Post: #26

The "Double Slit Experiment" is bullshit.

Right?

It doesn't always work. it's not always repeatable, the results vary..

Right?

Maybe, I'm wrong.. But, I have heard a few arguments challenging the accuracy and the ability to duplicate the double slit experiment.

Is it just a "for profit", "pop-physics" theory designed to sell us on the "spiritual" nature of matter?

I don't know. But, I have heard rumblings that challenge the validity, accuracy, and test-ability of that experiment.

It was sort of over hyped as a way to sell us "new age" products.

Right?

I don't know.

Why do many people take this experiment as fact? Because it appeared in a few "new age" movies?

Pardon me, if I'm wrong and this experiment is easily duplicated.

I like to be highly skeptical of "science".

Most scientific facts are proven wrong, centuries later.

I don't know?

I would like for it to be true. I would like to transform my body into waves.

Maybe, I can?

Post: #27

Gio, no. All of this is completely wrong.

The double slit experiment, and everything else about quantum mechanics, is extremely reproducible, repeatable, and has been verified countless times to the most minute degree of precision.

Every modern device that you use, all modern electronics, essentially all the technology we use every day and take for granted, is based on the same quantum mechanical laws of which the double slit experiment is one manifestation.

No theory in the history of science has ever been as successful and has ever made as many precise predictions that are always verified with absolute accuracy, as quantum mechanics. It is the gold standard by which any other scientific theory can be judged.

Take it from someone who knows.

Post: #28

I don't know much about quantum mechanics, but I know something about software.

Software breaks down from a high-level language to binary. 1's and 0's. It's all 1's and 0's A high electronic pulse across the circuit represents a 1 and a low pulse a 0

1 is a symbol for the masculine. It is vertical and points from the earth to the other-worldly. It's also the same shape as a penis. Also to be #1 is to have an "identity" separate from the others. There are countless ways to show how the number 1 is masculine.

0 is a symbol for the feminine. It's shaped like a pussy right? There are also countless examples I could go into about why 0 is the symbol of the feminine. Too many to list, but I can if asked.

Everything in the world, from products, to theories, to music, to all of it is a manifestation of the meta-phsysical reality which is the masculine/feminine.

It is everywhere. Even the protons and electrons. It's not like trying to find a needle in a haystack, it is the haystack. We just have to choose to look. Once you start doing that, you begin to see the world in a different way. Like when Neo sees the Matrix as a stream of green digits.

Maybe if we existed in another part of the universe it would be completely different, but we are here, and we must make everything in our world represent this masculine/feminine dichotomy with the hopes of somehow resolving it. We can't help ourselves. We are literally slaves to it.

Post: #29

Honestly, one of these days there is going to be a breakthrough in quantum mechanics that's going to mate physics and spirituality once and for all changing our view of the universe and the idea of a deity creator god.

Doing enough psychedelics has taught me one thing, what I see and what I know in my gut are mismatched. This world isn't real. Time to unplug...

Post: #30

This is a lecture from physicist Tom Campbell. He thinks that we are living in a simulation, but some sort of greater consciousness is itself the "computer" running the simulation. Very long lecture, but definitely worth it. He fits the double slit experiment into this lecture as well and extrapolates what it could mean for the larger reality we live in. Some points he talks about:

-Things exist in a superposition until observed. The simulation doesn't need to calculate spacetime that hasn't been observed yet, so it is saving resources this way.
-The simulation has rules (laws of physics) that are set up in a way to allow consciousness to grow, become more ordered, more complex.
-We live in an "information" specific reality. If information about an observed state is then erased, then the object returns to it's unobserved superposition.

*The example he gives is that an unobserved tree in a forest is in a superposition of 30% fallen over / 70% still standing. If an explorer observes that tree it will snap into either superposition. Let's say it chooses "fallen". That explorer now has the "information" about that trees state. The tree will stay fallen so long as that information about it's state exists. If the explorer is then eaten by a bear without telling anyone about the tree or taking a picture, the information about the tree is "erased" from our reality and the tree goes back to it's superposition.

Interesting theories and he also has a book that is worth reading.

Post: #31

(11-27-2015 04:54 PM)Onto Wrote:  I don't know much about quantum mechanics, but I know something about software.

Software breaks down from a high-level language to binary. 1's and 0's. It's all 1's and 0's A high electronic pulse across the circuit represents a 1 and a low pulse a 0

1 is a symbol for the masculine. It is vertical and points from the earth to the other-worldly. It's also the same shape as a penis. Also to be #1 is to have an "identity" separate from the others. There are countless ways to show how the number 1 is masculine.

