'Have you tried studying quantum mechanics, doing some calculations etc?';

'>>16138463
>guys I can't believe it! I barely even know newtonian mechanics because I dropped out of high school and quantum mechanics doesn't make sense!';

'>>16138463
Basically quantum systems are so small that we can't directly observe them or take exact measurements so we map out their behaviour as a probability gradient, where you're most likely to see something happen, basically, the probabilistic problem comes from humans, the fields aren't actual probability clouds and if you had the power you could measure exactly where what is at any given moment and what its properties are';

'Due to our incomplete knowledge and imperfect faculties of observation all things are probabilistic.';

'>>16138463
>implying real things are deterministic';

'>coin flips are deterministic';

'>>16138499
so the fuzziness is just a limitation of our measurement tools? dont some people say otherwise though, like its actually waves and particles and the probability-ness is built in';

'>>16138518
No, that guy is a fucking retard';

'>>16138517
>be victim of burgerland educational system
>attempt to study physics textbook
>it's le hard :(
>blame the jews for my retardation and sperg out on 4cheddit instead';

'>>16138524
So you believe you can make objects change their properties by merely gazing at them?';

'>>16138529
No?';

'>>16138530
So that guy is here. Nothing in nature is probabilistic, it's to do with our measurement.';

'>>16138499
>if you had the power you could measure exactly where what is at any given moment and what its properties are

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
>According to the de Broglie hypothesis, every object in the universe is associated with a wave. Thus every object, from an elementary particle to atoms, molecules and on up to planets and beyond are subject to the uncertainty principle.';

'>>16138533
You can have non-probabilistic interpretations of quantum mechanics. Their correctness remains an open question. However, everything in this post >>16138499 is complete fucking nonsense and whoever wrote it knows nothing about quantum mechanics.';

'>>16138533
>Nothing in nature is probabilistic
Fucking particle decay?';

'>>16138518
>so the fuzziness is just a limitation of our measurement tools?
Yes, if you had a device which could constantly observe an electron and measure it's position and velocity at any given moment there is nothing stopping you from doing so
>>16138536
Please don't link wikipedia pages if you don't know what it says';

'>>16138539
No. You are just making shit up because you want it to be that way, but you have no idea what you're talking about.';

'>>16138539
>if you had a device which could constantly observe an electron and measure it's position and velocity at any given moment there is nothing stopping you from doing so
Minus the fact that such a device is literally impossible.

>Please don't link wikipedia pages if you don't know what it says
Wikipedia seemed your speed.';

'>>16138543
>Minus the fact that such a device is literally impossible.
The universe is impossible? You'll have to excuse me, I didn't seem to notice that nothing exists.';

'>>16138544
>The universe is impossible?
The universe making an observation is impossible. Observations are purely local events.';

'>>16138548
>The universe making an observation is impossible
It doesn't have to, the information of everything in existence is already there';

'>>16138550
>It doesn't have to
It has to if you're claiming the universe functions as a device observing an electron's position and velocity.

Information existing and information being made available aren't the same thing. I refer you to black holes.';

'>>16138554
>Information existing and information being made available aren't the same thing
Yes they are? How do you suppose something exists when there is no information regarding its existence? Likewise information pertaining the position and velocity vector of an electron whizzing around an atom is recorded at each instant which passes';

'>>16138554
What was the universe like before there was anyone to ovserve it? Did it exist at all?';

'>>16138560
Sir you seem to have a demented popsci understanding of "observation". It's a technical physics term and it's not the same thing as a human looking at something. Please read a textbook or just give up (I suggest the latter).';

'>>16138558
>How do you suppose something exists when there is no information regarding its existence?
Something being probabilistic doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Indeed, if it didn't exist it WOULDN'T be probabilistic.';

'>>16138565
Probability is a mathematical abstraction, reality does not roll dice';

'Qm is yet another failed approximation of true nature';

'>>16138562
Well you said that observation requires a device, so what is ovservation?';

'>>16138463
>quantum fields are probabilistic instead of deterministic
Wrong. They are deterministic and even linear.';

'>>16138463
that's bullshit made up by idiots. the fact is the world is either deterministic or it isn't. i'm betting the former.';

'>>16138463
>quantum fields are probabilistic
No, they're not. The only thing probabilistic is the collapse of the wave function.

