4 ms·

No, physicists are pretty comfortable with that one. It isn't immediately intuitive, but the models we have are powerful and predictive. There is of course a so

No, physicists are pretty comfortable with that one. It isn't immediately intuitive, but the models we have are powerful and predictive. There is of course a somewhat open question as to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. That question is almost metaphysics, whereas the problems quoted in the article are more holes in our present theory.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
Well, they're comfortable because the phenomenon is well-studied, we have very good models and can with good accuracy predict what will happen. What we don't know is why exactly it behaves in this way.
- andrewgleave 5y ago
  One explanation is the "Many-Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
- khafra 5y ago
  The word "why" (and other references to causation) don't work in a normal way when you're talking about fundamental physics, because fundamental physics is the lowest-level model within which causation takes place. To ask "why" some part of the standard model is the way it is, you either invoke some rubric for comparing models, like Occam's Razor; or you indulge in metaphysics and speculate on the nature of whomever is running the Simulation. Either of these is a different meaning than the "why" of "why do rockets work in space."
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    Well, you made quiet a few assumptions here. We don't yet know how much fundamental quarks are and what (if anything) hides in the subquark level. Given the lack of adequate instruments, our minds and unconventional approaches are our most powerful tools at this point. For example, we generally consider the space between particles as void. We can't see anything, we can't detect anything, so we assume there's nothing there. But for what it's worth, there could be trillions of unknown particles that don't interact with matter. So why would it matter, you ask? Because it's not impossible that under certain conditions some of these might cluster into matter or interact with it in unobvious ways. The existence of dark matter and energy (or the related phenomena) indicates this is not impossible. But yes, I see your point. However, I hope we get deeper into understanding this phenomenon before I die. Who knows, maybe it's because of some yet-undiscovered aspect of photons, and metaphysical speculation is not necessary?
DangitBobby 5y ago
I thought the most surprising thing about wave/particle duality is that the act of observation itself is what causes the waveform of particles to collapse. Do we know of a mechanism for that? Are we not still surprised that you change the outcome of events by changing where you look?
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  As I understand it, collapse is an artifact of the necessity to derive classical results from an experiment. You can think of it as "at a certain scale, calculating this as a quantum system as opposed to classical is no longer worth it." But it's of course still a quantum system, because everything is quantum all the time.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    I don't think so. The double-slit experiment demonstrates light acting as a wave in some circumstances and as individual photons in others [1]. > the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.[5][6] The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen – a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles.[5][7] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves); the interference pattern appears via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen.[8] Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave).[9][10][11][12][13] However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. These results demonstrate the principle of wave–particle duality.[14][15] This is the part I'm talking about, mainly. > However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. Once they are measured, you know where they are and they stop acting like a wave. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

Well, they're comfortable because the phenomenon is well-studied, we have very good models and can with good accuracy predict what will happen. What we don't know is why exactly it behaves in this way.

andrewgleave 5y ago
One explanation is the "Many-Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
khafra 5y ago
The word "why" (and other references to causation) don't work in a normal way when you're talking about fundamental physics, because fundamental physics is the lowest-level model within which causation takes place. To ask "why" some part of the standard model is the way it is, you either invoke some rubric for comparing models, like Occam's Razor; or you indulge in metaphysics and speculate on the nature of whomever is running the Simulation. Either of these is a different meaning than the "why" of "why do rockets work in space."
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  Well, you made quiet a few assumptions here. We don't yet know how much fundamental quarks are and what (if anything) hides in the subquark level. Given the lack of adequate instruments, our minds and unconventional approaches are our most powerful tools at this point. For example, we generally consider the space between particles as void. We can't see anything, we can't detect anything, so we assume there's nothing there. But for what it's worth, there could be trillions of unknown particles that don't interact with matter. So why would it matter, you ask? Because it's not impossible that under certain conditions some of these might cluster into matter or interact with it in unobvious ways. The existence of dark matter and energy (or the related phenomena) indicates this is not impossible. But yes, I see your point. However, I hope we get deeper into understanding this phenomenon before I die. Who knows, maybe it's because of some yet-undiscovered aspect of photons, and metaphysical speculation is not necessary?

DangitBobby 5y ago

I thought the most surprising thing about wave/particle duality is that the act of observation itself is what causes the waveform of particles to collapse. Do we know of a mechanism for that? Are we not still surprised that you change the outcome of events by changing where you look?

FeepingCreature 5y ago
As I understand it, collapse is an artifact of the necessity to derive classical results from an experiment. You can think of it as "at a certain scale, calculating this as a quantum system as opposed to classical is no longer worth it." But it's of course still a quantum system, because everything is quantum all the time.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  I don't think so. The double-slit experiment demonstrates light acting as a wave in some circumstances and as individual photons in others [1]. > the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.[5][6] The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen – a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles.[5][7] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves); the interference pattern appears via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen.[8] Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave).[9][10][11][12][13] However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. These results demonstrate the principle of wave–particle duality.[14][15] This is the part I'm talking about, mainly. > However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. Once they are measured, you know where they are and they stop acting like a wave. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment