Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory
The New York Times ^ | December 27, 2005 | Dennis Overbye

Posted on 12/28/2005 1:42:38 PM PST by snarks_when_bored

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-123 last
To: snarks_when_bored

I assume this is why most physicists say information cannot be transmitted faster than light, even using entanglement.


101 posted on 12/29/2005 1:48:45 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
If you say so.........but it spins.......

A Galileo fan, eh? (smile)

102 posted on 12/29/2005 1:54:59 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I assume this is why most physicists say information cannot be transmitted faster than light, even using entanglement.

Right.

103 posted on 12/29/2005 1:56:12 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
This bewildering, branching view of 'reality' is called 'the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics' and is the preferred view of 'reality' of many quantum physicists.

But only in this reality.

104 posted on 12/29/2005 3:03:19 PM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

In the case of the quantum weirdness experiments they are doing with spin, it does. What they do is they isolate a particular spin probability that they are interested in measuring. They calculate what that probability ought to be based on quantum mechanics. Then they calculate what it ought to be based on Einstein's conjetures (and by the way, they never asked Einstein what he thought it ought to be because he had been dead for decades!).

Then they do their experiment to determine what the actual statistical probability is. The problem is that they can't measure the actual statistical probability even with their ingenius experiments because of the uncertainty principle. They can only make their own conjecture of what it is by measuring certain other statistics with different particles, and then backing into the result by applying the quantum equations to calculate what the probability must be, based upon those quantum mechanical equations. But if their theory is wrong to begin with, then what right do they have to do that?


105 posted on 12/29/2005 3:07:16 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
This bewildering, branching view of 'reality' is called 'the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics' and is the preferred view of 'reality' of many quantum physicists.

But only in this reality.

To which reality would you be referring?

106 posted on 12/29/2005 3:30:18 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
The one I was in when I posted that comment. Of course, I've made several dozen decisions since then, so I'm in a completely different reality now.

Great, now you've gone and messed it all up.

107 posted on 12/29/2005 4:54:28 PM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Don't you just hate it when that happens?


108 posted on 12/29/2005 5:05:28 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
I have discovered a truly marvelous 'dead cat bounce' joke, but this post is too brief to contain it.

By analogy to Fermat's last theorem? Or does it relate Paul Krugman to quantum states via "classically forbidden" mechanisms? ;-)

Cheers!

109 posted on 12/29/2005 7:11:03 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
I am currently both having sex with a beautiful.....oh, forget it.

Are you sure there are no "solitons" or "monopoles" involved ;-)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Cheers!

110 posted on 12/29/2005 7:13:35 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
(corresponding to eigenvalues of the Hermitian operator representing the quantum observable being measured)

...and keep in mind that by definition Hermitian operators have only real eigenvalues... :-)

111 posted on 12/29/2005 7:14:58 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
(corresponding to eigenvalues of the Hermitian operator representing the quantum observable being measured)

...and keep in mind that by definition Hermitian operators have only real eigenvalues... :-)

Indeed, g_w.

112 posted on 12/29/2005 7:49:23 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

LMAO


113 posted on 12/29/2005 7:55:23 PM PST by lmr (Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
I have discovered a truly marvelous 'dead cat bounce' joke, but this post is too brief to contain it.

By analogy to Fermat's last theorem? Or does it relate Paul Krugman to quantum states via "classically forbidden" mechanisms? ;-)

I knew I was being too obvious...dang.

114 posted on 12/29/2005 8:00:48 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Clever.


115 posted on 12/29/2005 8:08:49 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

"At this point, quantum mechanics is considered to be gospel, which is ironic. And it's especially perplexing when one considers that it is inconsisent with relativity, which is also considered to be gospel. And even more perplexing when you consider that quantum mechanics has no explanation for the existence of gravity, yet clearly gravity exists."

All true,
but in the realm of electromagnetism quantum mechanics is thoroughly sound. It has predicted (later confirmed) most of all we know about electron bonds (thus, chemistry and solid state physics). It has given us all of modern digital electronics.


116 posted on 12/29/2005 8:49:09 PM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The problem is that they can't measure the actual statistical probability even with their ingenious experiments because of the uncertainty principle.

I have been avoiding getting involved with this discussion, but you have put your finger upon the primary error.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say.

117 posted on 12/29/2005 8:54:22 PM PST by Hunble (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: edwin hubble

I don't have any problem with electrodynamics, chemistry, etc. The thing that sticks in my craw is the same thing that stuck in Einstein's craw. I don't think that the quantum world can be reduced to mere probability waves. There has got to be some underlying physical reality, and that is what modern quantum mechanics denies.

It seems to be pretty much accepted as a given in this day and age.


118 posted on 12/29/2005 9:33:36 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html

I read your link carefully. The only reason Mary can't get information faster than light is because the source in the middle emits paired electrons with a random setting. If the source only emits electron pairs that are green for position 1 and red for 2 and 3, then I can fix my detector to position 1, and Mary can set hers to position 2. If I turn my detector on, Mary will see 50/50 green/red. If I turn my detector off, she will see only red. Hence she can know whether my detector is on or off, which is information faster than the speed of light.

This doesn't violate locality or Einstein's information speed limit if the paired electrons share the same location while they appear to move away from each other. They both take their original location with them. This isn't communication over a distance, it's somehow sharing the same bit of universe location in what we incorrectly perceive as two distant locations.

It's a very interesting subject.

119 posted on 12/29/2005 10:26:39 PM PST by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

LOLOLOL! Thanks for the ping!


120 posted on 12/29/2005 10:51:22 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

I thought it was a reference to a Benny Goodman hit of 1938 ... wasn't the "Dead Cat Bounce" a dance number?


121 posted on 12/30/2005 6:39:38 AM PST by Gumlegs (Where they've always slept ... in the classroom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
It doesn't work that way. The correlation among the spins depends on the coherence of the state (of the entire ensemble). Forcing one spin to change couples the ensemble to the environment strongly enough to decohere the state: the relevant state is now that of the particle ensemble together with whatever you're using to force the state change, and there is no certainty that the measurement of the other particle's state now gives the same result.
122 posted on 12/30/2005 7:31:00 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
The idea that measuring the properties of one particle could instantaneously change the properties of another one (or a whole bunch) far away is strange to say the least

What's so strange? You can write down the Schrodinger equation for a particle. If there is another particle around, the equation modifies. In fact, there is only one equation for the whole universe, just that you cannot write it down.

123 posted on 07/28/2006 12:47:45 AM PDT by mcris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-123 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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