>am I just too stupid to understand quantum mechanics?
You obviously are.';

'>>16138582
>Please read a textbook';

'>>16138562
You are the pop sci teenager. Observation clearly requires a human observer. This is evidenced by the delayed choice experiments. No nonhuman interaction can be proven to collapse the wave function.';

'>>16138685
No.';

'>>16138686
Your denial doesn't make facts go away.';

'>>16138692
You're a larping retard. You disgust me.';

'>>16138533
>Nothing in nature is probabilistic, it's to do with our measurement.
The act of measurement is probabilistic, but it isn't because our tools aren't accurate enough: measurements are ALWAYS random, no matter how accurate your measurement device.';

'>>16138693
You're projecting, kid. Go tell me, is there a classification of interactions which do collapse the wave function? Clearly there are many interactions which don't do it. What distinguishes them from those which do?';

'>>16138700
There is no such thing as random, specific input conditions have specific outputs which are 100% guaranteed to happen';

'>>16138725
Maybe he meant ''exact'' because panta rhei.';

'>>16138725
Who chooses those "input conditions" in the cases where they are not determined yet?';

'>>16138471
>>16138472
Draw what a photon looks like. That's right you can't because QC is a soviet lie made by the CIA to prevent American scientists nuking the USSR.';

'>>16138725
Here's a polarized light state:
[math]\vert \Psi\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\vert 0 \rangle + \vert 1 \rangle[/math]
What will I measure? What determines the outcome?';

'Is it really true that le collapse can't be explained through decoherence? Maybe those nerds just didn't try hard enough...';

'>>16138781
Collapse and decoherence are two fundamentally different things.';

'>>16138793
I wasn't talking to you.';

'>>16138736
They were always determined from the very first reaction which set things in motion';

'>>16138796
The truth doesn't care about your feelings.';

'>>16138820
Decoherence has been extensively explored in the literature as a possible physical mechanism for wavefunction collapse (which cannot be described purely in terms of the schrodinger equation). So what I said is perfectly valid. Your glib response merely demonstrates your ignorance on the matter.';

'>>16138825
Well, decoherence IS in fact described by the schrodinger equation. So I should more accurately say that wavefunction collapse can't be described by the schrodinger equation as far as anyone knows. But it would be nice if it could.';

'>>16138825
>>16138829
What are you even trying to say, retard? You agree with me that collapse can't be reduced to decoherence. What a moronic game are you trying to play?';

'>>16138836
Fuck off nerd!';

'>>16138838
No. Deal with it.';

'>>16138825
NTA. Retard';

'>>16138781
>>16138793
>>16138796
>>16138820
>>16138825
>>16138829
>>16138836
>>16138838
>>16138846
>>16138859';

'>>16138538
Subatomic particles don't exist.';

'>>16138869
All things are made from particles';

'>>16138870
Could particles make a particle so particular that even particles could not particulate it?';

'>>16138870
Pointless circular reasoning. We can't observe subatomic particles. Even so-called electron microscopes can only see atoms and nothing smaller. Subatomic particles don't exist.';

'>>16138874
You don't have to observe them, in order for something to exist it must be made of something and so far all observational evidence points to everything being matter reacting with matter';

'>>16138878
None of that necessitates SUBatomic particles.';

'>>16138882
It does because there is no hard limit and we've already observed them through breaking atoms apart';

'>>16138885
We haven't. Show me a single picture of a subatomic particle. Here's one of atoms.';

'>>16138888';

'>>16138897
That's a picture of the paths of things presupposed to be subatomic particles through a bubble chamber, it's not a picture of any subatomic particles.';

'>>16138563
>why are people with high intelligence not normal
Wow, what a brilliant brainlet question.';

'Wasn't it feynmann who said something to the effect of "all the phenonema you see are really averaged quantum oscillations"?

Like say the law of reflection doesn't hold for any single photon, but for millions of photons it sure looks like it holds.';

'>>16138888
>>16138897

>etch-and-sketch hoax
what's next, speak-and-spell?';

'>>16138899
Almost like we can tell what they are by their properties and interactions with their surrounding environment or something
>>16138920
>GIVE ME PROOF
>NO NOT THIS PROOF, THIS ONE DOESN'T COUNT!!
Mental illness';

'Understanding quantum mechanics can indeed be challenging, and the apparent contradiction between the probabilistic nature of quantum fields and the deterministic behavior of macroscopic objects is a common source of confusion. However, with some explanation, we can shed light on this apparent discrepancy.

1. **Probabilistic nature of quantum fields:** Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of particles and fields at the smallest scales of the universe, where classical physics breaks down. In quantum mechanics, particles are described by wave functions that represent probabilities. For example, the position of a particle is described by a probability distribution, and when we make a measurement, we obtain a result based on the probabilities defined by the wave function. This probabilistic nature arises from fundamental principles such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the wave-particle duality of matter.

2. **Deterministic behavior of macroscopic objects:** On the macroscopic scale, classical mechanics provides an accurate description of the behavior of everyday objects such as atoms, objects, planets, and stars. Classical mechanics is deterministic, meaning that if we know the initial conditions of a system precisely, we can predict its future behavior with certainty using Newton's laws of motion or other classical equations of motion.

The apparent contradiction arises because classical mechanics emerges as an approximation or limit of quantum mechanics in the macroscopic world. In other words, macroscopic objects are composed of countless quantum particles, but their collective behavior averages out to produce deterministic outcomes that appear consistent with classical mechanics. This phenomenon is known as the correspondence principle.

So, you're not "too stupid" to understand quantum mechanics— it's a complex and counterintuitive theory that challenges our everyday intuitions about how the world works. However, with patience, study.';

'>>16139285
>Almost like we can tell what they are by their properties and interactions with their surrounding environment or something
Here's a picture of a boat.';

'>>16139296
>false equivalence';

'>>16139301
>ask for picture of subatomic particle
>get picture of trails through hydrogen
>ask for picture of boat
>get picture of trails through water
I don't see the difference. I even provided a picture of atoms to make it absolutely clear what I meant by asking for a picture of subatomic particles.';

'>>16139304
By your logic we can argue that the image previously posted (>>16138888) is not of atoms but of electron orbitals, so that means everything is made of electrons, right?';

'>>16139307
Subatomic particles don't exist, this has been my argument from the beginning. That is a picture of atoms. Based on what we can observe in these pictures there is no reason to assume anything about "electron orbitals." Atoms are atoms. They are the smallest component of matter we can observe.';

'>>16139313
>Subatomic particles don't exis
Then what are these things >>16138897 that appear when we dismantle atoms?
That's like saying cars are made of cars and have no components';

'>>16139313
>>16139321
also
>supposes electrons don't exist
>posts image taken with electrons';

'>>16139321
>when we dismantle atoms
No proof of that.
>Then what are these things
Good question, I'm not sure exactly. Bubble chambers have a lot of heat, pressure, and electromagnetism involved that could all be changing the material inside. I'm not convinced it's evidence of subatomic particles.

>>16139329
It's a misnomer, but for the sake of communication I obviously can't go around rejecting and reinventing terms for every single thing. It's based on the faulty idea that electricity is electrons moving like water through a pipe, which is not the case. Electron microscopes use electromagnetism to create a highly focused beam capable of scanning at resolutions where we can observe atoms, but none of it actually has to do with electrons.';

'>>16139345
>No proof of that.
think you're smarter than all CERN scientists? they completely got bamboozled but you somehow can peer through the veil of deceit?';

'>>16139345
>No proof of that.
lol
>Electron microscopes use electromagnetism to create a highly focused beam capable of scanning at resolutions where we can observe atoms, but none of it actually has to do with electrons.
Scanning electron microscopes work exactly by focusing an electron beam which then gets reflected and absorbed into a detector, secondly, how would you explain radioactive decay then? Where do these magical, smaller than atom sized particles appear from?';

'>>16139348
Funny how you switch immediately to attacking this strawman instead of just offering proof of atoms being observably dismantled.';

'>>16139355
I think materials decay, but not atoms. I'm not sure what that computer-generated image proves.';

'>>16139357
you're silly anon. you somehow suppose "seeing" things is the only way to make sure they exist. what does "seeing" mean anon? what does seeing mean? photons bouncing off something delivering info about that something.
what do you think sensors at LHC do?
inb4
>if I'm not seeing it with me own eyes it's not real';

'>>16139362
>I think materials decay, but not atoms
lol, I guess this guy just magically destroyed all his chromosomes and turned himself into a human slurry for shits and giggles, right?';

'>>16139362
Your boring science denial trolling will amount to nothing but similarly boring replies. So stop shitting up this board with your boringness.';

'>>16139362
>>16139370
Also ever heard of this thing? Or do you think they just faked the whole "lol we'll drop a runaway decay reaction bomb on them"
What about nuclear power plants? Do you think they are a conspiracy theory, too? Chernobyl didn't actually happen, right?';

'>>16139376
Stop replying to the cretin. Stop wasting your time arguing against someone who is openly dishonest.';

'>>16139376
>splitting an atom releases so much energy that it obliterates everything within a 1 mile radius and causes varying degrees of damage for multiple miles out
>we dismantle atoms into their constituent parts in labs on a regular basis
Which one is it?';

'>>16139386
Oh fuck, the concept of "quantity" flies completely above your head. Sorry anon your situation is completely hopeless.';

'>>16139370
who dat';

'>>16139395
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents';

'>>16139403
dude looks like he took a bath in liquid uranium. why the fuck are they keeping him alive? that's fucking cruel and sadistic, just end the poor sucker's life. there's clearly no way forward';

'>>16139408
> just end
If there are no laws that allow euthanasia in your country for those cases you are fucked. Doctors are not even allowed to let you die.';

'>>16139497
it should be illegal to keep people alive like that. if they don't want to. that's fucking torture when there's no way forward anyway';

'>>16139370
>>16139376
I think it's interesting that stating disbelief in subatomic particles brings out this automatic assumption of not believing in nuclear fission and radioactivity. Why is that? Just because the current accepted explanation of those things involves subatomic particles? You know people were successfully engaging in repeatable chemistry even while denying the existence of atoms, right?';

'>>16139509
>things are not like that but kinda like that
>just not like you say they are
>they are any other way, but not like that';

'>>16139515
>I agree this phenomenon occurs, but I disagree on the cause and mechanics for why and how it occurs.';

'>>16139523
with no reason whatsoever, apart of being a contrarian troll. else you would have presented your "alternative" view. make better predictions and you get a nobel';

'>>16138536
The uncertainty principle is just a problem of going between discrete and continuous measurements. Literally, the same shit occurs in digital signal processing (a.k.a. Going between analog and digital systems)

There's infinitely more information in the continuous signal BUT it's harder to measure and difficult to transmit cleanly.';

'>>16138463
Study Stochastic Calculus and Digital Signals and quantum mechanics starts to make more sense.

The reason why it's confusing is because people are afraid to make statements on what's going on, but essentially it's the same problem stock markets have. We don't OBSERVE the continuous state of an assets value, just like we CAN'T observe the continuous state of a photon. Because of this, between the discrete observations of the state (for example, between the hour to hour price of a stock) we have a gap of uncertainty. We don't know what happened between a stock being high hour 1 and a stock being low hour 2, we just know the path began and ended at those points. A similar thing occurs when you sample continuous acoustic signals from a mike into a computer. We literally drop information between the sample points (for many valid reasons) but that does create uncertainty even if there is no noise in your base signal.

Now quantum mechanics follow similar problems, the difference is, we cant observe these continuous states at all. We can hear live music, we can understand the price of something as truly continuous with a continuous and known path, but we can't really make those statements with particles because we have no way of observing the continuous state... In other words, there are systems that act like stocks or music in a discrete/digital world but that ARE NOT continuous.';

'>>16139574
To add even more to this, unless you have knowledge of the underlying continuous mechanics of a process, there are actually INFINITELY many different continuous mechanics that can satisfy discrete observations (and no I'm not talking about Stochasticity/randomness).

