I'm a little baffled when articles come out claiming some weird relativity-breaking quantum effect and fail to mention that the no-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics explains the effect easily without breaking relativity.
Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
31–40 of 56 posts
Re: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
#32At the risk of being "that guy," a few thoughts popped into my head after reading this article. I couldn't help but reflect on the possibility of us just completely misunderstanding how the universe works. It wouldn't be the first time in history. What if: Our concept of time and matter is wrong, or our idea of quantum physics is interesting and useful, but ultimately wrong. Perhaps I'm just a simpleton but part of m…
At a mathematical level, it's pretty elegant how quantum mechanics works. At the level of the article, not so much. Once you get the math (and it really kind of clicks all at once), it's not too hard. The problem is that the math has a lot of historical baggage and the ways of translating equations into prose are not the most effective I think. The whole "uncertainty" thing bothers me. I think there's better ways of…
There are certainly interpretations of QM that are deterministic. See many worlds, for example.
Re: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
#33At the risk of being "that guy," a few thoughts popped into my head after reading this article. I couldn't help but reflect on the possibility of us just completely misunderstanding how the universe works. It wouldn't be the first time in history. What if: Our concept of time and matter is wrong, or our idea of quantum physics is interesting and useful, but ultimately wrong. Perhaps I'm just a simpleton but part of m…
It's possible (in fact almost certain) that we don't know anything, but it's unlikely that we're missing something that would make it easier to accept: any true theory of physics would have to explain nonintuitive experimental outcomes like the bell inequalities or the "free will theorem".
FWIW, if one bites the bullet and assumes the equations mean what they appear to mean then it's a lot simpler than you might think. My first thought on looking at the diagram in the article was "well duh".
Re: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a mathematical level, it's pretty elegant how quantum mechanics works. At the level of the article, not so much. Once you get the math (and it really kind of clicks all at once), it's not too hard. The problem is that the math has a lot of historical baggage and the ways of translating equations into prose are not the most effective I think. The whole "uncertainty" thing bothers me. I think there's better ways of…
Do you have any sources for experiments ruling out our universe being deterministic? I'm not questioning you. I honestly have always been intrigued with the idea. Thanks.
The standard answer is the Bell inequalities, but if you only care about deterministic vs. nondeterministic then Conway's "free will theorem" is a bit simpler.
(The result is that either which quantities we choose to measure must be deterministic, or physics must be nonlocal (i.e. what we do in one place can change what we measure in another place even if the two experiments happen simultaneously), or the results of our measurements must be nondeterministic)
Re: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
#35I'm a little baffled when articles come out claiming some weird relativity-breaking quantum effect and fail to mention that the no-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics explains the effect easily without breaking relativity.
What's the easy no-collapse interpretation explanation?
Re: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, i think, if you mean 2 and 3. you have 1-2 and 3-4, then you entangle 1-4 which I think should lead to 2-3 entanglement without the 2-3 couple ever interacting at all. I think it is called entanglement teleportation.
Yeah, I've meant entangling 2 & 3 pair and measuring 1 & 4. But my concern is if we can still use this trick after measuring 1 & 4?
I am not sure I understand you.
Re: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
#37At the risk of being "that guy," a few thoughts popped into my head after reading this article. I couldn't help but reflect on the possibility of us just completely misunderstanding how the universe works. It wouldn't be the first time in history. What if: Our concept of time and matter is wrong, or our idea of quantum physics is interesting and useful, but ultimately wrong. Perhaps I'm just a simpleton but part of m…
Anyone who claims they understand Quantum Physics, doesn't understand Quantum Physics – Feynman
If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it - Bohr
Re: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
#38At the risk of being "that guy," a few thoughts popped into my head after reading this article. I couldn't help but reflect on the possibility of us just completely misunderstanding how the universe works. It wouldn't be the first time in history. What if: Our concept of time and matter is wrong, or our idea of quantum physics is interesting and useful, but ultimately wrong. Perhaps I'm just a simpleton but part of m…
You may not be so "out there" at all. There were two books that came out a few years ago, both basically lambasting the state of physics - especially string theory. One was titled Not Even Wrong[1] and the other was titled The Trouble With Physics[2]. As best as I can tell, of the two (and I'm afraid I can't remember which it was now) made the case that we might be completely wrong about the nature of time. The idea was that the reason we have had to resort to such (seemingly) byzantine theories as string theory, without seeming to make much progress on deciding which string theory is correct (or if it's correct at all) is tied up in this misunderstanding of time. IOW, before we make any really fundamental breakthroughs in physics, we will have to re-conceptualize time itself.
Now that's a pretty bold claim, and I have no idea if it is correct or not. But it's a position held by at least one fairly well known and reputable physicist.
[1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092756
[2]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Trouble-With-Physics-Science/dp/06...
Re: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, i think, if you mean 2 and 3. you have 1-2 and 3-4, then you entangle 1-4 which I think should lead to 2-3 entanglement without the 2-3 couple ever interacting at all. I think it is called entanglement teleportation.
Yeah, I've meant entangling 2 & 3 pair and measuring 1 & 4. But my concern is if we can still use this trick after measuring 1 & 4?
>For example, last year a team showed that entanglement swapping still works even if they make the projective measurement after they’ve already measured the polarizations of photons 1 and 4.
So yes, they can. Which leaves me wondering which option is right: A. I'm missing something major here. B. They can measure 1 and 4 and then decide whether to use their box on 2 and 3 and contradict causality. C. This experiment isn't actually exciting at all and the 'entanglement' isn't the good kind.
Re: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a mathematical level, it's pretty elegant how quantum mechanics works. At the level of the article, not so much. Once you get the math (and it really kind of clicks all at once), it's not too hard. The problem is that the math has a lot of historical baggage and the ways of translating equations into prose are not the most effective I think. The whole "uncertainty" thing bothers me. I think there's better ways of…
There are certainly interpretations of QM that are deterministic. See many worlds, for example.
Personally, I've never found that a comforting alternative.