Jump to content

What's inside the box?


AntiChrist
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is it true that scientists can not examine the Quantum World in it's natural state. Because once they open the Quantum box and look inside they've indirectly affected it's natural state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of.

 

If I wish to observe something without affecting it, I can just look at it. I can do so by virtue of the fact that photons are reflected off of it. For macroscopic objects, the effects of this are negligible.

 

So, at minimum, if you wish to observe something, you must "bounce" a photon off of it (or do something roughly equivalent). For quantum objects, this is enough to affect their state, which entails that to observe them is necessarily to affect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Isn't there also a cat involved?

 

No. There used to be, but it's dead now.

(Or is it?)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I've often wondered if Schrodinger had an open casket at his funeral...

I don't know, but it was a nice casket. The Heisenberg model, I think, though I'm somewhat uncertain.

 

 

 

Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Ohm are in a car. They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him “Do you know how fast you were going?” “No, but I know exactly where I am” Heisenberg replies. The cop says “You were doing 55 in a 35.” Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts “Great! Now I`m lost!” The cop thinks this is suspicious and orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says “Do you know you have a dead cat back here?” “We do now, asshole!” shouts Schrodinger. The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists.

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AntiChrist said:

Is it true that scientists can not examine the Quantum World in it's natural state. Because once they open the Quantum box and look inside they've indirectly affected it's natural state?

 

Although your quote above is the prevailing quantum interpretation, it is just BS IMO. I think it instead works like this:

When looking at the quantum world of atomic particles such as electrons, for instance, observation with light changes their location or velocity. This is because to see or observe them you have to bounce light or other EM radiation off of them to known where they are, to observe them. EM radiation has a force to it, a good example being a sun-sail space craft. Once you have observed these particules by bouncing off light  you can change their location, momentum, or both. 

 

When Schroedinger heard the probability  interpretations of his day, he also believed it also was all BS. He then came up with his famous Schroedinger's cat thought experiment.  Shoedinger thought quantum interpretations were so stupid that he said about quantum mechanics interpretations "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." He is famous for his QM wave equations named after him.

 

IMO QM is simply a statistical system as a whole with some other specialty equations thrown in for good measure. The quantum would is only different because there is a background field(s) involved which can effect the movement of quantum particles but not larger particles. The two known fields are the Zero Point Fiend and the supposed newly discovered Higgs Field. There is also theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

 

The quantum world has its own rules but essentially it's no more complicated than the macro world of sticks and stones IMO. Every interpretation that doesn't sound logical, isn't logical or valid. Many famous theorists believed/ believe quantum interpretations are no more than pure BS,  Einstein was one of them.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-many-interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03793-2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact. Both have been repeatedly experimentally verified.

 

For reference: 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

So are quantum entanglement and non-locality BS or fact?

 

Hi midniterider:

 

Both are misinterpretations of real events IMO.  If you think the  answer to your question does not stray too far from Schrodinger's cat then I will explain the perspective explanations of quantum entanglement and non-locality to you  that I adhere to.

 

These answers are easily understood without specialty knowledge.  Nothing spooky :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi midniterider:

 

Both are misinterpretations of real events IMO.  If you think the  answer to your question does not stray too far from Schrodinger's cat then I will explain the perspective explanations of quantum entanglement and non-locality to you  that I adhere to.

 

These answers are easily understood without specialty knowledge.  Nothing spooky :)

 

 

 

Wikipedia says Alain Aspect's experiments in entanglement are not bulletproof evidence of non-locality and that there are some loopholes which would allow for local realism in spite of his results. 

 

I'm just a big dummy so if you feel like explaining it to me with a short paragraph or bullet points that'd be great. I'm reading about it on Wikipedia and need the dumbed down version.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi midniterider:

 

Both are misinterpretations of real events IMO.  If you think the  answer to your question does not stray too far from Schrodinger's cat then I will explain the perspective explanations of quantum entanglement and non-locality to you  that I adhere to.

 

These answers are easily understood without specialty knowledge.  Nothing spooky :)

 

 

 

What's the point?

 

If something isn't broken (in the practical sense of getting consistent and reliable results) why fix it?

 

Since mainstream quantum mechanics is clearly practical, why change it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

What's the point?

 

If something isn't broken (in the practical sense of getting consistent and reliable results) why fix it?

 

Since mainstream quantum mechanics is clearly practical, why change it?

 

 

 

Yes, you are correct. Quantum Mechanics works. It is primarily a statistical system to determine the probability of events. Questions are not about how well Quantum Mechanics works or not. The questions are about quantum theory. All the goofy stuff one hears about quantum mechanics could be almost entirely wrong, even if the mathematical physics of QM works fine.

