Does God Flip Coins? | Quantum Probability Explained | Quantum Theory

This is the fifth video in my Quantum Theory playlist. I explain the central role probability plays in Quantum Mechanics and why Quantum Probability is in a sense, more objective than probability in Classical Mechanics. I do this by analyzing the behavior of a Regular/Classical Coin and contrast it with how a Quantum Coin behaves. I also explain a few of the common interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (Many Worlds, Copenhagen, and Bohmian Mechanics) that grapple with these probabilities in different ways.

0:00 Introduction
0:18 Behavior of a Classical Coin
1:37 Behavior of a Quantum Coin
3:24 Spin X Up in the Formalism of Quantum Mechanics
4:12 Probability is built right into Quantum Theory
4:54 Probability in Classical Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics
5:17 Various way to interpret the probabilities in Quantum Mechanics
7:04 Conclusion

[christophergame]

When the classical coin has a phase associated with it, that phase is made explicit in its specification of initial state for prediction. That phase allows determinisitic prediction.

The quantum coin always has a phase associated with it, and in its wave function. As an element of the specification of the initial state for prediction, that phase is routinely ignored or glossed away. Ignoring the phase removes the possibility of deterministic prediction. That is obvious, and not mysterious or weird. It is routine for quantum mechanics experts to make out that it is weird, because they love to seem smarter than the average bear, and love to seem to understand the weird. The real question is 'what are they smoking?' You are admirable in that you frankly admit the problem.

[linco]

While Bohmian mechanics falls out as an interpretation of pilot waves from the probability current. The hidden variable theory has been disproven by Bell and Leggett to a point where it is no longer a scientific (predictable) idea. Bell's inequality was the first of its kind to prove that the concept of locality in hidden variables plus quantum mechanics will have contradictory results. An analogues inequality was adjusted for an experiment called the CHSH experiment which proved local hidden variables does not match experiment while QM does.
Leggett takes it a step further in his paper "Nonlocal Hidden-Variable Theories and Quantum Mechanics: An Incompatibility Theorem" which basically proves that a hidden variable theory would at least require knowledge of the outcome to be "predictable" which is quite a conundrum.

[NastJann]

The classical coin just seems to have a very high probability to turn heads each time and seems deterministic. The other coin has a lacks this