Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#71

Post by zackees »

vecter wrote: post #6
choeger wrote: post #2

QM is obviously very true in the sense that it makes useful predictions (in that sense, truth is somewhat a quantity). But it is arguably very inelegant in its seemingly ad-hoc introduction of probability. Naturally, one would hope to one day get a more principled explanation of this randomness. What would be needed to make physicists search for such an explanation? Some kind of pattern in the "randomness"? Say, phot…

What you want is a theory of local hidden variables. [0] They are at odds with what quantum mechanics predicts (and what we have observed). On a semi-related note, I might be reading too much into your comment, but I very much dislike when people imply that scientists haven’t thought outside or the box or tried other non-mainstream theories. They try all the time, but fail because those theories often aren’t true. Wh…

No.

Correct theories are suppressed all the time by oligarchs. See the electric car.

This assumption that the best is chosen is part of the problem of the scientific institution - the assumption that corruption doesn’t play a major role in what is allowed through the gate keepers.

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#72

Post by rpz »

krageon wrote: post #69
rpz wrote: post #66

Quantum mechanics is not the simplest explanation around. Plancks energy equation should be E=htf h should be in the units of Joule as opposed to Joule second. This formula reveals the true nature of the photon: its not a fundamental particle. What we regard as a photon today is the energy of 1 seconds worth of light at some frequency f. Every wavelength of light contains the same energy, h, regardless of frequency.…

I lack the requisite amount of sleep to evaluate the truth of this post, but I did really enjoy the fact that this appears to be an unusual explanation of basic concepts that doesn't immediately devolve into mysticism.

Thank you for your consideration, I usually get down voted for saying this on here.

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#73

Post by rpz »

deertick1 wrote: post #26
fungiblecog wrote: post #18

The problem is the insistence on the existence of particles at the quantum level. We know that quanta propagate like waves, but interact with classical level systems in discrete units. So we need to stop believing in discrete particles with distinct properties at the quantum level and come up with an explanation of why quantum waves appear particle-like at the classical level. Probably the answer will involve the way…

Lori Gardi, widely believed to be a crackpot, in my opinion has made a breakthrough in our interpretation od quantum mechanics. If I understand her correctly, she proposes that the reason waves behave like particles is because they transfer energy essentially every zero-crossing : for example a photon is just one half of a wavelength of light. She has a much more interesting explanation of what i am very poorly tryin…

Yes I watch her stuff as well I appreciate her work although its not always consistent video to video. I recommend people check out https://forgottenphysics.com/ Just a guess but I think this is probably where Lori got most of her inspiration at first

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#74

Post by sls »

bollu wrote: post #67
sls wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever actually looked at the Schrödinger equation? [1] It's pretty simple. If you've had freshman physics, you can learn enough to derive it in a matter of days or at most weeks. There's not a lot of room in there for the kind of thing you are suggesting. It's much more plausible that the uncomfortable human-centric thing we need to let go is the idea that our perceptions about macroscopic reality should be i…

What do you mean by "derive" the Schrödinger equation? As best as I know, there is no "derivation" beyond some analogy with the classical wave equation. It's an equation penned down by Schrödinger, motivated by the classical wave equation and insights from de broglie's theory. I'd love to see a derivation if it exists.

I have in mind things like this [1]. I no longer have my undergraduate text or notes but I recall going through a similar exercise.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610121.pdf

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#75

Post by zoomablemind »

fooker wrote: post #64
pluto9 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how all of physics is constructed. Even things you may think are obvious, like Newton's 3 laws of motion, are only accepted because they agree with our measurements. How else should we determine their validity? > There are literally infinite ways to create equations that satisfy measurements. There really aren't. You seem to be thinking of something like in the movie The Number 23. But we're talking about equa…

The uncertainty principles are inequalities, not equations. And that is something you can write with multiple forms. As for equations, notice that many equations in Physics have a constant which turns a proportion to an equation. This is where you have leeway in constructing more or less arbitrary equations based on the variables you think are important enough to observe. Coming to your example, Newton's f = ma equat…

> Newton's f = ma equation is really f/m proportional to a.

IIRC, in this context the mass m is considred as a proportionality coefficient. Such that the force is propotional to the acceleration.

Sure, rewriting this would fix the constant to 1, but this introduces a concept of specific force, force per unit-mass.

