Crosswords8 mins ago
What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement?
Question posed at Edge magazine website.Among them some fairly controversial recommendations, I think, either because to discard them seems counter-intuitive, or because others are somewhat cherished, like Moores Law.
Have a browse at your leisure, see what you think :)
http://
Have a browse at your leisure, see what you think :)
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim360 //
I'll have a look at the original papers if I can. But I fancy that I understand QM rather better than Reuters does. It -- and you -- are confusing the concept of superposition, when a particle exists in a number of states simultaenously, but is not being observed, with what happens after it was observed. If you went and watched that particle, you would see it stationary, or in motion, but not both. Before that observation, it could have been both, but it could not have been both while being seen. //
You are confused about the nature of observation. It is as though you believe that the light being reflected into the human eye directly from the object is a special thing.
In this experiment they saw "Each version of the atom interfered with the other in a measurable way". Hence they observed the atom in both positions simultaneously. Otherwise it would not have behaved in this way.
What is important is they did this without bringing it out of the Quantum superpositioned state. It worked because they did not detect the exact location of the atom, just that it behaved as though it was in both those locations at the same time.
This proved beyond any doubt that a common classical reinterpretation of Quantum Mechanics is wrong. Many scientists including Einstein were convinced that the system is in one state or the other and we simply have no way of predicting it prior to the observation.
Or as you put it:
"But while there is no observation being made, our ignorance of its location can be captured by a mathematical statement that implies that, before a measurement, the particle could equally well be in any of two places (or three or four or indeed anywhere). "
It isn't a matter of it being in ANY of the places before the observation, it is a case of it simultaneously being in ALL of those places.
Your misunderstanding is very common.
I'll have a look at the original papers if I can. But I fancy that I understand QM rather better than Reuters does. It -- and you -- are confusing the concept of superposition, when a particle exists in a number of states simultaenously, but is not being observed, with what happens after it was observed. If you went and watched that particle, you would see it stationary, or in motion, but not both. Before that observation, it could have been both, but it could not have been both while being seen. //
You are confused about the nature of observation. It is as though you believe that the light being reflected into the human eye directly from the object is a special thing.
In this experiment they saw "Each version of the atom interfered with the other in a measurable way". Hence they observed the atom in both positions simultaneously. Otherwise it would not have behaved in this way.
What is important is they did this without bringing it out of the Quantum superpositioned state. It worked because they did not detect the exact location of the atom, just that it behaved as though it was in both those locations at the same time.
This proved beyond any doubt that a common classical reinterpretation of Quantum Mechanics is wrong. Many scientists including Einstein were convinced that the system is in one state or the other and we simply have no way of predicting it prior to the observation.
Or as you put it:
"But while there is no observation being made, our ignorance of its location can be captured by a mathematical statement that implies that, before a measurement, the particle could equally well be in any of two places (or three or four or indeed anywhere). "
It isn't a matter of it being in ANY of the places before the observation, it is a case of it simultaneously being in ALL of those places.
Your misunderstanding is very common.
I don't think that the human observation is the important thing -- the laws of QM refer only to a measurement being an operator and say nothing about the nature of that operator other than that it takes real eigenvalues. So no, I'm not confused about the nature of observation for starters.
Secondly, as you say "What is important is they did this without bringing it out of the Quantum superpositioned state. It worked because they did not detect the exact location of the atom, just that it behaved as though it was in both those locations at the same time. "
This therefore means that it was not "observed" to be in two places at once, but it "behaved" as if it were in two places at once. There is a huge difference between those two statements.
I think we both know what we are talking about, and the clash is over the use of language. Either way, I know what I am talking about too.
Secondly, as you say "What is important is they did this without bringing it out of the Quantum superpositioned state. It worked because they did not detect the exact location of the atom, just that it behaved as though it was in both those locations at the same time. "
This therefore means that it was not "observed" to be in two places at once, but it "behaved" as if it were in two places at once. There is a huge difference between those two statements.
I think we both know what we are talking about, and the clash is over the use of language. Either way, I know what I am talking about too.
jim360 - "[It is not the flag that moves, it is your mind that moves] - Why couldn't wise man have said "both the flag and the wind move; it doesn't have to be a choice between one or the other"?"
Because then it wouldn't really qualify as metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, the likes of which Khandro seems to think are oh-so mysterious, wise and revealing. As you have rightly alluded to, it's an effectively meaningless and therefore essentially vacuous statement that doesn't belong on a scientific thread.
Because then it wouldn't really qualify as metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, the likes of which Khandro seems to think are oh-so mysterious, wise and revealing. As you have rightly alluded to, it's an effectively meaningless and therefore essentially vacuous statement that doesn't belong on a scientific thread.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV20 mins ago
Morgan Freeman Speaks His Mind!
History28 mins ago
Please Help Me Find More Of These.....
Jokes37 mins ago
Body & Soul42 mins ago
Crosswords66 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.