Humodour

Get on my horse, I'll take you round the universe - and all the other places too!

Yes, he can. Alvin is a very trustworthy, reliable guy. He wouldn't lie to you.

Do you think so? Well I better not show you where the lemonade is made.

With a stroke of its mane, it turns into a plane, and then it turns back again when you tug on its winkie.

The "interpretations" do nothing to change the equations themselves, which deal with probabilities. You want a really simply example? Consider radioactive decay. Poor example. We do not actually know whether radioactive decay is random or not. Lots of people suspect it might be chaotic and subject to the environment, not random (without even getting into QM). Humans have a long history of looking at things, struggling to find a pattern, and then declaring them random, only to be later proven wrong. After all, as we don't know which interpretation of QM is correct, we have no reason to believe it should be random. Oblarg, you're suffering from the problem of trying to prove QM is random by pointing to things which are random in the probabilistic interpretations of QM (but deterministic in deterministic interpretations). Essentially, it's circular reasoning.

What would wild horses make you do?

Specifically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio...nics#Comparison Oblarg, note the column 'deterministic'? Note how many interpretations are? Does nothing to change the fact that quantum mechanics describes the world in terms of probabilities. That is incorrect. Quantum mechanics only describes the world in terms of probabilities for maybe a third of the main interpretations. Bohmian mechanics for example, the interpretation we've been discussing throughout this thread, does not drescribe the world probabilistically and is one of the main interpretations.

Gracias.

Specifically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio...nics#Comparison Oblarg, note the column 'deterministic'? Note how many interpretations are?

Yes, it just is. You may as well ask "why does everything exist." You won't get an answer, because it's not an answerable question. *sigh* Then probabilistic QM is no more intuitively useful for describing the universe than deterministic QM, now is it? So I'll say again, until there is some valid reason to rule out interpretations - don't.

That's a **** reason. People do lots of things that are stupid. All the time. Consistently.

Ah, really. And where does this randomness come from Oblarg? 'It just is', perhaps? Charming.

And I want to bail out America!

Indeed. GR was proven to accurately describe the structure of spacetime around around the Earth by Gravity Probe B just this year. Specifically it confirmed the existence of frame-dragging and the geodetic efffect. That said, you know, it's still possible (probable if we give humans enough time) a theory with even more accurate predictive power will come along and knock it over (c.f. Relativity and Newtonian mechanics). One day.

More people die getting pissed off their nut and walking in front of trains than die from planking. Maybe we should ban trains. In fact, this guy died while planking BECAUSE he was drunk. Ha!

I think planking is funny, cute, and harmless. But it's amusing to watch people vent their anger over it. I just sit and think "why?". In what way could these 'plankers' possibly be triggering the anger centres of your brain?

You're missing the point - it itself is not much more than a baseless, untestable "what-if." The math "what if" doesn't directly conflict with the equations that describe quantum mechanics, but it is still baseless and untestable. It's akin to the belief in a god who decides how nature's random number generator works - there's no way to disprove it, it doesn't directly conflict with the equations, but it is ultimately meaningless. The fact is that the equations are all probabilistic. @Krezack - appeals to authority mean nothing. I can dig up some creationists who've been at very prestigious colleges, yet that would do nothing to validate creationism. You don't understand this. Deterministic QM is not a 'what if' - it is a part of the set of currently valid interpretations of QM. IT IS PART OF QM. WE CAN NOT YET SAY OR PROVE THAT ANY OF THE CURRENT INTERPRETATIONS IS MORE CORRECT THAN THE OTHERS. And that is exactly why they are all part of QM. THERE IS NO CURRENT WAY TO PROVE THAT ANY OF THEM IS MORE CORRECT THAN THE OTHERS. So anybody claiming that they know one of them actually is more correct (i.e. predictive) should be looked upon with a great deal of scepticism indeed. That's not to say it won't be possible to eliminate interpretations in the (possibly near) future. There are facets of all the interpretations which are physically testable, including Bohmian mechanics. I like this quote because it could so easily be applied to probabilistic quantum mechanics as well. Did you never bother to ask yourself the question "where does the randomness come from?"? Frankly I see a deterministic universe as a lot more self-contained and logically consistent than one which requires 'randomness' to come from 'somewhere'. Why? How? In what way is this 'a fact'? Do you have some evidence to prove it? You're claiming that the equations are all probabilistic without any knowledge of the deeper mechanics of the universe. You can't do that. You can say that the equations we use to model the universe are probabilistic. You can say that the universe appears to be probabilistic to humans. Neither of these is relevant to whether the universe is actually probabilistic, or whether modelling the universe probabilistically is even the most accurate means of doing so (it's certainly probably the most efficient at least until we have quantum supercomputers (so not just quantum computers, but super-fast ones even by quantum computing standards), which are able to quickly model physical systems on a particulate level).

The distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/c seconds.

Yeah, and you're not French, so use Imperial. Metric is scientifically standardised, Imperial isn't. It's got nothing to do with historical origin. Try saying that again, not smelling of garlic. Up yours you dirty bogan!

There is no "math" to support it other than simply renaming some of the variables. It's not a theory, it's not even a testable hypothesis. It's simply baseless speculation by people who don't like the fact that all of quantum physics is defined in terms of probabilities, something that you clearly don't understand. Okay. You know best. Quantum physicists are ignorant jerkoffs who should bow to your infinite wisdom about the universe. Oh, hey, what's this, a journal article from 2009 discussing the viability of de Broglie

Yeah, and you're not French, so use Imperial. Metric is scientifically standardised, Imperial isn't. It's got nothing to do with historical origin.

In an article I read, it stated there would be more than achievements and trophies. Which leads me to believe you get in-game items or power-ups. Personally I'd like a power-up. http://www.destructoid.com/obsidian-explai...ns-195120.phtml "Achievements and Trophies earned in multiplayer are still saved to your profile as normal and there are additional awards that you can only receive from playing in a multiplayer co-operative game." Either way, I like achievements. Rather it be lame or great. This game is cool and if my laptop can play it, then I will get it. I am boycotting Diablo 3 after all because of it's satanic theme and name. And yes I know DS3 is a lil bad too, but it's a lil better than way demonic. What is it you have against demonic and satanic stuff? You know it doesn't exist? That's a matter of opinion. Even if you're an atheist (and therefore don't believe in God or the devil) it doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with that kind of stuff. Fair enough.

Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics. That's ok - not very many people do. Take some physics classes, then get back to me. I find it interesting that you're telling ME I don't understand QM when it is you who is discounting one of the main interpretations of QM (Bohm's) without any logical reason. It's not one of the "main interpretations" of quantum mechanics. In fact, it hardly qualifies as an "interpretation" at all, as it does nothing to change the fact that the laws which govern quantum mechanics are probabilistic in nature. Baseless speculation about the workings of nature's random number generator doesn't qualify as legitimate determinism. You're being a tool. The maths (and fit with experimental data) is as sound as that of the probabilistic interpretations, therefore it is as valid as them until new data allows us to rule one or more interpretations out. It's basic science.

This is why I love Australia. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-facebo...-australia.html

Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics. That's ok - not very many people do. Take some physics classes, then get back to me. I find it interesting that you're telling ME I don't understand QM when it is you who is discounting one of the main interpretations of QM (Bohm's) without any logical reason.