0 is a symbol for the feminine. It's shaped like a pussy right? There are also countless examples I could go into about why 0 is the symbol of the feminine. Too many to list, but I can if asked.

Everything in the world, from products, to theories, to music, to all of it is a manifestation of the meta-phsysical reality which is the masculine/feminine.

It is everywhere. Even the protons and electrons. It's not like trying to find a needle in a haystack, it is the haystack. We just have to choose to look. Once you start doing that, you begin to see the world in a different way. Like when Neo sees the Matrix as a stream of green digits.

Maybe if we existed in another part of the universe it would be completely different, but we are here, and we must make everything in our world represent this masculine/feminine dichotomy with the hopes of somehow resolving it. We can't help ourselves. We are literally slaves to it.

Well, I was really struggling to find a topic for my presentation in my graduate Computer Science course, but frankly "Why the number zero looks like a pussy: How Stack Overflows are rape culture" sounds like a winner.

Post: #32

(11-28-2015 08:12 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 04:54 PM)Onto Wrote:  I don't know much about quantum mechanics, but I know something about software.

Software breaks down from a high-level language to binary. 1's and 0's. It's all 1's and 0's A high electronic pulse across the circuit represents a 1 and a low pulse a 0

1 is a symbol for the masculine. It is vertical and points from the earth to the other-worldly. It's also the same shape as a penis. Also to be #1 is to have an "identity" separate from the others. There are countless ways to show how the number 1 is masculine.

0 is a symbol for the feminine. It's shaped like a pussy right? There are also countless examples I could go into about why 0 is the symbol of the feminine. Too many to list, but I can if asked.

Everything in the world, from products, to theories, to music, to all of it is a manifestation of the meta-phsysical reality which is the masculine/feminine.

It is everywhere. Even the protons and electrons. It's not like trying to find a needle in a haystack, it is the haystack. We just have to choose to look. Once you start doing that, you begin to see the world in a different way. Like when Neo sees the Matrix as a stream of green digits.

Maybe if we existed in another part of the universe it would be completely different, but we are here, and we must make everything in our world represent this masculine/feminine dichotomy with the hopes of somehow resolving it. We can't help ourselves. We are literally slaves to it.

Well, I was really struggling to find a topic for my presentation in my graduate Computer Science course, but frankly "Why the number zero looks like a pussy: How Stack Overflows are rape culture" sounds like a winner.

Better yet, it was the Hindus (not the Arabs, as is commonly said) who invented the zero, so it's rape cultural appropriation.

Post: #33

Bah.
Y'all are just a figment of my imagination.

Or am I just a figment of your imagination...

Post: #34

This discussion reminds me of the theory of "biocentrism", created by a guy named Robert Lanza. Essentially biocentrism says that instead of the universe creating life, it's the other way around- life creates the observable universe and without life to observe the universe, it ceases to exist.

Quantum mechanics is truly mind blowing. Recently some reputable scientists expressed concern that by simply observing dark matter in outer space, they could hasten the end of the universe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...rrect.html

Post: #35

A refutation of solipsism for the modern world:

http://harmanjit.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-...psism.html

Post: #36

It was originally thought that the theories of quantum mechanics only applied at the...quantum level, but I saw something a few years ago where it was found that it does indeed apply to big objects including galaxies. The whole thing sort of lends credence to one popular theory that the universe is entirely digital. Imagine if we're just all living in some girl's iPhone somewhere.

But I personally think the many worlds theory is likely the best explanation to the distributions of quantum mechanics, for whatever this non-scientist's opinion is worth.

Post: #37

So does everybody else cease to exist just because they are in different countries and I don't perceive them?

The hundreds of posts on this forum seem to indicate otherwise.

Post: #38

QED [Quantum Electro-Dynamics] is the most precise science out there. It is also fundamentally the most probabilistic. This tells you something critical about yourself and the Universe: The world itself is "predictably probabilistic" and random.

This does not mean that the Universe does not exist when you don't observe it. It is just a pop clickbait headline, just like everyone went off the rails calling the Higgs boson the "God particle". The fundamental principle in QM is that observing an interaction fundamentally changes the interaction. This doesn't mean that the particle or interaction does not exist before, just than you are not precisely sure about what it is. You might have a few options with weighted probabilities about what it is [Schrodinger's cat, or "particle in a box", is the basic example], but you can not know with certainty till you observe it, and the act of observation puts the particle in one of the optional states.

