Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:20 pm
It's okay to just pretend like that doesn't exist, unless you're actually doing quantum experiments or want to do real calculations
I want to be mystified and amazed by all this quantum stuff, but it's hard when you don't understand how the experiments work.
The most important thing to be amazed by here is just that there is such a mirror (or beam splitter), which can be set up in such a way, that having both paths available for a single photon is enough to prevent it from one output and make all of them go to the other output, but when you block the top path or the bottom path, the photons get split 50/50 between output1 and output2. This is enough to strongly imply that an individual photon doesn't just simply take an individual path when both paths are open.
The naive view would be, "this photon went from point a to point b, it obviously either took the bottom path or the top, I just don't know which path it took". It seems experimentally as though the naive view cannot be the case.
But I feel like, unless I know every detail of how the experiment is set up -and understand it, I'm not in a position to judge if anything "weird" is happening. That's just my nature; I have to know everything.
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:03 pm
But I feel like, unless I know every detail of how the experiment is set up -and understand it, I'm not in a position to judge if anything "weird" is happening. That's just my nature; I have to know everything.
If you're still interested, here's an MIT lecture on it:
In the first 5 minutes, he more or less confirms what I've said here, but he goes on to give more detail you might find useful. Edit. Maybe not all that useful, but at least it adds some expert weight that the stuff I presented before wasn't just pulled from my ass
Last edited by Flannel Jesus on Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I want to be mystified and amazed by all this quantum stuff, but it's hard when you don't understand how the experiments work.
The most important thing to be amazed by here is just that there is such a mirror (or beam splitter), which can be set up in such a way, that having both paths available for a single photon is enough to prevent it from one output and make all of them go to the other output, but when you block the top path or the bottom path, the photons get split 50/50 between output1 and output2. This is enough to strongly imply that an individual photon doesn't just simply take an individual path when both paths are open.
The naive view would be, "this photon went from point a to point b, it obviously either took the bottom path or the top, I just don't know which path it took". It seems experimentally as though the naive view cannot be the case.
But I feel like, unless I know every detail of how the experiment is set up -and understand it, I'm not in a position to judge if anything "weird" is happening. That's just my nature; I have to know everything.
Just look up the double slit experiment on Youtube. There are a lot of videos that explain it really well and it's much easier to follow than the one FJ is trying to explain.
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:16 pm
it's much easier to follow than the one FJ is trying to explain.
I agree, but I think it's important to have a view of both. They're similar but different, and different in a way that makes it relevant to be aware of each of them.
I want to be mystified and amazed by all this quantum stuff, but it's hard when you don't understand how the experiments work.
The most important thing to be amazed by here is just that there is such a mirror (or beam splitter), which can be set up in such a way, that having both paths available for a single photon is enough to prevent it from one output and make all of them go to the other output, but when you block the top path or the bottom path, the photons get split 50/50 between output1 and output2. This is enough to strongly imply that an individual photon doesn't just simply take an individual path when both paths are open.
The naive view would be, "this photon went from point a to point b, it obviously either took the bottom path or the top, I just don't know which path it took". It seems experimentally as though the naive view cannot be the case.
But I feel like, unless I know every detail of how the experiment is set up -and understand it, I'm not in a position to judge if anything "weird" is happening. That's just my nature; I have to know everything.
You might find one with a name like 'Double slit experiment for morons'. Those ones are usually pretty good
The most important thing to be amazed by here is just that there is such a mirror (or beam splitter), which can be set up in such a way, that having both paths available for a single photon is enough to prevent it from one output and make all of them go to the other output, but when you block the top path or the bottom path, the photons get split 50/50 between output1 and output2. This is enough to strongly imply that an individual photon doesn't just simply take an individual path when both paths are open.
The naive view would be, "this photon went from point a to point b, it obviously either took the bottom path or the top, I just don't know which path it took". It seems experimentally as though the naive view cannot be the case.
But I feel like, unless I know every detail of how the experiment is set up -and understand it, I'm not in a position to judge if anything "weird" is happening. That's just my nature; I have to know everything.
Just look up the double slit experiment on Youtube. There are a lot of videos that explain it really well and it's much easier to follow than the one FJ is trying to explain.
I've watched quite a few videos about that, but never had all the answers to various questions that occur to me. Maybe I just don't have the right sort of brain for this sort of thing.
