It’s not a great analogy because the pre-Galileo guys knew their models were off and they needed a better one. With QM they work extremely well with any real-world questions you ask and none of the interpretations improve them.
Also, this reply is world-class great tweeting.
https://twitter.com/MarySueDaniels/status/1588358098301104128?s=20&t=uvp-kZM29XMYxyDb3sAEeg
I wish someone had told me this sooner
I’ll reiterate that all opinions are her own.
Jacking off ten hours a day sounds amazing, I wish I had the stamina and free time for that.
This actually isn’t true, though. You might want to check out the most recent Nobel prize in physics, which actually showed that there cannot be hidden variables we don’t understand to explain at least some quantum phenomena and that consequently observations of quantum phenomena necessarily change them, and also that the observation of a particle in an entangled quantum state absolutely does change the state of its entangled partner at an arbitrarily long distance, even if the distance is so long that any communication between the two particles would be faster than light.
This video scratches the surface of the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs
Polarized filters are really easy to explain in terms of electromagnetic waves, but we also know that light is photons, and half a photon cannot pass through a polarizing filter. A photon either passes through or not, and that makes polarizing filters really elegant tests of quantum phenomena.
Really nicely said. Appreciate this.
Does that mean we can have faster than light communication?
No, but non-locality is still a thing.
Also physicists: The main component of the universe is perfectly invisible fairy dust. We have no idea what it is.
I know that Special Relatively states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, but is there a physics or QM reason about why this is so?
The best explanation I’ve read is “it would take too much energy to do so,” but that doesn’t really sound like a scientific explanation.
“It takes too much energy” is basically correct. In relativity there is something called the Lorentz factor (gamma):
gamma = 1/[1 - (v/c)^2]
that modifies a bunch of physical quantities, including length, time, and total energy. As v approaches c (the speed of light in a vacuum), gamma approaches infinity, so it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to c.
Two fun caveats:
(Credentials: I’m a professor of physics in San Antonio. Ask me stuff!)
Who would win in a fist fight between Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan? Assumed each one is a perfect sphere.
As I’m reading now about Lorentz and Einstein, the latter used the former’s ideas to develop Special Relativity. However, if the Lorentz factor was already accepted as “fact,” why was there a need for Einstein to write any more than what you responded to me about objects not being able to move faster than the speed of light?
Ok explain how spooky action at a distance works w/o resorting to “it’s just magic and we have to accept that.”
$1.6 billion if you take it as annuity over 30 years and $785m if you take cash.
Am I missing something here? You would insane to take cash right?
I think these types of questions get into the philosophy of science and explanations in general. The theory of Quantum physics wasn’t designed to explain that type of stuff. Rather it was designed to explain a wide variety of other observed phenomena, and it does that very well. Quantum entanglement is a side effect (or implication) of the theory, but just because it seems weird doesn’t make it a bad theory or incorrect. Maybe the universe is just weird compared to our everyday experience with large scale objects.
Would it be fair characterize spooky action at a distance as possibly some kind of connection in another dimension or realm that we don’t understand, and doesn’t have to obey the laws of our physical universe?
I will have more questions but I’m on my phone and getting ready to go out hiking.
Yes I agree with all that. I’m just saying if we take a step back and look at the forest for the trees, clearly there’s some stuff going on with particle behavior that we don’t understand, even if we can perfectly model it.
IE - using the word “observe”, which in normal English usage implies gaining information without affecting the subject. Clearly that’s not happening with the double slit experiment. Unless you believe the particle can read minds.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from watching How the Universe Works to go to sleep every night, it’s that space can expand faster than the speed of light.
