Hi, I'm QuantumT

[QuantumT]

Does anybody even read these "Introduce Yourself" threads?

I'm new here, obviously, and I hope this could be a place to discuss science in general, and the consequences of the Copenhagen Enterpretation especially. Thus my name QuantumT. The T stands for "truth", since I believe, that the truth about our universe is found in quantum mechanics.

Looking forward to deep and profound discussions!

[QuantumT]

Sorry for the typo in "Interpretation". Oops. I learned I can't edit.

I will move on to the general discussions now. Be back soon.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






First & most importantly - WELCOME! I think you will like it here.


Wiki-
The Copenhagen interpretation is an expression of the meaning of quantum mechanics that was largely devised in the years 1925 to 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It remains one of the most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.[1]

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse.

There have been many objections to the Copenhagen interpretation over the years. These include: discontinuous jumps when there is an observation, the probabilistic element introduced upon observation, the subjectiveness of requiring an observer, the difficulty of defining a measuring device, and the necessity of invoking classical physics to describe the "laboratory" in which the results are measured.





....................................................






*WE can - YOU can edit posts.


Look for the pencil icon at the top right hand side of your post. It's the first of the four icons you see...





Is there anything you would like to air-out about the Copenhagen Interpretation now within this thread?







.

[QuantumT]

First & most importantly - WELCOME! I think you will like it here.

Thank you!

*WE can - YOU can edit posts.
Look for the pencil icon at the top right hand side of your post. It's the first of the four icons you see...

Oh I see! Just the thread-starter that can't be edited. Thanks!

Is there anything you would like to air-out about the Copenhagen Interpretation now within this thread?

No, I would rather let the discussions run their own course, instead of making wild claims.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





...just a heads-up...All our discussions here are nothing more than a running course of making wild claims.



...just so ya know...



oh, ...and your wave function just collapsed.






.............................................................







*Thank you for bringing up a subject you don't want to talk about. GREAT way to start.



.

[QuantumT]

*Thank you for bringing up a subject you don't want to talk about. GREAT way to start.

Well, if you insist...

My wavefunction did just collapse. True. The moment that light (waves) from my screen approaches my eyes, it collapsed to photons.

That - the collapse of the wavefunction - combined with entanglement, suggests very strongly that all matter in the universe is centrally govorned. Something controls it all.

What that something is, I would rather discuss ongoing in this forum, than settle right here, right now.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





In that case, Hi, I'm Not Bill Wiltrack



WElcome!





.

[gaffo]

The T stands for "truth", since I believe, that the truth about our universe is found in quantum mechanics.

howdy and welcome Truth.

QM ay, well when you find Truth, i hope you get back to me so as i can know it too.

lol.

[QuantumT]

howdy and welcome Truth.

QM ay, well when you find Truth, i hope you get back to me so as i can know it too.

lol.

I figure you meant that ironicly

But thanks for the welcome!
I found my truth in QM. But there must be around 8 billion truths in the world currently, so I don't expect anyone to accept my version,
But if you're genuinely interested, let me know, and I'll share!

[tassieguy]

Hi, QuantumT. I'm a newby, too.

I'm quite drawn to the many worlds interpretation of QM.

[QuantumT]

I'm quite drawn to the many worlds interpretation of QM.

Well, that interpretation only addresses the CotWF. How would you incorporate nonlocality into it?

[tassieguy]

Pretty much the same way it is incorporated now.

[QuantumT]

Pretty much the same way it is incorporated now.

It ain't.

The many worlds hypothesis is an attempt to explain the CotWF, wich physics fail to do. Physics also fails to explain nonlocality.
So, what is the explanation of nonlocality in the many worlds hypothesis?

I have an explanation for it, within the simulation hypothesis.

[tassieguy]

Ok, so why don't you give us your explanation?
Then, if I can understand it, I'll let you know what I think of it.

[QuantumT]

Ok, so why don't you give us your explanation?
Then, if I can understand it, I'll let you know what I think of it.

I'll try.

Quantum entanglement explained via the simulation hypothesis.

In order for us to percieve the world as stable, particles need to "agree" on the same position. We can't have objects with different internal positions. That would make the world seem flickering or transparent.
So in order to make an object seem solid, all particles must assume the same position. They do that instantly via quantum entanglement.

That means entanglement is a neccessity to make the world appear solid.

Entanglement does not get spooky, unless you seperate individual parts, while keeping both under observation, and then change the position of one of them. The observation itself will then force both parts to act the same, because the observation prohibits them from acting independent. Observing locks the common position so to say.

Observing only one of them, will untangle them. Observation is paramount.

PS. If you quote me, I will be alerted to your answer!