Thread 16774315

Me, a non scientist, just figured out the solution to quantum mechanical spooky action and retrocausality.

The idea that you can for example toss a coin, freeze time and calculate heads or tails based on momentum and other variables is only possible because a coin toss is not a singular entity. It is a thing composed of many things, each giving you more information.
Or if you send out 2 shoes in 2 boxes upon opening one you know that the shoe for the other foot was in the other box all the time while being sent. Because you have info about the manufacturing process etc.

An electron in superposition has no other available info. It's like trying to establish a causality and predict an outcome WITH ZERO knowledge and context about anything.
It comes down to relying on the simplest and oldest method to establish knowledge. Looking at what electron 1 actually is doing to know what's up with electron 2.

I feel like science today lost all common sense and is like witchcraft as in turning everything upside down with descriptions which arrive at the same conclusion as what feels natural but using inside out definitions like
"A wave of possibility which only manifests into a position after observing"

NO! Your knowledge manifests into certainty when you look.

I'm thankful for every reply explain why this isn't true and I'm retarded, because right now it seems to me like scientist are just a bunch of mentally ill people.

>>16774315 (OP)
>Or if you send out 2 shoes in 2 boxes upon opening one you know that the shoe for the other foot was in the other box all the time while being sent. Because you have info about the manufacturing process etc.
Yes. This is exactly the analogy you'll get from pop-sci rags. But this gives rise to two questions:
>were the electrons in that state the whole time and we just didn't know?
This is called a hidden variable theory. While these sorts of interpretations are taken seriously, multiple empirical experiments seem to point to this not being the case (see: Bell Test).
It's no slam dubk against hidden variable theories. But any hidden variable theory must account for the results of these tests which renders them a lot less simple than "the electron was just in that state and we didn't know it."
>if not, how would the probability collapse be communicated to the other box?
I mean, the "simple" answer is it's not "communicated" as much as it is the universe just maintaining self-consistency. But this implies non-locality which violates GR. That's "fine" but leads to many other questions regarding what makes the distinction between a local and non-local system and what underlying phenomena determine it.

Tl;dr: you understand one of the best analogies very well. But haven't thought forward enough to understand its limitations.

>>16774315 (OP)
If you freeze time, how does anything have a momentum?

>>16774315 (OP)
>>16774382
My understanding of the issue is that the universe cannot be both local and real? And the "spooky action" seems to suggest non-locality despite there being no actual observable link between the two corresponding particles? Does the correlation itself just sort of exist as an unexplainable aside?

t. absolute layman who is not very smart or good with abstract concepts.

>>16774525
It holds in a vector-only form until time is thawed.

>>16774884
>My understanding of the issue is that the universe cannot be both local and real?
Yes (with an asterisk). There is a loophole that allows for local hidden variables by rendering all experimental observations meaningless called superdeterminism, which states that the way the particles behave is unavoidably correlated with the measurements we choose to take and so our observations can't be trusted. A handful of hardline EPR followers fall back on it.
>And the "spooky action" seems to suggest non-locality despite there being no actual observable link between the two corresponding particles?
Yes.
>Does the correlation itself just sort of exist as an unexplainable aside?
It's unexplainable in the sense that when each particle in an entangled pair is examined on its own its behaviour is *strictly* probabilistic, but when both are examined they are always perfectly correlated or anti-correlated depending on the kind of entanglement. It's explainable in the sense that we knew the sum of their behaviours in advance and history is always logically consistent.

>>16776293
I can't shake the feeling that this implies that the human thought process of logic is, maybe naturally, fundamentally at odds with what is actually happening.

What are the implications of behavioral connection of matter which in no shape or form makes any sense in causal intuitive reasoning?

Are there any theories on how to use this knowledge and put something in effect?
Maybe influence past events?

Oh my God I just came up with something?
What if it is causal, but somehow entanglement bends time so that observing one electron then sets the cause for the other electron's position to manifest through bend in the dimensions as they are described in Einstein's model?
Does this make any sense?

>>16776365
Maybe entanglement is a wormhole but instead of going to another place in no time you go to another time in no place lol

>>16776367
I'm on a pseud roll here so here me out

What if we can use this knowledge by choosing to observe some entangled bodies and choosing not to observe others in order to cause different patterns on the relating other body?
We would just have to figure out which bodies are entangled or create them

>>16776367
So this would imply that time remains the same but locality changes. So maybe instead of bending time, entanglement bends space?

This has to be the solution, it makes perfect sense in my mind. Was this figured out already? I feel like I deserve a Nobel prize

>>16776389
Wait I meant locality remains the same but time changes. This is confusing

>>16774525
I bet that sounded smarter in your head.