Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
1–10 of 98 posts
Re: Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
#2The [paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-1008-4)
Re: Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
#3Lazy evaluation.
Re: Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
#4Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea.
Gravity is local and apparent collapse is non-local; it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
Re: Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
#5Nice. It's an actual experimental result.
Re: Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
#6Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea. Gravity is local and apparent collapse is non-local; it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
The first paragraph seems to be pretty much all misleading or wrong:
It’s one of the oddest tenets of quantum theory: a particle can be in two places at once—yet we only ever see it here or there. Textbooks state that the act of observing the particle “collapses” it, such that it appears at random in only one of its two locations. But physicists quarrel over why that would happen, if indeed it does. Now, one of the most plausible mechanisms for quantum collapse—gravity—has suffered a setback.
Re: Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
#7Tesla was right about Einstein. He was a fuzzy hair crackpot and his mathematical model for the Universe is riddled with contradictions yet the media continually pushes this guy. Why?
It's funny how science is portrayed as careful and thoughtful but then the main stream media pushes theories like string theory and super symmetry, which fall to pieces as soon as the large particle accelerator machines came online.
When are we going to declare particle physics as fundamentally broken and start over at N. Tesla?
Re: Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
#8Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea. Gravity is local and apparent collapse is non-local; it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
Yes, but at least a in principle testable fringe theory. (And by penrose!)
Re: Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
#9Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea. Gravity is local and apparent collapse is non-local; it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
The first paragraph seems to be pretty much all misleading or wrong: It’s one of the oddest tenets of quantum theory: a particle can be in two places at once—yet we only ever see it here or there. Textbooks state that the act of observing the particle “collapses” it, such that it appears at random in only one of its two locations. But physicists quarrel over why that would happen, if indeed it does. Now, one of the m…
As soon as it says "here or there" the writer is clearly trying to make it binary again. It isn't "here or there" but a function of probability between those two "places." It's an infinite number of possible "locations," but we narrow it down to a large number of decimal places because otherwise we wouldn't be able to make use of it at all. If things were as written here, you could do all quantum calculations with a straight up coin toss (although some might argue that can with an adequately tiny coin, but that still only gets at the most basic understanding of "spin" and only becomes an accurate analogy if the coin is flipped randomly in zero-g).
Our higher level concept of gravity (at least in the classical sense) has been known to break down to the point that it doesn't apply to quantum mechanics for quite a long time now. The writer should just google "quantum gravity" to discover what a complicated subject that becomes.
Re: Gravity is unlikely to be the cause of quantum collapse, experiment suggests
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first paragraph seems to be pretty much all misleading or wrong: It’s one of the oddest tenets of quantum theory: a particle can be in two places at once—yet we only ever see it here or there. Textbooks state that the act of observing the particle “collapses” it, such that it appears at random in only one of its two locations. But physicists quarrel over why that would happen, if indeed it does. Now, one of the m…
As soon as it says "here or there" the writer is clearly trying to make it binary again. It isn't "here or there" but a function of probability between those two "places." It's an infinite number of possible "locations," but we narrow it down to a large number of decimal places because otherwise we wouldn't be able to make use of it at all. If things were as written here, you could do all quantum calculations with a…
Indeed.
The weird thing is that the writer of that article has apparently written a popular science book about quantum mechanics too: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374536619