Message from @Rogal Dorn

Discord ID: 654566830429569034


2019-12-12 06:10:50 UTC  

This is why I lean towards the many worlds interpretation

2019-12-12 06:11:00 UTC  

too bad it can't explain the collapse :)

2019-12-12 06:11:09 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:11:24 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:11:28 UTC  

or consistent histories

2019-12-12 06:11:49 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:11:59 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:12:34 UTC  

I plan on reading a chapter a day.

2019-12-12 06:12:40 UTC  

@Rogal Dorn what book are you reading?

2019-12-12 06:13:09 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:13:19 UTC  

I got a pdf though.

2019-12-12 06:13:21 UTC  

oh

2019-12-12 06:13:26 UTC  

yes, that's a good one

2019-12-12 06:13:37 UTC  

Kok

2019-12-12 06:13:40 UTC  

sorry

2019-12-12 06:13:47 UTC  

is it good

2019-12-12 06:13:48 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:14:10 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:14:25 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:14:33 UTC  

before you read it

2019-12-12 06:14:53 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:15:07 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:15:14 UTC  

I haven't looked at calculus in over 20 years

2019-12-12 06:15:28 UTC  

algebra is everywhere though

2019-12-12 06:15:35 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:15:48 UTC  

I do calculus all the time for fun

2019-12-12 06:15:54 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:15:59 UTC  

i was good at math until that

2019-12-12 06:16:00 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/634367565304561675/654567111766835203/image0.jpg

2019-12-12 06:16:07 UTC  

@glamp what’s the answer here

2019-12-12 06:16:11 UTC  

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

2019-12-12 06:16:33 UTC  

my horones wanted me to look at her rather than listen

2019-12-12 06:16:57 UTC  

So where's my hovercar dammit!?

2019-12-12 06:17:20 UTC  

Hit me with this absurd integral

2019-12-12 06:17:30 UTC  

What method did you use to integrate that if not numerically

2019-12-12 06:17:40 UTC  

You’re not a true calculus nerd until you think about the difference between riemann and lebesgue integrals

2019-12-12 06:17:48 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/634367565304561675/654567561395961856/image0.jpg

2019-12-12 06:17:56 UTC  

Here @Daddy

2019-12-12 06:17:59 UTC  

I would just use numerical methods

2019-12-12 06:18:07 UTC  

I mean the answer is C no doubt

2019-12-12 06:18:08 UTC  

where are the vraibles in the answer, are those variables known?