To understand a lot of this stuff you have to really just study theoretical physics deeply, not just read pop articles, or even just Wikipedia first sections. A partial understanding of this is very harmful and lends credence to ridiculous SF type theories, and even makes people make ridiculous statements about gods and whatnot.

Post: #39

(11-25-2015 08:32 PM)Roosh Wrote:  I read a fascinating article that suggests there are multiple possibilities of reality that is not set until an observer "sees" it. It's an application of the double slit experiment on a planetary scale.

Quote:And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.

[...]

Wheeler suspects that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. He sees the universe as a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed.

[...]

In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead."

http://www.unt.edu/rss/class/rich/misc/JohnWheeler.html

This is basic zen buddhism- the observer and the observed are one, lack one lacks both. Science has always tried to separate things then observe them, but you take the tiger out of the forest to look at it, and it is no longer a tiger, no longer behaves or lives the same.

Post: #40

If your mind hasn't been blown, you haven't yet fully understood the double slit and delayed choice quantum eraser experiments. These suggest - and when I say "suggest" that is an understatement - that the fundamental building block of the universe is information, or in fact consciousness.

It is possible to go beyond a hard skeptic pre-quantum physics attitude, and a woo-woo "yeah man that's what Buddhism has been saying we're all one" attitude and actually understand a bit better. Tom Campbell has been the gateway for me in this. You don't have to hold to everything he says, but he gives a very plausible layman's model for a probabilistic or "simulation" universe. Well worth watching a few of his videos. I just wish he would stop talking about World of Warcraft, but his points are valid.

Post: #41

There's an excellent book for any layman interested in learning more about quantum physics called: Quantum Theory: a very short introduction and it's by a guy called John Polkinghorn, who studied under Paul Dirac at Cambridge, and who was a professor of Physical Mathematics there until he became a priest.

What is most fascinating to me about Quantum Physics is how many of its leading proponents seem to suggest that 'God' may be the understanding behind quantum theory. Sir Roger Penrose is another example (perhaps the most respected and well regarded theoretical physicist alive) an interesting thing he suggests is that Strong AI is unlikely to be possible due to the animating quality of consciousness/mind matter/immortal essence of 'God' that is fundamental within us - and that in his view may be the middle ground that links classical physics and quantum mechanics.

It would no doubt come as a shock to many of those who claim to be too smart to believe in the possibility of 'God', and who instead cling to 'science' as 'truth' (as in bad, populist science that most top scientists might dispute), to find out that whilst QT is proven, noone actually understands why it works, just that it very clearly does work.

Post: #42

I have to say that there is a strong undercurrent of religious superstition in Quantum Mechanics. I am saying this while not knowing much about it, only from observing what kind of discussions arise from it.

I am with Gio here, I'd like to see the double slit experiment documented hundreds of times? Can someone point me to it?

Lets take Schrodingers cat. My first impression is simply that this is nothing more than mathematicians having fun with some quirky abberation. Either that or they used a horrible anecdote, which is also likely. The cat is either dead or alive, the end. It does not exist as dead and alive. Nope nope nope. Dead OR alive. Choose another example if you want to muse over theoretical states of sub-atomic particles. Reminds me too much of the tortois and Achilles paradox, which is a theoretical quirk of math, but which does not accurately explain any real phenomenon.

Generally, it seems to me that QE and other types of very high/low level of physics becomes increasingly closer to meta-physics and religion. What I mean by that is that physics and math are abstractions, language, of natural laws. Contrary to belief, formula and mathematic expressions are recent inventions. Math and physics existed long before current notations of +-= and so on. It existed not because of the ability of a chalkboard of equations, but because physics and math are descriptory languages of the laws of the universe.

Knowing this, if you truly want to muse about the essence of being and existence, then I am not sure physics is anymore meaningful than meta-physics, philosophy, religion or meditation.

Otherwise, there's the risk of creating a secular variant of mysticism.

Post: #43

(12-13-2015 03:58 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  I have to say that there is a strong undercurrent of religious superstition in Quantum Mechanics. I am saying this while not knowing much about it, only from observing what kind of discussions arise from it.

I am with Gio here, I'd like to see the double slit experiment documented hundreds of times? Can someone point me to it?

