Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Spooky Action At A Distance' Of Quantum Mechanics Directly Observed
Science Daily ^ | March 4, 2009 | staff

Posted on 03/11/2009 8:20:34 PM PDT by grey_whiskers

ScienceDaily (Mar. 4, 2009) — In quantum mechanics, a vanguard of physics where science often merges into philosophy, much of our understanding is based on conjecture and probabilities, but a group of researchers in Japan has moved one of the fundamental paradoxes in quantum mechanics into the lab for experimentation and observed some of the 'spooky action at a distance' of quantum mechanics directly,

Hardy's Paradox, the axiom that we cannot make inferences about past events that haven't been directly observed while also acknowledging that the very act of observation affects the reality we seek to unearth, poses a conundrum that quantum physicists have sought to overcome for decades. How do you observe quantum mechanics, atomic and sub-atomic systems that are so small-scale they cannot be described in classical terms, when the act of looking at them changes them permanently?

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Science; Society; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: hardysparadox; photons; physics; quantum; stringtheory
Cheers!
1 posted on 03/11/2009 8:20:34 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: doc30; decimon; snarks_when_bored; shove_it
Like, *PING*, dudes.
2 posted on 03/11/2009 8:21:12 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
How do you observe quantum mechanics, atomic and sub-atomic systems that are so small-scale they cannot be described in classical terms, when the act of looking at them changes them permanently?

Put 'em on Olbermann's show. Nobody's watching that.

3 posted on 03/11/2009 8:26:49 PM PDT by JennysCool (Ted Kennedy has a Knighthood. Patrick Macnee does not. Go figure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

HUm.

Did you see that?

Nope? Did you? Nope.


4 posted on 03/11/2009 8:27:27 PM PDT by Danae (Amerikan Unity My Ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I’ll have to read the paper. The article is very poorly worded.


5 posted on 03/11/2009 8:28:16 PM PDT by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Action at a distance?

Yeah.

zer0bama proposes some new fascist scheme in Washington DC ...

And in New York, the DJIA drops another 350 points ...

Spooky.

6 posted on 03/11/2009 8:29:51 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
Aye. Try googling "Hardy paradox" and the authors' names...?

Cheers!

7 posted on 03/11/2009 8:31:47 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

bookmark


8 posted on 03/11/2009 8:36:43 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; Clock King
The Paper.
9 posted on 03/11/2009 8:37:31 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Clock King

“I’ll have to read the paper. The article is very poorly worded.”

Yes, unfortunately the author of this article does not fully understand the very interesting subject they are writing about.


11 posted on 03/11/2009 8:38:33 PM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

bump


12 posted on 03/11/2009 8:39:24 PM PDT by Captain Beyond (The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere

I’d read about it but then if I did it would be observed and so would change... I’ll just leave it for now wntil
I know it needs changing.


13 posted on 03/11/2009 8:42:18 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

this phenomena is intriguing


14 posted on 03/11/2009 8:42:33 PM PDT by TerP26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Sweet. Thanks very much.

Cheers!

15 posted on 03/11/2009 8:48:31 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Interesting that a quantum system can go back to its earlier, uncollapsed state after the measurement influence is removed. It goes “back in time” and again occupies all possible locations/modes (think I read that in a different paper referenced in the sidebar).


16 posted on 03/11/2009 9:00:59 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Ping


17 posted on 03/11/2009 9:01:44 PM PDT by IYellAtMyTV (Workday Forecast--Increasing pressure towards afternoon. Rum likely by evening.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve86
If you could find the link, I'd be grateful...

Cheers!

18 posted on 03/11/2009 9:05:52 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

“they used a measurement technique that has an almost imperceptible impact on the experiment”

Almost imperceptible. If one observes, it changes the results. So we only peeked at the particles and it didn’t matter? Werner Heisenberg has a few things to say about that.


19 posted on 03/11/2009 9:08:32 PM PDT by voveo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voveo
So we only peeked at the particles and it didn’t matter?

They were also wearing very dark sunglasses when they peeked.

20 posted on 03/11/2009 9:30:25 PM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: voveo
So we only peeked at the particles and it didn’t matter?

They assure the particle it was an accident and it should go about doing whatever it was doing beforehand, they won't do it again, they swear.