 

For instance the belief by many that if you look at something it changes as in Schrodinger's cat, as apposed to understanding what is really happening and the simple reality of Quantum Theory. There seems to be almost countless other misinterpretations of quantum theory IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Although your quote above is the prevailing quantum interpretation, it is just BS IMO. I think it instead works like this:

When looking at the quantum world of atomic particles such as electrons, for instance, observation with light changes their location or velocity. This is because to see or observe them you have to bounce light or other EM radiation off of them to known where they are, to observe them. EM radiation has a force to it, a good example being a sun-sail space craft. Once you have observed these particules by bouncing off light  you can change their location, momentum, or both. 

 

When Schroedinger heard the probability  interpretations of his day, he also believed it also was all BS. He then came up with his famous Schroedinger's cat thought experiment.  Shoedinger thought quantum interpretations were so stupid that he said about quantum mechanics interpretations "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." He is famous for his QM wave equations named after him.

 

IMO QM is simply a statistical system as a whole with some other specialty equations thrown in for good measure. The quantum would is only different because there is a background field(s) involved which can effect the movement of quantum particles but not larger particles. The two known fields are the Zero Point Fiend and the supposed newly discovered Higgs Field. There is also theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

 

The quantum world has its own rules but essentially it's no more complicated than the macro world of sticks and stones IMO. Every interpretation that doesn't sound logical, isn't logical or valid. Many famous theorists believed/ believe quantum interpretations are no more than pure BS,  Einstein was one of them.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-many-interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03793-2

(BS) means bullshit right? I am not offended by it (It's useful in many situations) But I'm wondering why you'd use it when replying strictly for educational reasons. (It's not because I'm the Antichrist is it :D )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Wikipedia says Alain Aspect's experiments in entanglement are not bulletproof evidence of non-locality and that there are some loopholes which would allow for local realism in spite of his results. 

 

I'm just a big dummy so if you feel like explaining it to me with a short paragraph or bullet points that'd be great. I'm reading about it on Wikipedia and need the dumbed down version.

 

 

 

You are no more a dummy than countless PhD's in physics who believe in all the goofy things you have ever heard or read concerning quantum theory.

 

In my reply I am explaining only one version of how the quantum world works. It is a mile away from any mainstream version of the quantum world. It states that the quantum world is simple and easy to understand. There are about a dozen mainstream versions of quantum theory. This in not one of them.  Nearly all versions disagree from each other. So it is the verbal aspect of Quantum Theory that many think is wrong since there is no consensus version of it.

 

Also very few mainstream scientists in this field would agree with what I am writing here, since few agree with each other concerning quantum theory.  The questions you mentioned concern quantum entanglement and what is called the non-locality of the quantum world.  I will try to make my explanations as short as possible.

 

The answers relate to a background field(s). A background physical field is a background atmosphere of particulates too small to easily observe, even with our best instrumentation. We know of two such background fields right now. The two known fields are the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and the Higgs field. The ZPF is the atmosphere in which all of reality plays, like our atmosphere of gases in which we play. The Zero Point Field is known to be filled with very short lived particles, the Higgs field is supposed to be filled with particles that supposedly give mass to all particles. These fields and their interactions with the particles within them accordingly would be the reasons(s) why the quantum world cannot be predicted other than by the probability of events.

 

As to quantum entanglement:  When two electrons are very close to each other they become what they call entangled. This is something very simple. The spin of each creates a vortex in the background field that affects another close-by electron. To come close to each other their spin must be opposite like two close vortices interfering with each other. The spin of one affects the spin of the other. Once their spins are determined this way they are said to be entangled and opposite from each other; maybe entanglement is poor wording. If you send these particles off in different directions the spin of one will always be the opposite of the other if there are no interfering particles in their outward journey. The same entanglement relates to photons if the same circular light wave is going in opposite directions.

 

As to non-locality: This means that a particle does not have an exact location. As a particle spins within the field what we perceive is the vortex of the particle which spreads out in the field. When we bounce light off the particle we change its spread out vortex and determine its exact location but by doing this we change its velocity/ momentum.

 

Bottom line is that the quantum world is as simple as sticks and stones but such particles interact with a background field and therefore these interactions cannot be exactly determined like the interactions of sticks and stones with our atmosphere.

