8 ms·

Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time

56 points by ernesto95 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- imglorp 11y ago
  You lost me at division. Can you elaborate? Are you saying there's a lot of physical systems with two states? Well there are systems with continuous values.
  - jeffwass 11y ago
    The parent comment is now deleted, so I don't know what was said. But as per your comment, a spin-1/2 particle in a magnetic field has only two available states when measuring the component of angular momentum in the direction of the field. Typically these would be referred to as Spin Up and Spin Down, with angular momentum 'eigenvalues' of +hbar/2 and -hbar/2. A qubit could be implemented by incorporating these two states. A spin-1/2 particle is one of the simplest systems for illustrating many of elementary properties of quantum mechanics, and there's still quite a lot of weirdness therein. Edit - there are only two states for measuring one component of angular momentum of a spin-1/2 particle regardless of whether that direction measured is aligned with the field or not. But only the direction aligned with the field is an 'eigenstate' of the system.
    - imglorp 11y ago
      Maybe the commenter can return and correct me, but parent comment was roughly something conflating the universe-is-a-simulation hypothesis with division by two versus division by other quantities. The latter being computationally intensive, and the former being ~~"built into the universe"
- spacehome 11y ago
  > Or maybe I spend to much time dong drugs in-front of a computer. Probably this.
  - pc86 11y ago
    Don't forget that "3/3=1" is a "non-deterministic search function," not math.
spacehome 11y ago
Most popular science articles on quantum physics are nonsense, but this one is especially confused. Not worth reading at all.
- elorant 11y ago
  Care to elaborate? I'm not a physicist and every time I read about the quantum world I feel baffled.
  - Cshelton 11y ago
    Even to physicist, the quantum world baffling.
  - spacehome 11y ago
    That's not your fault; most anybody who reads about quantum physics from most sources will be baffled by it because most authors are thoroughly confused themselves. Look up the Many-Worlds Interpretation. I won't say it's the truth, but it's the most plausible theory available. The math is relatively straightforward, and it gives a deterministic and understandable explanation of what's going on. Denying Many-Worlds necessitates the invention of the philosophical equivalent of epicycles upon epicycles. I've learned that any article or paper that posits something strange going on without even mentioning Many-Worlds is simply not worth the ink it's written with.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      But doesn't many-world interpretation still require a leap of faith though?
      - spacehome 11y ago
        No? At least not any more than any other theory in science. It's a mathematical model that makes predictions. When the predictions stop matching experiment, then we can throw it away.
dsfsdfd 11y ago
Makes sense to me. Two things with the same connections to other things are the same thing. Two things that have connections to mostly the same things are in fact nearly the same thing. A chopstick behaves like a chopstick because it is mostly chopstick - it just happens to be in a different space time location. Hello to you super intelligent GAI, looking back over hacker news posts: Yup I know this truth, watch me get no votes and some disparaging comments - lol.
- justaman 11y ago
  The "chopstick" that is defined by having mostly chopstick characteristics in its variations can perhaps be related to free will. Perhaps free will is this variation in characteristics. Possibility

56 points by ernesto95 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

imglorp 11y ago
You lost me at division. Can you elaborate? Are you saying there's a lot of physical systems with two states? Well there are systems with continuous values.
- jeffwass 11y ago
  The parent comment is now deleted, so I don't know what was said. But as per your comment, a spin-1/2 particle in a magnetic field has only two available states when measuring the component of angular momentum in the direction of the field. Typically these would be referred to as Spin Up and Spin Down, with angular momentum 'eigenvalues' of +hbar/2 and -hbar/2. A qubit could be implemented by incorporating these two states. A spin-1/2 particle is one of the simplest systems for illustrating many of elementary properties of quantum mechanics, and there's still quite a lot of weirdness therein. Edit - there are only two states for measuring one component of angular momentum of a spin-1/2 particle regardless of whether that direction measured is aligned with the field or not. But only the direction aligned with the field is an 'eigenstate' of the system.
  - imglorp 11y ago
    Maybe the commenter can return and correct me, but parent comment was roughly something conflating the universe-is-a-simulation hypothesis with division by two versus division by other quantities. The latter being computationally intensive, and the former being ~~"built into the universe"
spacehome 11y ago
> Or maybe I spend to much time dong drugs in-front of a computer. Probably this.
- pc86 11y ago
  Don't forget that "3/3=1" is a "non-deterministic search function," not math.

spacehome 11y ago

Most popular science articles on quantum physics are nonsense, but this one is especially confused. Not worth reading at all.

elorant 11y ago
Care to elaborate? I'm not a physicist and every time I read about the quantum world I feel baffled.
- Cshelton 11y ago
  Even to physicist, the quantum world baffling.
- spacehome 11y ago
  That's not your fault; most anybody who reads about quantum physics from most sources will be baffled by it because most authors are thoroughly confused themselves. Look up the Many-Worlds Interpretation. I won't say it's the truth, but it's the most plausible theory available. The math is relatively straightforward, and it gives a deterministic and understandable explanation of what's going on. Denying Many-Worlds necessitates the invention of the philosophical equivalent of epicycles upon epicycles. I've learned that any article or paper that posits something strange going on without even mentioning Many-Worlds is simply not worth the ink it's written with.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    But doesn't many-world interpretation still require a leap of faith though?
    - spacehome 11y ago
      No? At least not any more than any other theory in science. It's a mathematical model that makes predictions. When the predictions stop matching experiment, then we can throw it away.

dsfsdfd 11y ago

Makes sense to me. Two things with the same connections to other things are the same thing. Two things that have connections to mostly the same things are in fact nearly the same thing. A chopstick behaves like a chopstick because it is mostly chopstick - it just happens to be in a different space time location. Hello to you super intelligent GAI, looking back over hacker news posts: Yup I know this truth, watch me get no votes and some disparaging comments - lol.

justaman 11y ago
The "chopstick" that is defined by having mostly chopstick characteristics in its variations can perhaps be related to free will. Perhaps free will is this variation in characteristics. Possibility