21 posted on 03/11/2009 9:56:44 PM PDT by eclecticEel (I already have a Messiah, I don't need another one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: voveo
If one observes, it changes the results.

Only if they get caught.
You clearly missed quantum-plausible-deniability class!

(c8
22 posted on 03/11/2009 10:08:18 PM PDT by NonLinear ( If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

ping


23 posted on 03/11/2009 10:48:40 PM PDT by TheThinker (Shame and guilt mongering is the Left's favorite tool of control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Stan and Ollie’s Paradox?


24 posted on 03/12/2009 12:19:00 AM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voveo
It only changed each observation a little, and they compensated for that by doing many runs.

Werner Heisenberg has a few things to say about that.

Cheers!

25 posted on 03/12/2009 4:06:26 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker
Thanks for pinging me to my own thread...

Cheers!

26 posted on 03/12/2009 4:07:11 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinanju
This is *another* fine mess you've gotten us into...

Cheers!

27 posted on 03/12/2009 4:11:55 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

So, if I read a liberal newspaper, I can change the ink at the subatomic level to transform the shape of the letters into words that I like better?

Who knew?


28 posted on 03/12/2009 4:13:37 AM PDT by wxgesr (I want to be the first person to surf on another planet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Unlike Hardy’s original argument, our demonstration reveals the paradox by observation, rather than inference.”

This seems to be a mistaken conclusion.

Hardy’s Paradox: “the axiom that we cannot make inferences about past events that haven’t been directly observed while also acknowledging that the very act of observation affects the reality we seek to unearth”

If the observation affects the reality, the paradox applies. If the observation does not affect the reality, the paradox does not apply. By older technology, the observation affected the reality. With newer technology, an observation can be made in a less obtrusive manner, so that it does not affect the reality. That means that the paradox does not apply. It’s wrong to say that the paradox has been observed. It just does not apply.

It is kind of like saying that the ancient Greeks were wrong about atoms being the smallest building blocks of matter. They said there were smallest building blocks, which they called “atoms.” Modern scientists concluded that we had found the smallest building blocks, and they called them “atoms.” Later, scientists concluded that there were “sub-atomic” particles. This doesn’t mean that the ancient Greeks (ancient geeks) were wrong. It means that some modern scientists were wrong when they concluded that they had identified the smallest particles. They only identified the smallest particles known at that time.


29 posted on 03/12/2009 7:09:01 AM PDT by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert
Interesting take, and I haven't gone through the appendices in the original paper well enough to be confident in my conclusions...but it seems like they observed "a bit", in order that their disturbing of the system observed, for *each trial*, was limited to within some error bars -- like the difference between dirty eyeglasses and taking them off entirely :-)

Then they acquired statistics of (and hence information of the quantum states) by averaging over many trials.

I liked your comment at the end, btw -- the modern scientists jumped the gun on deciding what entity really was an ἄτομος.

Cheers!

30 posted on 03/12/2009 3:42:10 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IYellAtMyTV; AdmSmith; bvw; callisto; ckilmer; dandelion; ganeshpuri89; gobucks; KevinDavis; ...
Thanks IYellAtMyTV.

· Google ·

31 posted on 03/12/2009 5:07:07 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: voveo

If Werner’s mistress had not forced him to get entangled with ... oh, never mind.


32 posted on 03/12/2009 5:12:35 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

“’Spooky Action At A Distance’ Of Quantum Mechanics Directly Observed.”

Well, if it’s directly observed, how spooky is that?


33 posted on 03/12/2009 6:20:29 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ("It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy
About this spooky.

DON'T say you weren't warned.

Cheers!

34 posted on 03/12/2009 6:58:31 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Oh Jeez, my heart!!!


35 posted on 03/12/2009 7:23:45 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ("It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; ChessExpert
"Then they acquired statistics of (and hence information of the quantum states) by averaging over many trials"

Yet there is still no way that they can be assured that there isn't some significant, yet undeterminable systematic influence affecting their observations.

It would be illogical to expect to observe anything without affecting it. Its just that in our everyday measurements the uncertainty gets buried in the everpresent noise.

36 posted on 03/12/2009 8:09:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; chessmaster
Yet there is still no way that they can be assured that there isn't some significant, yet undeterminable systematic influence affecting their observations.

??? Sorry, I'm not sure I'm quite following you.