A lot of times in these situations engineers will assume a mechanism of Zero Order Hold (ZOH) and just move on (this is typically what they do in control systems), but there are infinitely many valid forms that can result in the same output, with or without noise.';

'>>16138869
>Subatomic particles don't exist.
Atomic particles also decay to atomic particles, eg alpha decay.

Let me guess, atoms don't exist?';

'>>16138571
>reality does not roll dice
So if I gave you a radioactive element, you'd be able to tell me exactly when it will decay?

Reality absolutely rolls dice, insofar as rolling dice is an abstraction for creating random outcomes (as dice rolls are deterministic, albeit chaotic).';

'>>16139595
>Let me guess, atoms don't exist?
I can't imagine a more retarded guess you could have made considering all the times after that post I repeatedly said atoms exist, have been observed, and are the smallest unit of matter ever observed.';

'>>16139612
>observed
how were these atoms observed anon? explain';

'>>16139623
I already know where you're going with this and I've addressed it here:
>>16139345
>It's a misnomer, but for the sake of communication I obviously can't go around rejecting and reinventing terms for every single thing. It's based on the faulty idea that electricity is electrons moving like water through a pipe, which is not the case. Electron microscopes use electromagnetism to create a highly focused beam capable of scanning at resolutions where we can observe atoms, but none of it actually has to do with electrons.
Yes, we use electron microscopes. No, they don't shoot out electrons. No, electricity isn't made of flowing electrons.';

'>>16139705
I don't even understand what you want really. do you have an alternate model that makes better predictions or not? and how do you explain the particle experiments done at CERN? I want legit answers stop fucking around.';

'>>16138463
neat, but the pattern of double-slit experiment is particles bouncing back and forth within the chamber (as opposed to the single slot, which is directly at the source.
Just a guess.';

'>>16138917
Feynman seemed to be one of few who understood the physicality of the energy-matter relationship as a matter of field interactions.';

'>>16139712
Basically aether and what Tesla was researching. Look up some of Eric Dollard's talks.';

'This thread is probably appropriate to post this IONS study i just came across in:

>journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/download/2907/1937

... Some interesting statements from channelers about the natue of wavefunction collapse in there.

"Infinite potentiality" is an absolute nonstarter of course, but they're also referencing the movie frame analogy along with enfoldment, venturing deeply into Bohm-inspired metaphysics

Quite impressive if these channelers didn't have any prior knowledge of quantum mechanics and philosophy of science, might be legitimately sensed information from the other side in that case';

'>>16139787
>davidcenter.com/wp/2013/07/30/david-bohms-reformulation-of-quantum-physics/';

'>What tesla was researching

I wish my nigga Tesla would've gotten his research into the nonphysical funded properly, but there were very (((powerful forces))) and financial interests alligned against him at the time';

'>>16139559
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule';

'>>16139787
Gonna sound schizo here but if any of that is legit you've got a feasible backwards time travel mechanism right there.';

'>>16139599
>I can't predict it therefore it's random';

'>>16139876
that's exactly how it goes, yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis';

'>>16139883
>claim
Come back when it's empirically proven';

'>>16139895
go back to /x/ if you don't like the scientific method anon. you have nothing, no mechanism for this magical deterministic decay. just retarded words from damaged brain';

'>>16139900
The scientific method requires you to substantiate a hypothesis with evidence to present it as a fact, just because you can't see the earth is round doesn't make it flat';

'>>16139559
Completely wrong. Uncertainty has nothing to do with discrete vs continuous. Uncertainty is a consequence of noncommutative operators.';

'>>16139913
>The scientific method requires you to substantiate a hypothesis with evidence to present it as a fact,
exactly, and you have none proving it's not random, as observed. unless you can come up with something science says it's random. that's the current state of things, you can change it with proof. brainrot doesn't count';

'>>16139876
>It is impossible to predict therefore it's random
Yes.

