←back to thread

335 points ingve | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.408s | source
Show context
m101 ◴[] No.45086381[source]
Quantum mechanics is "true" insofar as it's useful for some purpose. Until then it's a theory and the jury is still out.

Randomness is something which I feel is a pretty weird phenomenon. I am definitely one of those 'God doesn't play with dice' types.

Randomness is also something that we call things when actually it's random from a subjective perspective. If we knew more about a system the randomness just falls away. E.g. if we knew the exact physical properties of a dice roll we could probably predict it better than random.

What if it's the case that quantum mechanics is similar. I.e. that what we think of as randomness isn't really randomness but only appears that way to the best of what we can observe. If this is the case, and if our algorithms rely on some sort of genuine randomness inherent in the universe, then doesn't that suggest there's a problem? Perhaps part of the errors we see in quantum mechanics arise from just something fundamental to the universe being different to our model.

I don't think this is that far fetched given the large holes that our current understanding of physics have as to predicting the universe. It just seems that in the realm of quantum mechanics this isn't the case, apparently because experiments have verified things. However, I think there really is something in the proof being in the pudding (provide a practical use case).

replies(4): >>45086405 #>>45086427 #>>45086746 #>>45090978 #
dekken_ ◴[] No.45090978[source]
Quantum mechanics, is not "just one thing", so to say "it is true" is somewhat wrong I think.

You are probably talking about the Copenhagen interpretation, involving superposition.

Personally, I don't think this is the final theory.

Any theory using calculus, cannot be considered discrete, so is therefore not quantized, and not possibly "physical".

Gerard 't Hooft has more to say on this if you want to hear something from a nobel laureate on the subject.

replies(1): >>45091155 #
1. m101 ◴[] No.45091155[source]
Yes, agree that suggesting "true" is unclear, and in fact in science doesn't really talk about true things but rather than ability to predict the way things behave. We are still in the dark about the fundamental nature of reality. Science is still useful of course, but only insofar as it has a useful purpose. It's more like an engineering subject.

I think what I've just said foots with your calculus comment, and also a Wolfram-like interpretation is closer to "truth" and your point on discretisation.

Why do you think discretisation/quantisation is necessary for the "physical"?

What can I search for to find his comments on this subject?

replies(1): >>45091576 #
2. dekken_ ◴[] No.45091576[source]
> Why do you think discretisation/quantisation is necessary for the "physical"?

We are trying to explain, the physical reality we find outselves in, so, if the universe is fundamentally quantized, it must be discrete, as continuous math would reify infinities.

> What can I search for to find his comments on this subject?

You could check Curt Jaimungal's youtube, Hooft was on it recently.