Lets take Schrodingers cat. My first impression is simply that this is nothing more than mathematicians having fun with some quirky abberation. Either that or they used a horrible anecdote, which is also likely. The cat is either dead or alive, the end. It does not exist as dead and alive. Nope nope nope. Dead OR alive. Choose another example if you want to muse over theoretical states of sub-atomic particles. Reminds me too much of the tortois and Achilles paradox, which is a theoretical quirk of math, but which does not accurately explain any real phenomenon.

Generally, it seems to me that QE and other types of very high/low level of physics becomes increasingly closer to meta-physics and religion. What I mean by that is that physics and math are abstractions, language, of natural laws. Contrary to belief, formula and mathematic expressions are recent inventions. Math and physics existed long before current notations of +-= and so on. It existed not because of the ability of a chalkboard of equations, but because physics and math are descriptory languages of the laws of the universe.

Knowing this, if you truly want to muse about the essence of being and existence, then I am not sure physics is anymore meaningful than meta-physics, philosophy, religion or meditation.

Otherwise, there's the risk of creating a secular variant of mysticism.

You say 'religious superstition' as though perhaps you think it is a bad thing, and in so doing suggest that perhaps you are equally guilty of secular superstition.

Much of your post seems to basically say that because you don't understand it, and can't speak the language it uses, it can't actually be true. Part of the point of QM is that scientists do not understand WHY it works, but that doesn't prevent them from demonstrating that it DOES actually work. The accuracy with which quantum calculations can be done to prove 'real' phenomena, means that it is pretty unequivocally the case, even in examples like Schroedinger's cat, that the implications of QM are true. Why that should be the case, noone actually knows, hence the many worlds theory, the Copenhagen interpretation, and all the other theories put forward by brilliant men to try to explain why QM seems to be such a complete theory.

You say:

'Knowing this, if you truly want to muse about the essence of being and existence, then I am not sure physics is anymore meaningful than meta-physics, philosophy, religion or meditation.'

Why must it necessarily be distinct, rather than simply an aspect of the cumulative Truth to which the others pertain? I don't necessarily take issue with all of your conclusions, but rather the implication that they are necessarily 'bad' or undesirable conclusions, that the absence of meaning is somehow preferable to a truth that involves 'God'.

There appears to be a fairly broad consensus amongst Quantum Theorists that either there are a vast number of alternate universes in the multiverse, or that there is simply one universe that is indicative of the purposeful design of a creator. Ironically, it is the second of these options that is most likely to make you 'right' in your 'nope, nope, nope' assertions about Schroedinger's cat.

Post: #44

The Schrödibger's Cat thought experiment is just an absurdity which has no basis in reality. I think that Bohr's correspondence principle dealt with this issue of how quantum systems interface with macro scale classical physics.

Post: #45

There is no religious superstition. These bad debates that rise out of QM only arise when people who know nothing about QM or Physics come up with bad analogies to try to understand it. There really aren't any analogies to "normal world" things that will not completely confuse and misguide you towards something that it is not.

The only way to understand it is to study it really and deeply, or otherwise take the word of Physicists that know what they are talking about.

Post: #46

(12-13-2015 04:21 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 03:58 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  I have to say that there is a strong undercurrent of religious superstition in Quantum Mechanics. I am saying this while not knowing much about it, only from observing what kind of discussions arise from it.

I am with Gio here, I'd like to see the double slit experiment documented hundreds of times? Can someone point me to it?

Lets take Schrodingers cat. My first impression is simply that this is nothing more than mathematicians having fun with some quirky abberation. Either that or they used a horrible anecdote, which is also likely. The cat is either dead or alive, the end. It does not exist as dead and alive. Nope nope nope. Dead OR alive. Choose another example if you want to muse over theoretical states of sub-atomic particles. Reminds me too much of the tortois and Achilles paradox, which is a theoretical quirk of math, but which does not accurately explain any real phenomenon.

Generally, it seems to me that QE and other types of very high/low level of physics becomes increasingly closer to meta-physics and religion. What I mean by that is that physics and math are abstractions, language, of natural laws. Contrary to belief, formula and mathematic expressions are recent inventions. Math and physics existed long before current notations of +-= and so on. It existed not because of the ability of a chalkboard of equations, but because physics and math are descriptory languages of the laws of the universe.

Knowing this, if you truly want to muse about the essence of being and existence, then I am not sure physics is anymore meaningful than meta-physics, philosophy, religion or meditation.

