Recent content by syed

there is no such thing as "subjective" truth, there is only one truth, so the idea of "unobjectively true" is incoherent, but you're asking a philosophical question at this point

It doesn't play a part, I was referring to the other poster. He was confusing the results of measurements independent of the act of measurement with objective truth independent of measurement. Objective truth really just means truth, and truth with respect to reality is simply what actually...

oh okay There seems to be a misconception here. You are confusing the sense of an objective truth independent of measurement with the results of measurements being determined by pre-existing properties of particles independent of measurement. The latter is what Bell meant by "realism", not the...

so are you saying that before we figured out what causes thunder, we should have assumed there's no explanation? How would we find an explanation if you assume there is none? Before Einstein figured out a deeper explanation for gravity, he presumably first started with the assumption that an...

Math is a language, and in most areas of physics we combine it with theoretical constructs to give an ontological picture. Why should quantum mechanics be different: why should we be satisfied with just the math here when we expect more in other theories? As an example, we speak of a continuous...

See quote above. So essentially, my question is for the people who say there is no further explanation to entanglement and that it disobeys our intuitions. How does one distinguish between this and there being a further explanation? In other words, something could be true and remain counter...

Thank you for the detailed explanation

Yes but we have confirmation that that intuition is wrong. In this case, we do not have a confirmation that entanglement does not have a further explanation

In both classical and quantum statistical mechanics, we often rely on the concept of ensembles, either as a collection of hypothetical copies of a system in different microstates (classical) or as a weighted mixture of quantum states represented by a density matrix (quantum), to predict...

When you say that we can't actually do the experiment with respect to dice rolls, this wouldn't be correct, atleast in terms of running an experiment that would be an analogue to it. For example, we can run a random generator and have it output a sequence, such that the probability of that...

I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics)...

Just to rephrase to make sure there's no confusion, I'm not counting physical trajectories; I'm counting all the sequences of states you can “freely imagine” if you treat each instant as an independent choice. For three discrete time-steps and 200 000 possible instantaneous states, you’re...

I think you're misreading. Yes, the number of possible trajectories given the number of initial states are the same. But I'm talking about imagined trajectories. So for example, suppose that at any instant of time, you can describe the current state of particles in 200,000 different ways. This...

To expand on my question further, once you add time in to the equation especially, the amount of possible "trajectories" over time seem to combinatorially explode. Thus, the amount of possible trajectories over time seem to vastly exceed the amount of possible initial states at an instant of...

I just wanted to confirm that the "randomness" in the theory is merely a tool and not actually intrinsic, and it seems as if you agree on that point. My question then is: how do we know that certain micro states are ruled in (i.e. actually have a non zero probability) rather than merely not...