But you're welcome to try to prove it's chaotic. Good luck. Should win you a prize or 2.';

'>>16139942
>you have none proving it's not random
Ever heard of causality?';

'>>16139953
you need to prove something is causing the decay, you can't just say shit. all schizos just say shit here, they come from /x/ and /pol/ and just say stupid shit. you can do that if you want, but I'll just think of you as being another schizo retard';

'>>16138529
Most 4channers do that to females routinely.';

'>>16139961
>you need to prove that there's a cause behind an effect
You have to be trolling at this point, there's no way you can be this stupid, how about providing proof of an effect without cause and turning the null hypothesis into null theory? Oh that's right, you can't, because there is no effect without cause, because, surprise surprise, if you don't do anything then nothing happens, and likewise you can't make anything happen without doing something beforehand, not only is this a priori truth, it has been empirically observable for everything in reality so far.';

'>>16140007
>if you don't do anything then nothing happens,
I did nothing my entire life and a lot of things happened.';

'>>16140007
it's a fundamental property of particles. you are writing words but aren't saying anything. oh right, you don't even have a fucking mechanism for your "determinism" lmao. that's so fucking cringe, inventing ghosts spirits and aether. >>>/x/';

'>>16139961
dark matter causes decay because god doesn't want you to know the truth';

'>>16138577
all models are wrong and some are useful. quantum mechanics has been very useful.';

'>>16140019
>it's a fundamental property of particles
Not only is this completely irrelevant to the argument, fundamentality is not a proven theory, but a hypothetical concept and is a placeholder to "we don't know", might as well still claim that earth/fire/water/air are fundamental components of everything else or that humor imbalance is the cause of disease. If decay was a completely random process with nothing causing it then all elements would decay at the exact same rate and should exhibit alpha/beta/gamma decay at equal rates, which demonstratably doesn't happen, because surprise surprise, every effect has a cause behind it with specific input parameters, because things don't randomly happen for no reason.
>that's so fucking cringe, inventing ghosts spirits and aether. >>>/x/
I'm not the one claiming things magically happen out of nowhere for no reason, I can point out one (You) who is doing that, though';

'>>16140076
>because things don't randomly happen for no reason.
that is exactly wrong with radioactive decay, it just randomly happens with no reason. you can technically say 1st law of thermodynamics is not real because it just looks that way today but might change tomorrow. sure, you can use this angle but it's kinda cheap. unless you can prove otherwise it's random.';

'>>16140080
>unstable matter collapsing into stable matter is not a reason
dimwit';

'>radiation is le random!
>b-but we know how long it will take for radioactive material to decay or something!';

'>>16140084
>>16140088
you can't even affect the rate. you have nothing. there's literally nothing to go on for your lunacy but your retarded unfounded suppositions
>no but see, if I just have religious faith it's not random, then I am not responsible for my actions you see, so I can rape and kill at will because I'm not responsible because determinism
a real scientist observes and doesn't jump to conclusions like "so decay must have a reason ergo it's not random ergo reality is determined, aha!, I can rape at will!"
take your fucking meds, that's not science that's mental issues
>>b-but we know how long it will take for radioactive material to decay or something!
you don't. any decay you witness today is from an atom created some 4.5 billion years ago. it didn't decay all that time and shat itself in front of you. we really don't know how long it takes, we only know half-life.';

'>>16140097
So nuclear power plants aren't real? Neither are nuclear weapons?';

'>>16140100
you are not the sharpest tool';

'>>16140097
>you can't even affect the rate
By changing the input conditions, like every single effect observed in reality, input-->output';

'>>16140103
you're a literal dimwit, nuclear power plants work because we can control the rate at which radioactive material decays, we can even force it to go supercritical, which is really bad for anyone nearby.';

'>>16140097
>any decay you witness today is from an atom created some 4.5 billion years ago. it didn't decay all that time
Atoms don't have age, retard, there is no physical way for you to determine how many times something has transformed into something else, this is pure schizophrenia';

'>>16140104
change half-life for any material and link the paper';

'>>16140107
https://www.neimagazine.com/downloads/whitepapers/';

