For the first time, it is possible to see the quantum world from multiple points of view at once. This hints at something very strange – that reality only takes shape when we interact with each other
One has to keep in mind this is a popularization article though. If there is an improved understanding, it will lie in the underlying mathematical models, which are of course not presented in the NewScientist…
It never ceases to amaze me how hard quantum physicists try to fool themselves.
I hope you specifically refer to contemporary quantum physics here. Or do you actually believe that there is nothing scientific in quantum mechanics?
I must say it is not that clear to me what you mean with “rational” explanation? From a video of hers I just watched I (very wildly) guess that you mean deterministic? Is there at the moment any experiment telling superdeterminism apart from other interpretations of quantum mechanics?
How does you notion of rationality tell us anything about how scientific some work is? If you want to claim that a given research work is bullshit, could you please point to another research paper that shows it, instead of making it seem like common knowledge?
What about answering my specific questions instead of assuming I need an entry door to quantum physics? (as it happens, I do not)
It seems that you are saying that getting familiar with Hossenfelder’s point of view will make me understand why the work cited in the New Scientist article is bullshit. This might have made sense had she not said herself that this experimental work is very important to better understand the foundation of quantum mechanics, and its hypothetical replacement.
I tried so hard to make it through this tripe. I made it all the way to “flying qubits.”
It never ceases to amaze me how hard quantum physicists try to fool themselves.
There is no actual science here. Nor fact. Nor increased understanding. Just bullshit.
I will say that the science journalism is better than usual though.
One has to keep in mind this is a popularization article though. If there is an improved understanding, it will lie in the underlying mathematical models, which are of course not presented in the NewScientist…
I hope you specifically refer to contemporary quantum physics here. Or do you actually believe that there is nothing scientific in quantum mechanics?
I often find myself agreeing with Sabine Hossenfelder. I don’t subscribe to quantum weirdness.
There’s plenty of rational explanations for “superposition”, observer effects, and so on.
I must say it is not that clear to me what you mean with “rational” explanation? From a video of hers I just watched I (very wildly) guess that you mean deterministic? Is there at the moment any experiment telling superdeterminism apart from other interpretations of quantum mechanics?
How does you notion of rationality tell us anything about how scientific some work is? If you want to claim that a given research work is bullshit, could you please point to another research paper that shows it, instead of making it seem like common knowledge?
All quantum stuff is tied together. You’d need to watch a dozen videos just to even cover all the different pieces.
Here’s a good starting point: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Be3HlA_9968
What about answering my specific questions instead of assuming I need an entry door to quantum physics? (as it happens, I do not)
It seems that you are saying that getting familiar with Hossenfelder’s point of view will make me understand why the work cited in the New Scientist article is bullshit. This might have made sense had she not said herself that this experimental work is very important to better understand the foundation of quantum mechanics, and its hypothetical replacement.
deleted by creator