Live data from Hacker News

Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

nature.com

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

#11
post #10

In gravitational wave detectors. Heard of the Casimir effect? Two plates can experience a force from vacuum fluctuations.

Small but important correction: two conducting plates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Also works in other geometries, e.g., sphere and plate, two spheres, etc. First experimental verification was a sphere and a plate, I think? https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78...

Re: Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

#12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, at least with an audio waveform one can have a DC offset wherein the average is not zero.

The DC offset does not manifest when the waveform is translated into sound, which is an actual propagating wave, the appropriate analogy to light.

Almost but not quite. With light the electric field can go negative and the average is generally 0. With sound in air the pressure component has a ”DC” offset of 1bar and it cannot go negative, you will just get nonlinear effects when you start nearing that limit.

Re: Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

#13
post #5
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such conceptually dense language! Isn't the average amplitude of every wave just zero?

The amplitude is the difference between maximum and minimum, not the momentary value of a wave at some point.

Then how can the average amplitude be zero? If at any point the amplitude is nonzero, it must be positive (as it is the absolute value of the difference), thus the average can only be positive

Re: Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

#14
post #5
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such conceptually dense language! Isn't the average amplitude of every wave just zero?

The amplitude is the difference between maximum and minimum, not the momentary value of a wave at some point.

Would be disappointed at the "wave" at that point.

Re: Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

#15
post #13
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amplitude is the difference between maximum and minimum, not the momentary value of a wave at some point.

Then how can the average amplitude be zero? If at any point the amplitude is nonzero, it must be positive (as it is the absolute value of the difference), thus the average can only be positive

IIRC the minimum is supposed to be 0.5 photons of any given wavelength. This is what gets called “zero point energy”.

Except there are ways to go below that, like a Casimir cavity.

I find these things confusing because when people explain Casimir cavities they never bother to say why the justification for zero point energy existing in the first place doesn’t apply within the cavity.

Re: Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

#16
post #13
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amplitude is the difference between maximum and minimum, not the momentary value of a wave at some point.

Then how can the average amplitude be zero? If at any point the amplitude is nonzero, it must be positive (as it is the absolute value of the difference), thus the average can only be positive

Indeed this is not possible for a classical wave. However, in a quantum description there exists a so-called "vacuum state" for which the expectation value of the electric field operator vanishes at all times, but the expectation value of the square of this operator does not. In the classical approximation of quantum optics, the expectation value of the electric field operator corresponds to the amplitude of the classical wave, whereas the expectation value of the square of the electric field operator corresponds to so-called shot (or quantum) noise on the classical wave.

Of course in nature there is no such thing as a "classical wave", so this description has to break down at some point. This is the case for vacuum fluctuations which simply do not have a classical explanation.

Re: Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

#17

"A special case of squeezed light, known as the squeezed vacuum, forms when the average amplitude of the light is zero." I love this. Don't ask me what it means.

It looks like physicists are building the wrong abstractions. Abstractions are here to help us, not fool us.

Re: Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

#18
post #17

"A special case of squeezed light, known as the squeezed vacuum, forms when the average amplitude of the light is zero." I love this. Don't ask me what it means.

It looks like physicists are building the wrong abstractions. Abstractions are here to help us, not fool us.

The abstractions are there to help physicists so they don't get fooled. We're just along for the ride, all I try to do is not fall off too often.

Re: Quantum fluctuations have been shown to affect macroscopic objects

#20
post #16
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how can the average amplitude be zero? If at any point the amplitude is nonzero, it must be positive (as it is the absolute value of the difference), thus the average can only be positive

Indeed this is not possible for a classical wave. However, in a quantum description there exists a so-called "vacuum state" for which the expectation value of the electric field operator vanishes at all times, but the expectation value of the square of this operator does not. In the classical approximation of quantum optics, the expectation value of the electric field operator corresponds to the amplitude of the clas…

Does this have to do with the fact that the wave is complex-valued?
Post reply on HN