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:03 pm
But I feel like, unless I know every detail of how the experiment is set up -and understand it, I'm not in a position to judge if anything "weird" is happening. That's just my nature; I have to know everything.
Just look up the double slit experiment on Youtube. There are a lot of videos that explain it really well and it's much easier to follow than the one FJ is trying to explain.
I've watched quite a few videos about that, but never had all the answers to various questions that occur to me...
You're not alone, Harbal, for neither do any the people doing the experiments have all of the answers to the various questions that occur to them.
Indeed, that's what the "measurement problem" is all about.
That's why we have the "Many Worlds" nonsense, and the nonsense about cats that are both alive and dead at the same time.
_______
Just look up the double slit experiment on Youtube. There are a lot of videos that explain it really well and it's much easier to follow than the one FJ is trying to explain.
I've watched quite a few videos about that, but never had all the answers to various questions that occur to me...
You're not alone, Harbal, for neither do any the people doing the experiments have all of the answers to the various questions that occur to them.
Indeed, that's what the "measurement problem" is all about.
That's why we have the "Many Worlds" nonsense, and the nonsense about cats that are both alive and dead at the same time.
_______
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:03 pm
But I feel like, unless I know every detail of how the experiment is set up -and understand it, I'm not in a position to judge if anything "weird" is happening. That's just my nature; I have to know everything.
Just look up the double slit experiment on Youtube. There are a lot of videos that explain it really well and it's much easier to follow than the one FJ is trying to explain.
I've watched quite a few videos about that, but never had all the answers to various questions that occur to me. Maybe I just don't have the right sort of brain for this sort of thing.
Just look up the double slit experiment on Youtube. There are a lot of videos that explain it really well and it's much easier to follow than the one FJ is trying to explain.
I've watched quite a few videos about that, but never had all the answers to various questions that occur to me. Maybe I just don't have the right sort of brain for this sort of thing.
That's actually the whole point...
I mean questions about the technical details of the experiments.
I've watched quite a few videos about that, but never had all the answers to various questions that occur to me. Maybe I just don't have the right sort of brain for this sort of thing.
That's actually the whole point...
I mean questions about the technical details of the experiments.
Here's a conversation on how to build one yourself
There are many approaches in there. Unfortunately most of them don't demonstrate single-particle interference, I'm not sure what kind of special equipment you'd need to see that for yourself.
But if you were happy to see the interference pattern from a beam of light, there are many affordable experimental setups listed there.
...to explain why I believe the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM (MWI) is nonsensical.
And in regard to Schrödinger's cat, well, if it is nonsense to think that copies of our entire universe spring into existence to accommodate every possible alternative outcome to that which we experience in this universe,...
...then that automatically rules-out the existence of an alternate world where the cat is dead after we found it alive when we opened the box in our world.
_______
seeds wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 7:54 pm
You're not alone, Harbal, for neither do any the people doing the experiments have all of the answers to the various questions that occur to them.
Indeed, that's what the "measurement problem" is all about.
That's why we have the "Many Worlds" nonsense, and the nonsense about cats that are both alive and dead at the same time.
_______
What is 'nonsensical' about it to you?
Right or wrong, I nevertheless went to great lengths in an alternate thread...
...to explain why I believe the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM (MWI) is nonsensical.
And in regard to Schrödinger's cat, well, if it is nonsense to think that copies of our entire universe spring into existence to accommodate every possible alternative outcome to that which we experience in this universe,...
...then that automatically rules-out the existence of an alternate world where the cat is dead after we found it alive when we opened the box in our world.
_______
I saw it back when you posted it. I didn't see any explanation why you think it's nonsensical other than that you 'feel' it to be so.
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 10:07 pm
I saw it back when you posted it. I didn't see any explanation why you think it's nonsensical other than that you 'feel' it to be so.
Yup.
He says "I never miss an opportunity to express my disdain of the Many Worlds Interpretation". Such a bizarrely strong reaction to an idea that's on the edges of scientific understanding. There's no consensus among physicists about which interpretation is correct, so why the "disdain"? Because of his own personal incredulity?
The wording is too sharp, too harsh, especially for a non physicist talking down on so many physicists for not sharing his own personal feelings.
I hope he learns in the future to miss opportunities to express disdain about ideas in physics. Maybe relax a little bit. You don't have to agree with every idea.
