4 ms·
Physicist working on QM here. At the macroscopic scale we are led to believe that the properties of a system have a value regardless of whether that value is “k
by ziofill 2y ago
Physicist working on QM here. At the macroscopic scale we are led to believe that the properties of a system have a value regardless of whether that value is “known” externally to the system. Then a measurement process would simply reveal the pre-existing value. But we can concoct a QM system such that it is impossible to assign a pre-existing value of a property in a consistent way (look for GHZ game to know more). This leads to true randomness in the most literal sense possible: there can exist no cause for a given value. That value materialized out of thin air.
- hilbert42 2y ago"…we are led to believe…" "That value materialized out of thin air." Then, you are questioning the whole premise?
- Filligree 2y agoThis article describes one in a long, long series of experiments demonstrating that particles don’t exist and our intuition is simply wrong. Imagine a gigantic, epic mountain of evidence tall enough to crush the resistance of even the most recalcitrant physicists. Particles are not real. Quantum fields are, which contain excitations, which because of conservation laws cannot simply disappear on their own and therefore in many common circumstances appear to persist and maintain an identity. There’s our “particles”. But it isn’t hard at all to devise an experiment that breaks our intuition like a dried up stick.
- hilbert42 2y agoI'm not in QM but electronics, still I accept QFT on evidence. Had to give up intuition/bad training when coming to grips with Aharonov–Bohm and related. Still, on bad days when (4kRTΔf)^0.5 or such gets in my way, I default and accuse my noisy little 'charges' of being too big and that they rattle around like large ball-bearings in an empty oil drum.