Otherwise, there's the risk of creating a secular variant of mysticism.

You say 'religious superstition' as though perhaps you think it is a bad thing, and in so doing suggest that perhaps you are equally guilty of secular superstition.

Much of your post seems to basically say that because you don't understand it, and can't speak the language it uses, it can't actually be true. Part of the point of QM is that scientists do not understand WHY it works, but that doesn't prevent them from demonstrating that it DOES actually work. The accuracy with which quantum calculations can be done to prove 'real' phenomena, means that it is pretty unequivocally the case, even in examples like Schroedinger's cat, that the implications of QM are true. Why that should be the case, noone actually knows, hence the many worlds theory, the Copenhagen interpretation, and all the other theories put forward by brilliant men to try to explain why QM seems to be such a complete theory.

You say:

'Knowing this, if you truly want to muse about the essence of being and existence, then I am not sure physics is anymore meaningful than meta-physics, philosophy, religion or meditation.'

Why must it necessarily be distinct, rather than simply an aspect of the cumulative Truth to which the others pertain? I don't necessarily take issue with all of your conclusions, but rather the implication that they are necessarily 'bad' or undesirable conclusions, that the absence of meaning is somehow preferable to a truth that involves 'God'.

There appears to be a fairly broad consensus amongst Quantum Theorists that either there are a vast number of alternate universes in the multiverse, or that there is simply one universe that is indicative of the purposeful design of a creator. Ironically, it is the second of these options that is most likely to make you 'right' in your 'nope, nope, nope' assertions about Schroedinger's cat.

I am not afraid to admit I don't know enough about QM, but I maintain that Schrodingers Cat is an absurdity which requires a superstitious leap of faith to accept. Are you going to tell me if I put a cat in a box with poisoned cat food for 15 minutes that it is both alive and dead? It is clearly either alive or dead, not both.

That's what I mean, this example in particular means setting aside basic rationality in the occult belief of Quantum Mechanics.

If Schrodingers Cat is the best layman example they could come up with then pardon me for calling out 'the emperor has no clothes on'.

Schrodingers Cat is either alive or dead in reality do you agree? Not both at the same time.

If you believe it would in actuality be both alive and dead, then honestly are we not dealing with occult thinking? Fun for sure, but I'll retain my skepticism until

And I am not an atheist at all, my problem is actually with physics trying to but in where it doesn't belong.

Well, what do you know, when I do some research I see I am not alone:

From Quantum Mysticism, Wikipedia:

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

Quote:Quantum mysticism first appeared in Germany during the 1920s when some of the leading quantum physicists, such as Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg, leaned toward mystical interpretations of their theories. Others, such as Albert Einstein and Max Planck, objected to such interpretations. Despite the accusation of mysticism from Einstein,[11] Niels Bohr denied the charge, attributing it to misunderstandings.[12] By the second half of the twentieth century, the controversy had run its course—Schrödinger's 1958 lectures are said to "mark the last of a generation that lived with the mysticism controversy"—and today most physicists are realists who do not believe that quantum theory is involved with consciousness.[13]

The biggest minds accused Schrodinger of being a mysticist.

Now, that is not to say QM may not be a field of science which can deliver physical real implications, but it is clear that QM has a cult like quality that is based on mysticism. All I was saying, that was the distinct feeling I get from the way it is discussed. It is not just mere physics theory, it is an attempt at creating a mysticist theory of everything.

Post: #47

A comment on Quora, what do you think?

Quote:Every theory can be replaced with a better theory that explains all phenomena.

In that sense, all theories are wrong.

But the problem with Quantum mechanics is something different: it is theory with no useful predictions. Or said in another way: it can predict the cat is alive and dead at the same time. So, whatever phenomena is discovered in the future, anyone can say "it was predicted by Quantum mechanics". The problem is that QM is not sure anout anything, anything is possible and therefore is makes no real predictions. Therefore as a theory ii's useless.

There is another problem with QM. It negates 3,000 years of science. It is like a new religion, and it can stop science for 1,000 years too. Specially science always considers observers to be out of the experiment, but QM insists that the observer affects the experiment. That negates science at its core.

Think about this. Newtonian physics was only 200 years old when planes were invented. And there were lots and lots of inventions in between.

QM has 100 years already and absolutely nothing to show as inventions.

There is another problem. Sometimes theories are plain wrong, but they come up with discoveries. Later, new theories have better explanations and bad theories are discarded, but the discovered phenomena remains.

