[Reeses]

Many times in the history of science some effect was declared to be completely random, the end, and then someone else comes along and figures out how it works. What scientists claim to be completely random is simply the edge of human knowledge.

[SuzyQue]

Yes, I’m not sure there is any such thing as “random”.

[Boogieman]

“First put forward by Louis de Broglie in 1927, the interpretation treats quantum objects just like classical particles, but imagines them riding like a surfer on top of a so-called pilot wave.

The wave is still probabilistic, but the particle does take a real trajectory from source to target.”

I think deBroglie was about 90% right. What he missed is that the particle IS the pilot wave. It just has a standing wave at its center that appears to us as a particle.

[concerned about politics]

I often wonder about the results of any experiment, i.e., like Schroeder's cat.

Taking the "Jinks in the machine" and it's connection to human conciseness into consideration, how much of an effect does the conciseness of the scientist at the time have on the outcome of the experiment? If they "believe" there will be a certain outcome, wouldn't that interfere with the final results? If so, how much?

It's the perplexing mind over matter thing. How much does the conciseness of the scientists play a role? If thought is energy, and that energy resonates at a certain vibration, what affect would that have on particles - which themselves are energy? What about the possibility of entrainment?

(I think about weird stuff. So many questions and so little time.)

[blueunicorn6]

Ahhhhhhh.....Quantum Entanglement.

Just writing it makes my head hurt.

[I want the USA back]

Between existence and non-existence there is no mean. This principle is inviolable. To declare that something oscillates between existence and non-existence is illogical, and untrue.

Particles do not pop in and out of existence. The Universe does not pop in and out of existence.
Any theory of the Universe that contradicts that, is an invalid theory and untrue.

[Reeses]

Quantum ping

[chrisser]

I’m sure I’m not the only one, but quantum mechanics was something of a “brick wall” I hit in my study of physics.

Up until that point, I was comfortable with physics, even if I didn’t understand every nuance. But I could never get my head around QM.

[Buttons12]

Weirdly, the choice made by the experimenters in how to measure the polarisation determined which slit the first photon went through - as if interfering with one particle caused the other to change direction instantaneously. This kind of bizarre phenomenon is exactly what Einstein had in mind when he dubbed it "spooky action". Physicists have seen evidence of it before, but never in such a direct fashion.

I'm no quantum physicist so don't take my theory too seriously but here is how I look at it: the spooky action at a distance happens because the particles are not really two separate things, they are one thing that, in our world (universe, whatever), encounter interference such that they appear to be separate. They're connected "before" they're perceived here, and "after."

Laugh, sure. But it helps me read about this stuff.

[Ezekiel]

Nassim laughs.

[Moonman62]

With its ideas of particles zipping in and out of existence, quantum mechanics is probably the kookiest-sounding theory in science.

...

As the article indicates, it’s more fundamentally the experimental results that are kooky. The theory follows suit.

[Moonman62]

Many times in the history of science some effect was declared to be completely random,

...

Are you sure about that? Randomness in nature seems to always occur within a framework of non-random laws.