'>>16140107
>change half-life for any material
Just change its atomic mass';

'>>16140105
you shoot an unstable atom it will shit itself, it's unstable. doesn't mean you affect the decay rate.
>I can just affect your random lifespan by shooting you';

'>>16140114
we can shoot stable atoms too, dimwit';

'>>16140115
yeah, how about you make unstable atoms stable?';

'>>16140119
we already do that in nuclear power plants';

'>>16140112
>Just change its atomic mass
there you have it, reality is determined. you can rape at will. you are not responsible for your failures.
the weak fear random';

'>>16140119
Just change their temperature, in fact you can also make stable atoms unstable the exact same way';

'>>16140121
randomness isn't real';

'>>16140122
half-life is a fucking constant you utter midwits';

'>>16140130
It's a relative constant, dumbass';

'>>16140133
>but muh speed of light
it's always the same constant for you if you're in the same frame of reference as the material';

'>>16140130
>>16140133
proof that it's a constant? Go do math on fissile matter in a nuclear power plant during peak load aka morning and evening., and tell me it's the same as midnight and noon when electricity is consumed the least.';

'>>16140135
???
This has nothing to do with the speed of light, please learn what the word relative means';

'>>16140136
you are zealots I swear, same ilk as religious ones. determinists are as mentally deranged as dualists';

'>>16140150
can you prove that your retardation manifested at random and was not directly caused by your parents by choice of time and place to breed, the way they treated you, the things they bought and didn't buy you, the things they did or did not warn you about in life?';

'>>16140146
isn't it related to frames of reference? because if you fuck off a piece of radioactive material, close to lightspeed, when you get it back it will look like it had a different half life constant. to you. hence the speed of light mention';

'>>16138463
its all deterministic

physicists are just too stupid to figure out how to predict quantum experiments';

'>>16140155
People would have different lifespans if they chose not to smoke, drink alcohol or pollute the water and air they consume too, nothing exists in a vacuum.';

'>>16140155
>isn't it related to frames of reference
Bro....';

'>>16140158
you have random chances of getting quantum cancer
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-022-00881-8';

'>>16140179
low IQ post and same with that paper, nothing is random';

'>>16140186
>but muh religion
prove it or shut up';

'>>16140187
believing randomness is the only religion
>trust the god's plan
>everything that happens, happens because god wills it
>muh god
>muh randomness
same thing, it's a cope about an enigma, when you analyze deterministically, you realize that nothing is random and things happen predictably and don't require intelligence or "randomness" to cause it';

'>>16140179
No, your probability of getting quantum cancer increases/decreases relative to the change of the input parameters';

'>>16140190
biggest factor being time you live, if people bred at 15 years old then killed themselves at 30, cancer rate would be low';

'>>16140189
stop denying science and reality anon. does nothing good for you if you're a scientist';

'>>16140192
calling things random is equivalent to saying that they were caused by god, god of gaps, midwit';

'>>16140194
you need to start taking responsibility for your actions and stop blaming your failures on determinism';

'>>16140198
when judge asks me if I have a shred of remorse over my decision to kill you, I will say that I'd do it again and threaten to kill him aswell if he doesn't shut up.';

'>>16140198
Your actions are determined by the biochemical reactions in your body';

'>>16140203
I'd say they are seriously influenced by the info I get from the environment. but if you get random cancer then your actions are influenced by a random event (gotta go get that chemo)';

'>>16140209
Chemotherapy does nothing to stop cancer. In fact killing yourself is more effective than chemotherapy, you will even suffer less that way.';

'>>16140211
still, your future is decided by random events, both outside and inside you.
inb4
>Schrödinger was a retard';

'>>16140214
Schrodinger is still a retard, in fact he's fucking braindead right now, which is worse than being a retard.';

'>>16140209
You don't get random cancer, the probability of you getting cancer is determined by the input conditions';

'>>16140220
so if a random atom in your body decays at the worst possible time such that it induces an error which your body fails to repair and leads to cancer, that is not random?';

'>>16140227
there are no random atoms in my body, everything has a purpose at all times';

