If a quantum system were perfectly isolated, it would maintain coherence indefinitely, but it would be impossible to manipulate or investigate it. If it is not perfectly isolated, for example during a measurement, coherence is shared with the environment and appears to be lost with time; a process called quantum decoherence. As a result of this process, quantum behavior is apparently lost, just as energy appears to be lost by friction in classical mechanics.

https://tenor.com/view/putin-nuclear-bomb-cloud-mushroom-gif-13637840

In my opinion, the distinction between philosophy and science is kind useless because they are just forms of knowledge. In my opinion, we integrate philosophy into science. The philosophy which we don't integrate into science is what we call philosophy.

If the world was perfect, it would be perfect

But it isn't so it is not

We only make that distinction to distinguish our method.

<:honkpilled:558686758875824130>

Decoherence has been used to understand the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. It provides an explanation for apparent wave-function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wave function are decoupled from a coherent system and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level). Decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".

Quantum nature, woah, let me check if there's a chapter on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

This is why I lean towards the many worlds interpretation

too bad it can't explain the collapse :)

decoherence explains why observers see an illusion of a collapse as they become entangled

the wavefunction never truly collapses, thats why i say many worlds makes more sense

or consistent histories

@glamp in a way, he is saying there is an alternative theory.

it cant explain something that doesnt happen... wavefunction collapse is an illusion only true from an entangled observers perspective

I plan on reading a chapter a day.

@Rogal Dorn what book are you reading?

"A First Introduction to Quantum Physics" by Pieter Kok. It's a textbook.

I got a pdf though.

oh

yes, that's a good one

Kok

sorry

is it good

I want to understand it as well as an undergrad on the subject would understand it.

All QM interpretations are untestable as they make the same predictions but certain interpretations may be favored for reasons such as Occam’s razor. I prefer many worlds because it has one less postulate, the postulate I’d wave function collapse

you should know a little bit of calculus, some linear algebra, and a bit about complex numbers though

before you read it

I know some calculus. I might know some linear algebra from a fresh stats class.

Feynman explains it about as well as it possibly can be with minimal math in his QED series

I haven't looked at calculus in over 20 years

algebra is everywhere though

Susskind also has a great series, “The theoretical minimum”

I do calculus all the time for fun

calculus is the science of zooming in on shit until they appear straight/flat

i was good at math until that

@glamp what’s the answer here

you know what, i think it was cause of a women teacher