That is the case for the hysteria treatments. Hysteria was the name of a disease, now recognized as a false theory. The solution found for hysteria still remains.

QM has led to no discovery whatsoever. Actually if you read all the questions in Quora, you will see QM is more related to religions rather than science. QM unfortunately is the wrong interpretation of scientific data.

Post: #48

(12-13-2015 08:03 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  A comment on Quora, what do you think?

I don't know -- what can one say about this level of ignorance? It leaves one speechless.

Not a single modern invention is possible without quantum mechanics. The theory of semiconductors is a fully quantum mechanical theory. Thus no quantum mechanics means no transistors, and that means not a single modern electronic device would exist; no computers, TVs, mobile phones, basically not a single circuit that powers anything we use. And that's just for starters.

That comment is like the funhouse mirror deranged opposite of the truth. Quantum mechanics is single-handedly responsible for the greatest stream of inventions in human history. There has never been another scientific theory whose practical applications have transformed the world so rapidly and so completely.

I really hate to be severe about this, but almost no one speaking of these matters has any idea of what they're talking about. They should recognize their ignorance, and stop chattering at least until they are able to understand undergraduate level physics. These discussions are worse than hearing the most fantastical caricatures of virgin incel neckbeards holding forth on the intricacies of "game" and "seduction".

Post: #49

I have said a 100 times before. QED is the most precise science we have. More precise than "normal" Physics that you see every day. More precise than the calculations you can make on your car.

The problem ofcourse is that it is very hard to understand. One of the reasons for that is that Linear Algebra and then actual Algebra/Group theory are difficult fields of mathematics to understand.

Post: #50

(12-13-2015 09:04 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 08:03 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  A comment on Quora, what do you think?

I don't know -- what can one say about this level of ignorance? It leaves one speechless.

Not a single modern invention is possible without quantum mechanics. The theory of semiconductors is a fully quantum mechanical theory. Thus no quantum mechanics means no transistors, and that means not a single modern electronic device would exist; no computers, TVs, mobile phones, basically not a single circuit that powers anything we use. And that's just for starters.

That comment is like the funhouse mirror deranged opposite of the truth. Quantum mechanics is single-handedly responsible for the greatest stream of inventions in human history. There has never been another scientific theory whose practical applications have transformed the world so rapidly and so completely.

I really hate to be severe about this, but almost no one speaking of these matters has any idea of what they're talking about. They should recognize their ignorance, and stop chattering at least until they are able to understand undergraduate level physics. These discussions are worse than hearing the most fantastical caricatures of virgin incel neckbeards holding forth on the intricacies of "game" and "seduction".

Newtonian physics were falsified, replaced by relativity, yet good enough to allow the industrial revolution. The fact that a descriptory theory has real world applications is not proof.

Seems like there are other - classical and deterministic explanations for particle behaviour:

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

Quote:Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

This idea that nature is inherently probabilistic — that particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed — is directly implied by the standard equations of quantum mechanics. But now a set of surprising experiments with fluids has revived old skepticism about that worldview. The bizarre results are fueling interest in an almost forgotten version of quantum mechanics, one that never gave up the idea of a single, concrete reality.

The experiments involve an oil droplet that bounces along the surface of a liquid. The droplet gently sloshes the liquid with every bounce. At the same time, ripples from past bounces affect its course. The droplet’s interaction with its own ripples, which form what’s known as a pilot wave, causes it to exhibit behaviors previously thought to be peculiar to elementary particles — including behaviors seen as evidence that these particles are spread through space like waves, without any specific location, until they are measured.

Particles at the quantum scale seem to do things that human-scale objects do not do. They can tunnel through barriers, spontaneously arise or annihilate, and occupy discrete energy levels. This new body of research reveals that oil droplets, when guided by pilot waves, also exhibit these quantum-like features.

To some researchers, the experiments suggest that quantum objects are as definite as droplets, and that they too are guided by pilot waves — in this case, fluid-like undulations in space and time. These arguments have injected new life into a deterministic (as opposed to probabilistic) theory of the microscopic world first proposed, and rejected, at the birth of quantum mechanics.

“This is a classical system that exhibits behavior that people previously thought was exclusive to the quantum realm, and we can say why,” said John Bush, a professor of applied mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has led several recent bouncing-droplet experiments. “The more things we understand and can provide a physical rationale for, the more difficult it will be to defend the ‘quantum mechanics is magic’ perspective.”