29 ms·

I'm not familiar with this particular experiment, but all my pondering on the subject - as a layman - leads me to a simple conclusion. The properties these exp

by hasenj 11y ago

I'm not familiar with this particular experiment, but all my pondering on the subject - as a layman - leads me to a simple conclusion. The properties these experiments are measuring are simply bogus. They are not well defined. The answer that comes out is not some intrinsic property of the "particle", but the result of the environment in which the particle interacted with the "measurement" system, so to speak. The particle has some other properties, but what's being "measured" is not one of those properties. How can I explain? Imagine someone who has never tried any Korean food, and you try to ask him/her: what's your favorite Korean food? There's no answer. So you try to "measure" it by feeding him some Korean items and recording his facial expressions. He will like some items more than others, but it has nothing to do with "his favorite Korean food", and has more to do with how the items were prepared and his mood at the time. A "point" location for a photon is never defined; it's not a property of a photon that it exists in a point in space. When you fire a photon at a "wall" and see a "blip", you're not seeing the position of the photon at some point in time. You're seeing the rough position of the atom that had an electron that absorbed the photon's energy, and I'm not even sure the atom has a well defined point position either. The whole thing is an artifact (a side effect) of some interaction between several systems and doesn't really tell you anything fundamental about the photon (or the quantum object). At least that's how I understand it.

FranOntanaya 11y ago
Intuition tells me this is like saying a droplet of water can both be a sphere and a single point because it'll pass through several holes on a net, but capillary action makes it collapse into a needle.
ilitirit 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
- hasenj 11y ago
  When people talk about hidden variable theories they still assume a definite answer exists. I'm saying the answer doesn't exist because the question is not really valid in some sense. Which kind of coincides with the idea that "the observable doesn't exist until measured", but I'm taking a little further and saying, it doesn't exist even when "measured" because you're not really measuring the thing you think you're measuring.
  - drdeca 11y ago
    It seems to me there would still be a fact of the matter as to whether the person would enjoy a particular type of food prepared in a certain way, in a certain context, even if that situation never occurs or is considered?
    - hasenj 11y ago
      That's the point. Something is the matter of fact, but it's not what the original question was. The original question is bogus. The way you perform the "measurement" influences the answer you get. Also if you repeat the measurement multiple times, results will change. From my personal experience, I didn't like soy sauce at first, but then I got used to it and started to really like it.
Kequc 11y ago
The topic outlined in the OP's article has been raised before, multiple times, once every couple of years. It was even the focus of a cult indoctrination propaganda piece called "what the bleep do we know". http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.h... Essentially, yes, it's bogus science. Quantum physics are much more complex than these articles ever bring on. But by explaining it simply, it sounds awe inspiring and so it propagates across social media. Over and over again. It isn't that particles exist in multiple states until they are measured. It is that the mechanism by which you measure very small things affects the outcome.
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  The canonical example is to try to measure the position of pins in a bowling alley using a bowling ball.
- dghf 11y ago
  > It isn't that particles exist in multiple states until they are measured. I thought it was exactly that. Or rather, particles exist in multiple states, and when they are measured, either those multiple states collapse into one (Copenhagen Interpretation) or you, the measurer (who also exists in multiple states), gets entangled with them, causing each of your states to perceive exactly one of the particles' states (Many-Worlds Interpretation). Unless Bohmian mechanics is correct, in which case no, particles don't exist in multiple states, but do depend on faster-than-light transmission of information about the state of other particles.
  - Kequc 11y ago
    I'm personally a really big fan of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. Because a brief abstraction would mean every person will live as long as is physically possible. To outside observers, you may have died at any point along the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortalit... But, regardless. The copenhagen interpretation is from the 1920's. That isn't to say it's wrong, it's just out of date. It has been expanded upon or replaced since then so why hold onto it, what is the current understanding. The most important takeaway here is that since measuring very small things affects its outcome, it is currently impossible to know. Articles like this one in the OP bother me because they don't know either. But it always becomes a sensation and spreads misinformation.

by hasenj 11y ago

FranOntanaya 11y ago

Intuition tells me this is like saying a droplet of water can both be a sphere and a single point because it'll pass through several holes on a net, but capillary action makes it collapse into a needle.

ilitirit 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

hasenj 11y ago
When people talk about hidden variable theories they still assume a definite answer exists. I'm saying the answer doesn't exist because the question is not really valid in some sense. Which kind of coincides with the idea that "the observable doesn't exist until measured", but I'm taking a little further and saying, it doesn't exist even when "measured" because you're not really measuring the thing you think you're measuring.
- drdeca 11y ago
  It seems to me there would still be a fact of the matter as to whether the person would enjoy a particular type of food prepared in a certain way, in a certain context, even if that situation never occurs or is considered?
  - hasenj 11y ago
    That's the point. Something is the matter of fact, but it's not what the original question was. The original question is bogus. The way you perform the "measurement" influences the answer you get. Also if you repeat the measurement multiple times, results will change. From my personal experience, I didn't like soy sauce at first, but then I got used to it and started to really like it.

Kequc 11y ago

The topic outlined in the OP's article has been raised before, multiple times, once every couple of years. It was even the focus of a cult indoctrination propaganda piece called "what the bleep do we know". http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.h... Essentially, yes, it's bogus science. Quantum physics are much more complex than these articles ever bring on. But by explaining it simply, it sounds awe inspiring and so it propagates across social media. Over and over again. It isn't that particles exist in multiple states until they are measured. It is that the mechanism by which you measure very small things affects the outcome.

jschwartzi 11y ago
The canonical example is to try to measure the position of pins in a bowling alley using a bowling ball.
dghf 11y ago
> It isn't that particles exist in multiple states until they are measured. I thought it was exactly that. Or rather, particles exist in multiple states, and when they are measured, either those multiple states collapse into one (Copenhagen Interpretation) or you, the measurer (who also exists in multiple states), gets entangled with them, causing each of your states to perceive exactly one of the particles' states (Many-Worlds Interpretation). Unless Bohmian mechanics is correct, in which case no, particles don't exist in multiple states, but do depend on faster-than-light transmission of information about the state of other particles.
- Kequc 11y ago
  I'm personally a really big fan of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. Because a brief abstraction would mean every person will live as long as is physically possible. To outside observers, you may have died at any point along the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortalit... But, regardless. The copenhagen interpretation is from the 1920's. That isn't to say it's wrong, it's just out of date. It has been expanded upon or replaced since then so why hold onto it, what is the current understanding. The most important takeaway here is that since measuring very small things affects its outcome, it is currently impossible to know. Articles like this one in the OP bother me because they don't know either. But it always becomes a sensation and spreads misinformation.