@Abge

You would, but the human mind takes into account a lot more factors when it makes a decision than a computer does, allowing us to come up with creative solutions when compared to a more linear computer.

I think I get your problem. It works like this: When you measure an observable it is not projected into ONE of its eigenstates but into ALL of them, where each possible outcome "creates" its own universe. Now the question of determinism in my understanding will depend on your point of view. How do you understand determinism?

Assume you conduct a measurement with 2 equally likely possible outcomes (Following QM). There is no point to ask what the result will be, since BOTH will happen. After the experiment you will be in both universes and see two different results. You can know that before. And a question like "How will it be in my universe?" makes no sense since "my" is not defined, the two universes will be indistinct in every aspect but the outcome of your measurement.

Dunno if that answers your question, if not I will try again.

@Zarat

OK I think that makes sense; it's just very strange to think about. In that case, yes, I believe QM wouldn't contradict determinism. If, of course, it turns out that MWI is correct, as opposed to CI (orthodox) or one of the other interpretations.

But we already know MWI is correct. After all, there is the mirror universe that Captain Kirk discovered...

Oh wait. That's TV, not reality. Damn, I keep getting the two mixed up.

...dammit, my knowledge feels so inadequate reading this. @_@ I'm capable of competent discussion, but this is so out of my league.

Did you guys research this outside of a professional obligation? (And if so, please point me to some basic starting points. I want to learn this, but currently I can't keep up.)

@President

Which part? The physics stuff?

Determinism doesn't care about quantum physics. If determinism is true, and we are simply the result of the motions and predictable interactions of the parts of what reality is, then it works that way regardless of our knowledge base. Our understanding of QM is still quite new...and what seems magical, what seems to be anti-deterministic may very well resolve itself to be completely predictable with advances in science.

But the theory of determinism is much less about science and much more about social doctrine anyway...For the sake of WebDip, I'm going to claim that I believe 100% in Determinism. That way I really can't be held accountable for my occasional outbursts of snnoying assholism...it simply isn't my fault - I am doing as the universe decreed.

LOL

@Eden

I suppose you could say I researched it out of a professional obligation, but I chose that profession based on my love of the subject.

If you're referring to learning more about QM, I suggest learning about it from a historical sense. In other words, it makes more sense (and is usually presented in this way in text books) to describe the experiments that led up to QM. That way, you can see how the pieces fit into place.

As an example, you could try reading this: http://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/QM_Article/article.html

If you'd like more info, I'd be happy to supply it.

@abge

What do you work as?

I'm a grad student in electrical engineering. Specifically, I make models of nanoelectronic structures, so I have to deal a lot with Quantum effects.

What the fuck is a nanoelectronic structure?

You know of microelectronics, right? Everything in your TV, computer, toaster, car...

Well, nanoelectronics is small than that--on the nano scale. Structure just refers to how those nanoelectronic devices are shaped/interact.

Examples?

He's not sure either...the wily ways of existence forced him to type those words...

Nanoelectrical structure -- so is this for the purposes of circuit design? Or for nano-machines? Or both? What scary ass future robot overlord devices are you designing, my friend???

For instance, in normal wires, electrons flow just like water in a stream. In nanoelectronics, the wires are so small that electrons sometimes act as waves (so, QM has an actual effect). Because of this, an electron may enter one wire and leave another! That's bad news if you wan to make a device that does something. So, it's important to model these devices to know what will happen.

What sort of fabrication process do you use? Or are you just modeling?

@Krelling

Specifically, it's for transistors. Currently, things like Carbon Nanotubes and Graphene are being looking into to make transistors much smaller and faster than they currently are. Even more specifically, I'm researching numerical methods to model electron transport through these devices.

I personally just model. We have a small experimental dept., but i'm not too familiar. I could answer basic questions, but nothing too specific.

Sweet. My EE degree is dated 1991...I'm jealous!!!

Yes, it is very cool. I get to play with Quantum, but I also get to see real things work. It's the best of both worlds.

@abge

Sounds really confusing. How the hell do you design that stuff?

Like anything else, you build off of the shoulders of giants in the field. I start with some known equations and methods (usually thankfully provided by my advisor) and build off of them. It's a slow process and everything I do builds off from the previous thing.

Sounds difficult and boring.

So....is your goal in doing these things altruistic - to save the world! - or to have some damn good credentials and make some fat cash?? Be honest...

Sounds intriguing and awesome!

@Krellin

Why can't it be both?

@Doom

Difficult, yes. Boring, no. I'm working on cutting-edge research that could have real impacts in society. How is that boring?

@Abge

Maybe if I had a firmer grasp on what you actually did, it might be interesting for me.