 

Hope this helps explain this perspective asserting an easily understood, non-complicated quantum world. Maybe less than one percent of scientists would adhere to this perspective since their is no consensus version of quantum theory.  But as the principle of Occam's Razor states, the simplest answer is the most likely answer, all else being equal.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AntiChrist said:

(BS) means bullshit right? I am not offended by it (It's useful in many situations) But I'm wondering why you'd use it when replying strictly for educational reasons. (It's not because I'm the Antichrist is it :D )

 

Yeah, we don't like to say bad words in the forum so I just abbreviate them :)  I used BS in this case to state my displeasure with many well-known verbal interpretations of quantum theory.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, you are correct. Quantum Mechanics works. It is primarily a statistical system to determine the probability of events. Questions are not about how well Quantum Mechanics works or not. The questions are about quantum theory. All the goofy stuff one hears about quantum mechanics could be almost entirely wrong, even if the mathematical physics of QM works fine.

 

For instance the belief by many that if you look at something it changes as in Schrodinger's cat, as apposed to understanding what is really happening and the simple reality of Quantum Theory. There seems to be almost countless other misinterpretations of quantum theory IMO.

 

Then, to repeat my question Pantheory, what's the point?

 

If you agree with me that QM works as it is, what benefit is there to be gained by changing the theory used to explain it?

 

Please note that I'm not asking you about your personal opinion about QM.

 

I know that you are personally dissatisfied with QM theory.

 

Instead I'm asking you to justify why we should change the theory behind a branch of science that you've agreed works.

 

Beyond a personal dissatisfaction, what's your justification for wanting to change the theory of QM?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interpetations of quantum mechanics are not actually science. I don't know of any scientist who thinks they are. Quantum mechanics, as far as science is concerned, is an abstract statistical model. That's all. The rest is just people's ways of talking about what they think it means.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Then, to repeat my question Pantheory, what's the point?

 

If you agree with me that QM works as it is, what benefit is there to be gained by changing the theory used to explain it?

 

Please note that I'm not asking you about your personal opinion about QM.

 

I know that you are personally dissatisfied with QM theory.

 

Instead I'm asking you to justify why we should change the theory behind a branch of science that you've agreed works.

 

Beyond a personal dissatisfaction, what's your justification for wanting to change the theory of QM?

 

 

"....what's your justification for wanting to change the theory of QM?"  The correct answer is that Quantum Mechanics is not a theory. It is primarily a statistical system in quantum physics used to predict the probability of events in the quantum world. There is no consensus theory to it.

 

I believe generally speaking, simple logic can be used to simply organize and explain everything in the universe including the basis of Quantum Mechanics via theory. Nothing is complicated IMO. Everything that exists can be simply understood by an average person. Look at religion, for instance, and how educated people can believe such BS. I think everyone should strive to learn and understand the truth of everything, how things really work, not the pure BS we hear concerning Quantum and other modern physics. If an explanation does not seem logical to most people, it is either wrong or poorly explained. IMO complicated or bizarre explanations are not needed to understand anything in general.  Bottom line is that I do not like BS as a way to explain anything. BS is only necessary if you totally don't understand what you are talking about and you are only wildly guessing as to how it works, such as the god of the gaps. Perfect examples are most quantum theories. Many great experiments have been conducted in the name of science and then misinterpreted based upon wrong hypotheses.

 

The question becomes, what do we gain by understanding how quantum mechanics or the universe works? After all, Engineering develops nearly all technologies often with little science involved, so why do we need to understand how things work? I think this is a goal for most of humanity, not just the benefits from resulting technology, but to really understand the basic inter-workings of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

As to quantum entanglement:  When two electrons are very close to each other they become what they call entangled. This is something very simple. The spin of each creates a vortex in the background field that affects another close-by electron. To come close to each other their spin must be opposite like two close vortices interfering with each other. The spin of one affects the spin of the other. Once their spins are determined this way they are said to be entangled and opposite from each other; maybe entanglement is poor wording. If you send these particles off in different directions the spin of one will always be the opposite of the other if there are no interfering particles in their outward journey. The same entanglement relates to photons if the same circular light wave is going in opposite directions.

 

 But as the principle of Occam's Razor states, the simplest answer is the most likely answer, all else being equal.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your explanation. I believe in Aspect's experiment they sent two entangled particles off in different directions, and somewhere along the path a device flipped the spin of one particle. When they measured the spin of both particles at the end of the path, the other particle that had not been flipped by the experimenter appeared to have changed spin by itself. This has always intrigued me. What keeps particles entangled? And how do they manage this at lightspeed? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Thank you for your explanation. I believe in Aspect's experiment they sent two entangled particles off in different directions, and somewhere along the path a device flipped the spin of one particle. When they measured the spin of both particles at the end of the path, the other particle that had not been flipped by the experimenter appeared to have changed spin by itself. This has always intrigued me. What keeps particles entangled? And how do they manage this at lightspeed? 

 

 

 

I think Aspect's experiment is relatively simple to understand. The related statement in Quantum Mechanics dictates that "once two separate quantum systems (two particles for example) have interacted or if they have a common origin, they cannot be considered as two independent systems." In this case the single light wave had exactly the same origin in common. As I explained above, this is not spooky at all. It is an obvious truth. In Aspect's experiment he was dealing with light and photons going in the opposite direction. Looking at the wave property of light one can realize that these photons sent out in opposite directions were part of a single, circular wave of light that had the exact same origin and characteristics.

 

"The entangled quantum state remains identical — all else being equal — whatever the distances between both systems.

Consequently, any measurement operated on the entangled system is applicable to both elements constituting it: the measure results of both systems are correlated."

 

It seems obvious to me that the same circular light wave reaching equal distances but opposite directions hundreds of miles apart, will have correlated characteristics, spin etc.,  because it is part of the same original, singular, identical light wave. This should not be awe inspiring but expected based upon the simple logic of sticks and stones and traditional physics IMO.  Paradoxes abound when the subject involved is poorly understood.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect's_experiment
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Thank you for your explanation. I believe in Aspect's experiment they sent two entangled particles off in different directions, and somewhere along the path a device flipped the spin of one particle. When they measured the spin of both particles at the end of the path, the other particle that had not been flipped by the experimenter appeared to have changed spin by itself. This has always intrigued me. What keeps particles entangled? And how do they manage this at lightspeed? 

 

 

 

Hi again midniterider,  The experiment you discussed was not Aspect's experiment. This was a more difficult experiment to explain than Aspect's experimental explanation IMO.  I've explained this experiment you discussed in quotes from the link below:

 

"All fundamental particles have a property called spin, which doesn’t really mean they’re spinning around, but it does mean they have an orientation in space and an angular momentum. We can measure spin, but it all depends on the direction of measurement that we use. For example, if the spin of a particle is aligned with the direction of our measurement, then we say that particle has an up spin. If it doesn’t, it has a down spin.

 

But we can also measure spin horizontally - which means that we’ll have a 50/50 chance of the spin lining up with our measurement (up) or not (down). This means that we can change the direction of spin just by measuring it.

 

To test quantum entanglement (via this experiment), you need to take two particles that have been prepared in the same way. For example, formed spontaneously out of energy (EM radiation). And because the total angular moment of the Universe must stay constant, you can then predict that if you measure one of these entangled particles and they have an up spin, then the other one in the pair must have a down spin - otherwise the laws of the Universe would be breached.

That means that, effectively, the two entangled particles don’t actually have a well-defined spin until you measure them. They're basically spin-less until the first one is measured - and that value then determines the spin of the second particle.

 

We know this is true because even when scientists measure the spin of particles horizontally, which should give them a 50/50 chance of getting an up or down spin, the second particle always has an opposite spin to the first particle.

 

Einstein, of course, came up with another theory to explain this - what if the particles contain secret information that we just can’t measure? What if they've known all along what their spins will be, and it’s this that causes them to always be opposite, not entanglement?" (end of quote)

 

We know that light waves are not uniform, even those of the same frequency and intensity. There are minor variations in both the frequency and intensity being produced and magnetic characteristics from wave to wave, even though for individual waves such differences cannot be tested. These are the individual differences that Einstein referred to as "secret information." In horizontal testing, as explained above, how do they known that there is a 50-50 chance of getting an up or down spin upon testing. Just test a thousand consecutive waves and generally half will have a spin in one direction and the other half in the opposite direction. But each individual wave when going through a magnetic detector may be able to turn only in one direction based upon its individual differences and combination of characteristics. Nearly all waves having these individual characteristics will turn their spin only one way when going through a horizontal detector, and the other directional detector of the wave will turn only in the opposite direction. This is generally Einstein's interpretation proposing individual differences. This interpretation provides a logical explanation of the experiment IMO. What is not logical is the interpretation that when you change the spin in one direction of the wave, you automatically, instantaneously change the direction of spin of the wave moving in the opposite direction, no matter how far apart the distance between the two photons. IMO this type of thinking is typical of the illogical and fantastic conclusions involved in Quantum Theory and related interpretations.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-this-is-how-quantum-entanglement-really-works

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/light-waves/introduction-to-light-waves/a/light-and-the-electromagnetic-spectrum

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.