mann explains it very eloquently indeed. Learn some physics. And read what you're told. Here, again: Nothing gets from A to B. All the weirdness started in one point in space. Why would it be telling us anything about non-local correlations? Entangled states are prepared at one and only point in space-time. The fact that people still think there's something non-local going on is a testament to the power of words. Nothing more.

No, wait. You might learn something here: Then read The Quark and the Jaguar. Then leave all your ignorance about this matter in the past. Nothing gets from A to B. All the weirdness started in one point in space. Why would it be telling us anything about non-local correlations? Zeilinger himself recognised this. But the spooky (and profoundly misleading) term "non-local" dies hard!

They won the Nobel price for reasons other than what you say, because you sorrily misunderstand what they proved.

Wrong. What's a fact is incompatibility of behaviour of quantum states with local realism. Subtle, but important difference that thousands upon thousands of people misunderstand constantly. We've had some of that here.

There is no instantaneous (non-local) "exchange" that we know of in quantum mechanics. We cannot "exchange" anything outside of the future causal cone of an event. No can do. The (local) gauge is the particular choice of the local phase of the wave function. The (global) gauge is the particular choice of the global phase of the wave function. How could an arbitrary choice give rise to a phenomenon? Gauge is beyond phenomena. It's been described as a "redundancy", or an "arbitrariness". I don't understand.

A hidden geometry is usually destructive? What are gauge phenomena? You should consider the possibility that you misunderstood the paper and the paper also misunderstood quantum mechanics. Those are by no means mutually exclusive. I'm old enough to have been known to have misunderstood a misunderstanding. Can you give us the low-down?

Do you mean "measure theory" as in mathematics? MT is concerned with metric properties of a function (generalisation of volume). Measurement in physics is completely different. quantum amplitudes (I prefer to say that over "wave function") must be measurable in a mathematical sense (the famous L2(R3) class of integrable functions, which require the Lebesgue theory of the measure (in particular in order to include distributions). That doesn't mean they can be measure in a physical sense. Sorry if I'm coming across as a something of a stickler for precision in the terms. I need precision at every step.

I don't think the whole motivation for introducing random variables boils down to solving the finer points of topology TBH. Going back to the main point, it's not clear to me that quantum probabilities represent some kind of brand new concept of probability that Laplacian probabiliy (or Kolmogorov's for that matter) could not already handle. The actual divide, IMO, is in how quantum probabilities derive from these strange things called "amplitudes" (complex quantities that force us to do the Boolean algebra of YES, NO, OR, AND, etc, on them instead of on the probabilities themselves). The question could be every bit as cogently posed as "why is it that the basic logic of the world we see is projected on these amplitudes?" What "are" these amplitudes and how do they relate to the things that seem to "be"? That's the essential difference, not a new concept of probability incompatible with the former. EDIT: I'm aware (as @swansont has pointed out) that Kolmogorov came later than QM. But his concept is very much a generalisation of the old one AFAIK.

From what I know quantum computers would be feasible for tasks such as factoring numbers, cryptography, and the like. Not very suitable for emulating categorical thinking. But all of this could change in a matter of years. Who knows.

When and where you said wave functions are random variables. Random variables in QM are the observables. Wave functions have a status of their own.

That's the rho for the scatterers!! Form factors measure the spatial shape of scatterers. OMG. Please don't ask artificial intelligence again. It's almost indistinguishable form natural stupidity. Can you set me free now? Yeah, let's keep this short, please, oh please. where ρ(r) is the spatial density of the scatterer about its center of mass (r=0), and Q is the momentum transfer. (quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_form_factor). If you've done some physics it takes you about half a second to figure out that's what they mean. Even if you don't remember the whole context. For Pete's sake.

Yes, you have mixed them up. Scattering theory is about an incoming state that comes from \( t=-\infty \) and evolves towards an outgoing state that evolves towards \( t=+\infty \) . Quite different from \[ \left|\psi\right|^{2} \]. Born's rule is about one and the same state. Scattering is about an incoming and outgoing states, both close to plane waves, and infinitely distant in time. Do you really know about quantum mechanics? Doesn't sound like you do. Oh, come on, drop the attitude, will you? I know quite a bunch of details about quantum mechanics, and I don't need prosthetics for my intelligence. AI has failed to answer some of my deepest questions. Miserably so. No wonder, really. AI works on the logical span of what humans have already thought. It's clueless about what's next. If you could paraphrase what it's trying to do (sometimes to astonishing perfection, I'll give you that), it is: How could I convince myself this is what human interlocutors would want to hear?