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#76

Post by zoomablemind »

goatlover wrote: post #50
fungiblecog wrote: post #18

The problem is the insistence on the existence of particles at the quantum level. We know that quanta propagate like waves, but interact with classical level systems in discrete units. So we need to stop believing in discrete particles with distinct properties at the quantum level and come up with an explanation of why quantum waves appear particle-like at the classical level. Probably the answer will involve the way…

Replace particles with fields in which particles are the result of excitation in the fields. Fields are the fundamental stuff of reality, and particles are emergent from field interactions.

> Fields are the fundamental stuff of reality, and particles are emergent from field interactions.

I'm not sure in what sense it is a reality. On observable scale the reality seems to be more tied to particles, at least in our human understanding. Wave-particle duality concept to me seems just as hard to reconcile as the concept of irrationality or infinity.

These concepts work well to power our present explanation of the world around, yet can't naturally root in human brain (not mine at least).

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#77

Post by rpz »

millstone wrote: post #46
jamiek88 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it always YouTube videos with these (let’s generously say)esoteric ideas and never a link to a paper or essay?

Not GP but since you asked, here it is: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325462944_Planck%27... The argument is: Planck's relation says that a photon's energy is in proportion to its frequency. But a higher-frequency photon oscillates more times per second. If you look at the energy of a single oscillation, you get a constant, regardless of frequency. This is remarkable and so we should reframe Planck's const…

Sophistry is a bit strong of a term in my opinion.

Physicists have received Nobels for inventing particles to balance equations. Why isn't that sophistry? Maybe we just need to spend a few more billion dollars on a brand new particle accelerator to figure that out.

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#78

Post by nine_k »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #65
nine_k wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fields are continuous. E.g. electromagnetic field in the classic electrodynamics is continuous. But its waves, photons, show quantum, discrete properties — see the photo effect. It would be easy if there were some common grid, but it's not the case. You can make photons with whatever energy from a continuous spectrum, but photons of each frequency will carry its own quantum (Latin for "amount") of energy, in discrete…

It's called second quantization and is taught in the course of theoretical physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_quantization

This is the how, not the why. That is, it's not a (more general) model from which quantization follows. Obtaining such a model would be a major breakthrough, provided that it's falsifiable in humanly-attainable conditions (unlike the string theory).

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#79

Post by choeger »

vecter wrote: post #6
choeger wrote: post #2

QM is obviously very true in the sense that it makes useful predictions (in that sense, truth is somewhat a quantity). But it is arguably very inelegant in its seemingly ad-hoc introduction of probability. Naturally, one would hope to one day get a more principled explanation of this randomness. What would be needed to make physicists search for such an explanation? Some kind of pattern in the "randomness"? Say, phot…

What you want is a theory of local hidden variables. [0] They are at odds with what quantum mechanics predicts (and what we have observed). On a semi-related note, I might be reading too much into your comment, but I very much dislike when people imply that scientists haven’t thought outside or the box or tried other non-mainstream theories. They try all the time, but fail because those theories often aren’t true. Wh…

It is true that at my level of understanding I would intuitively prefer hidden variables. But that's not my point.

My point is that the notion of "measurement" or "wave function collapse" simply don't seem to explain anything. Instead they are just different words for what we observe. So yes, that is certainly useful but it also seems to be limiting.

A simple question would be: What is "measurement", i.e. what is the fundamental thing that forces a probability distribution to yield a concrete value? And why does it exist separately from said probability distribution?

Edit: to make things even clearer: I am not lamenting that there is no one working on mathematically consistent interpretations of QM. I know people are doing that and I know that this is difficult. Instead I am asking what would be a clearly visible limit of QM. Where would we, as a society, encounter a situation where we say: "We really need to explain the reasons behind QM or we won't get that problem here solved."

Re: Closed loophole confirms the unreality of the quantum world (2018)

#80

Post by sunstone »

pluto9 wrote: post #61
maria_weber23 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle should probably be put the rest at this point. From the beginning it was more "capturing" our inability to move beyond the physics as we know it. It's like tying your shoe laces. I always found it fascinating how firmly most physicists believe in the equations someone came up with, just because it agree with measurements. I mean that's real nice and all, but just because something a…

That's how all of physics is constructed. Even things you may think are obvious, like Newton's 3 laws of motion, are only accepted because they agree with our measurements. How else should we determine their validity? > There are literally infinite ways to create equations that satisfy measurements. There really aren't. You seem to be thinking of something like in the movie The Number 23. But we're talking about equa…

f=d(mv)/dt?
Post reply on HN