Man...I try to have a basic understanding in as many fields as I can because I just like learning, but a lot of the stuff in quantum physics just has me
They do that on purpose when it really isn't necessary
Man...I try to have a basic understanding in as many fields as I can because I just like learning, but a lot of the stuff in quantum physics just has me
Man...I try to have a basic understanding in as many fields as I can because I just like learning, but a lot of the stuff in quantum physics just has me
So did this confirm quantum superposition exists?
They're guessing about a lot of this. Dont feel bad.I’m trying my hardest. But I think I’m too dumb for this
perspective perspective perspective*
Thank you. That’s exactly what conclusion I came to. Somehow they managed to miss their own point in that article.When the lack of human understanding meets a flaws in man-made measuring implements and devolves into philosophical debate.
When the lack of human understanding meets a flaws in man-made measuring implements and devolves into philosophical debate.
In contrast, a relative newcomer on the block called the QBism interpretation embraces the probabilistic element of quantum theory wholeheartedly (QBism, pronounced “cubism,” is actually short for quantum Bayesianism, a reference to 18th-century mathematician Thomas Bayes’s work on probability.) QBists argue that a person can only use quantum mechanics to calculate how to calibrate his or her beliefs about what he or she will measure in an experiment. “Measurement outcomes must be regarded as personal to the agent who makes the measurement,” says Ruediger Schack of Royal Holloway, University of London, who is one of QBism’s founders.
For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements. For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism.[3][4] The originators of the interpretation disagree with this characterization, proposing instead that the theory more properly aligns with a kind of realism they call "participatory realism", wherein reality consists of more than can be captured by any putative third-person account of it.