It would be illogical to expect to observe anything without affecting it. Its just that in our everyday measurements the uncertainty gets buried in the everpresent noise.

It's more than that -- it's that the magnitude of the uncertainty is also much smaller (Planck's constant) than the quantity being measured. Even with much higher precision, the error introduced is insignificant in such cases.

37 posted on 03/12/2009 8:11:33 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
"I'm quite following you."

There is likely to be a systematic bias in the way that they gathered their statistical data, of which they are unaware.

38 posted on 03/12/2009 8:33:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Sorry, not trying to be difficult -- could you point to something specific, or reference the paper?

Cheers!

39 posted on 03/12/2009 8:35:17 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

You provided a nice description of their technique. You are following the science.

I was merely following some of the philosophy and logic. I was a little surprised that their logical reasoning appeared wrong (on one point). I would have thought that logic would be easy and experimental science hard. Perhaps for some people it’s the other way around.


40 posted on 03/12/2009 10:01:39 PM PDT by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Hmmm! I suspicious of any article by people who have to depend on a weak joint.

Is this just a subtle add for Viagra???

41 posted on 03/12/2009 10:28:00 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
You're welcome. I don't see any paradoxes here. Hardy's setup is given in Fig. 1 contained in this paper by Abramov. The arms are Mach-Zehnder interferometers. That means, only the C detectors will go off, because of constructive interference. The D detectors will never go off, because that path would have destructive interference, or the particles would be annihilated and there'd be nothing to set off the detector.

I also don't believe in "weak measurements". The weak "expectation values", or "observables" are expectation values divided by an amplitude. Of what use, or meaning is that?

If one wants to ponder spooky action at a distance, consider the particulars of B meson decay, subsequent to Upsilon(4S) decay. The ϒ(4S) is composed of a bottom quark(b) and an antibottom quark (¯b). It decays as in (d) in the following fig.(and link), where q and ¯q represent up(u), or down(d) quarks and their corresponding antiparticle.

Immediately after the ϒ(4S) decays, the 2 B particles exist as a pair of flavor oscillating particles. Neither particle takes on a definite identity, until one of them decays into a definite B0, or +/-, or it's antiparticle. ie. B0<->¯B0, or B+<->¯B-. Then the other particle can know what it must turn into. The decay of the 2nd B particle begins, with a particular rate corresponding to the decay of one of the 4 modes given in the link. Until one of the particles decays from the flavor oscillation, the other can not know what it must turn into. By the time it happens, the particles are too far apart for light speed comms to have an effect. The 2nd particle knows instantaneously what it must decay into.

This link has some more on that.

42 posted on 03/13/2009 12:38:30 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
2 in the morning -- I take it you are not in the Continental US?

I have to get ready for work, I'll look at this tonight, thanks for the link...

Cheers!

43 posted on 03/13/2009 4:15:08 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SuperLuminal
Is this just a subtle add for Viagra???

I think that you're confusing "hadrons" with "hardons".

This often happens in theoretical physics, and is known as the "Randall effect", after its originator, Lisa Randall.

Cheers!

44 posted on 03/13/2009 4:16:55 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; SuperLuminal
Re: My post 44.

Speaking of "action at a distance" , that is :-)

Cheers!

45 posted on 03/13/2009 4:17:45 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
"I think that you're confusing "hadrons" with "hardons". "

Wow! A true epiphany! (As well as funniest thing I've read in decades!)

I finally understand...no wonder I received some strange peer reviews back in the 60's and 70's....

46 posted on 03/13/2009 10:48:37 AM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Thanks. World Headquarters...


47 posted on 03/13/2009 7:34:28 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Dude, you're NEXT DOOR!

(Go Vikings!)

Cheers!

48 posted on 03/13/2009 8:52:16 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

If information is not lost in a black hole, then consider the information from our own duality in having been alive, but gradually dead. Two sides to an equation.

If God is good - as I believe - then sorting out such energy would seem an early step on the way to heaven, or cutting all but consciousness for those bound for hell so they might observe what they otherwise might have shared.

“If I knew God I’d be Him.” ...But I know too that by Israel, meaning to “struggle”, and islam meaning to “submit”...I’ll yet struggle, thanks.


49 posted on 03/14/2009 8:36:47 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson