- #106
Simple question
- 71
- 46
Nice ! You finally walked-back your claim that "nature is fundamentally random". Because if the theory is not, you then have no mathematical way to prove it.vanhees71 said:QM is described by usual partial differential equations like the Schrödinger equation for the wave function. It's not a stochastic differential equation
So is game theory or statistical mechanics. Still, it does not make those "fundamentally random" nor "mysterious".vanhees71 said:The meaning of the state is probabilistic.
You yourself provided those hints. You are just stuck in the past and you cannot accept that Nature behaves as she does and not as you want.vanhees71 said:That's true. There are attempts to extend the quantum formalism with some stochastic collapse mechanism, but that's not QM anymore but a new theory. There's, however, not the slightest hint that such an alteration is needed anywhere.
Everyone knows that QFT is unrealistic it has been mathematically proven. You just don't understand what that means, which is: you cannot make claim about NATURE using it. You can barely describe the most basic setup with it (see **)vanhees71 said:Don't interpret something into what I'm saying, which I never said. QFT as any QT is not realistic, i.e., within this theory not all observables always take determined values.
Another falsehood. You would be hard pressed to quote any such "claim" from anyone on this thread.vanhees71 said:Also it's weird to claim that standard local relativsitic QFT were wrong
You are wrong, not the theory. You seem to identify yourself with it. That is weird.
"class ?" "successful ?". Unsubstantiated opinion holds no water on scientific forum.vanhees71 said:while in fact it's the most successful class of theories ever discovered!
Experiment within its domain only.vanhees71 said:Experiment shows that also local relativistic QFT is correct
No it does not. Experiment show that spooky correlation at a distance exist. So the theory does not "exclude" that, because it would mean the theory is wrong or incomplete.vanhees71 said:and this excludes spooky actions at a distance by construction.
Science prefer experiment over theory, by construction
So stop that gibberish. Mathematical property are just that, not fact about Nature.vanhees71 said:That's a mathematical property of the theory and cannot be argued away by some "interpretation" gibberish.
Cool. So micro-causality has its purpose. I am really not surprised. So how to use it in the simplest setup (see **) ? or in entanglement cases, swapping maybe ?vanhees71 said:It's among THE key features, and it predicts from the start very well established facts about nature like the CPT symmetry and the relation between spin and statistics.
** It doesn't surprise me. You are not interested by experiments nor how those can be described by a theory. Not even in principle. You wrote:vanhees71 said:I've no clue what you mean in #71. Whether I use one equipment to run an experiment 10000 times or whether I build 10000 different equipments doesn't make any difference. It's just preparing large enough ensembles to have a high significance in my statistical tests of the probabilistic predictions of Q(F)T.
It's just a contradiction. Those 10000 labs are "prepared" in different light cone. Your own idiosyncratic miss-use of QFT explicitly forfeit its predictive power because you assume micro-causality and local interaction apply. Always everywhere.The detectors don't negotiate anything. It's just the interaction of the photon with the material around it. Where it will be detected is random,
All of these events are space like, so what say you ?
Hint: You should have stuck with the minimal (not gibberish) interpretation which is:
And if one want to shoot only one photon some place, or entangle of few QBit in a QComputer, it is not worthy of "science". The least is the best it can do.Natural science is not for explaining the world, and especially not describing at best as possible with mathematical models. You don't aim to describe nature because it is un-real. And just shut-up and calculate probabilities, even though nature deal in events, not probability of platonic ensemble.