'the absolute state';

'>>16140227
It's not random because there is a cause which preceded the effect and caused the atom to decay, the probability of that happening determined by the input conditions, if things were random then every event in existence would have the same probability of occuring at any given moment regardless of the input conditions';

'>>16140235
>input conditions
picrel';

'>>16139952
Can you predict if im touching my left or right testicle right now?
You cant therefore im touching both and none at the same time in equal probability.
This is how dumb you sound.';

'>>16140237
That is only a part of it, yes';

'>>16140234
>the absolute eigenstate
ftfy';

'>>16139721
Feynman was kinda cute and also a guy who was funny';

'OPs pattern doesn't explain Quantum at all, it's actually wrong. He would require to add ze typical 'dark' segment to explain it. In fact, every reader is much dumber for having seen it, plus OPs shout in the wrong direction. I am dishonored.';

'>>16138526
Crikey, what did it say?';

'>>16140462
Just your typical mentally ill soijak poster';

'>>16138463
>humans are unpredictable, do random shit all the time, you never know where they will be
>but earth is so easy, you can always easly predict its location in any given time

Do you see how that isn't weird at all now, OP?';

'>>16138463
if you take in account the actual day to day life is mostly delirium';

'A dark segment';

'>>16140130
Half-life is a (relative) constant due to averaging the field fluctuations of atoms - unstable elements have a field which is at best metastable, whose bonds are weak enough between given particles that they have a real possibility of not binding at a given time. This bond disruption is enough for decay to occur - worse bond overlap is negatively correlated with half-life (the larger the overlap, the longer the half-life). There's a reason why neutron:proton ratio is as important as it is, and it's because their subfields' (gluons, quarks) bond forces balance a certain way. An aggregate of neutrons will not bond and an aggregate of protons will have too strong of a repulsive subfield to overcome potential bonding. Electrons, being free quarks, do not have this problem, and this freedom accounts for the weaker interatomic bonding forces.';

'>>16139403
I heard it's actually an unrelated burn victim, not Ouchi.';

'>>16140237
>>16140313
Can you explain what I'm looking at, pllease?';

'>>16140712
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability';

'>>16140237
It would be so hecking cool if we made some of those (and they really were relatively stable).';

'help I'm falling in love with a girl I run into less than once a week due to our talks about nuclear physics when she checks out at the store... moving in 2 months fairly far from here ;-;';

'>>16141572
You're Satan. He's always gaslighting us about something. Real people just want to sit down. So, he uses gaslighting to kick our ass in an efficient way. This seems to be true. That's just the truth behind this place I guess. We have nothing, and he's also going to lie to us to make it worse. I'm being serious, the guy who wrote that isn't even real. I'm assuming one of you are real, but it's not looking too promising. I've met at least 50,000 NPCs by now. These are humans who were actually Satan. Satan knows everything. I don't know everything. He's also lying about it, and pretending these people aren't him. I have really creepy background music playing by accident. It really sets the tone. I was making all this up, I merely have severe schizophrenia.';

'>>16138518
> limitation of our measurement tools
Everything is a measurement tool';

'its too complicated and doesnt even really matter
dont worry about it';

'>>16140275
>Can you predict if im touching my left or right testicle right now?
Right now? No. Given direct observation of you? Yes.

Actually right now, yes. You're touching both. You're literally always touching both. They're attached to you, you fucking idiot.';

'fellas is it gay if your balls are touching you';

'>>16139925
It has everything to do with it. Literally the same uncertainty pops up in many different domains. Study things outside physics, expand your domains.

The problem with quantum mechanics is that it was derived before stochastics. It has very strange formulations and interpretations because of that.';

'>>16143241
Like it's the same phenomenon which comes from going between discrete and continuous space.

You can't know with certainty the signal in the frequency and time domain. Just like you can't know the signal of particle with certainty in the space or momentum domain.

Because we CAN'T observe the continuous state of the particle just like, once digitally processed, we can't examine the continuous state of a signal, literally there are infinitely many valid mean paths, not even accounting for actual noise uncertainty.';