|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2017 17:56:38 GMT -5
Very nice. Near the bottom of the link you find that it's the quantum information of the particle (entangled particles) that is teleported, not the actual particle itself (so it's not like, "Beam me up Scotty" ). First question: Is a photon an "actual particle," and, if so, what does that mean? Second question: Boundaries that define things are assumed to exist, but do they have any independent or separate existence other than as an idea? I would not propose to know more than Einstein, from your recent quote, After studying and thinking about light for over 50 years, I still don't know what a photon is. (paraphrased) But I'm sure you know light ~appears~ as a photon (a quantum-particle) depending ~how~ you look at it. But I don't think light is changing from particle to wave, depending on how you look at it (the famous two-slit experiment the best example of this). I think it is both, in a higher dimension. And nothing exists separately. But yes, the world of duality exists. Then I think you have to ask why it exists (or I have to ask why it exists).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 16:12:24 GMT -5
Very nice. Near the bottom of the link you find that it's the quantum information of the particle (entangled particles) that is teleported, not the actual particle itself (so it's not like, "Beam me up Scotty" ). You don't need anymore than the quantum information for the exact same photon to be on the spaceship. The photon on Earth didn't leave Earth, the photon that was on the spaceship became the one that was on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 12, 2017 18:12:12 GMT -5
Very nice. Near the bottom of the link you find that it's the quantum information of the particle (entangled particles) that is teleported, not the actual particle itself (so it's not like, "Beam me up Scotty" ). You don't need anymore than the quantum information for the exact same photon to be on the spaceship. The photon on Earth didn't leave Earth, the photon that was on the spaceship became the one that was on Earth. Not quite (but very close). Correct, the photon on earth didn't leave earth. But only the quantum information was transferred to the photon on the spaceship. The photon on the spaceship became an exact copy of the photon on earth (it acquired the same quantum state of the photon on earth [and the photon on earth necessarily lost the quantum state it had had]).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 18:19:03 GMT -5
You don't need anymore than the quantum information for the exact same photon to be on the spaceship. The photon on Earth didn't leave Earth, the photon that was on the spaceship became the one that was on Earth. Not quite (but very close). Correct, the photon on earth didn't leave earth. But only the quantum information was transferred to the photon on the spaceship. The photon on the spaceship became an exact copy of the photon on earth (it acquired the same quantum state of the photon on earth [and the photon on earth necessarily lost the quantum state it had had]). What does it mean to have a 'quantum state' and then to lose it? (This one, I don't as yet have an answer for.. )
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 13, 2017 8:39:31 GMT -5
Not quite (but very close). Correct, the photon on earth didn't leave earth. But only the quantum information was transferred to the photon on the spaceship. The photon on the spaceship became an exact copy of the photon on earth (it acquired the same quantum state of the photon on earth [and the photon on earth necessarily lost the quantum state it had had]). What does it mean to have a 'quantum state' and then to lose it? (This one, I don't as yet have an answer for.. ) That's what teleportation IS. When you transfer the quantum information to other particle, it destroys the quantum state of the particle you transferred the information ~from~. I will look at the article again and see if it specifically states this. In the link below scroll down to Quantum Teleportation. Then scroll down to the bottom of it, just above Mathematics in Quantum Teleportation. Go up to the third paragraph. In it we are told quantum information cannot be copied, so when you send the quantum information of one entangled particle to its "partner", this original information is necessarily destroyed (at the sending particle). lightlike.com/teleport/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 12:31:08 GMT -5
What does it mean to have a 'quantum state' and then to lose it? (This one, I don't as yet have an answer for.. ) That's what teleportation IS. When you transfer the quantum information to other particle, it destroys the quantum state of the particle you transferred the information ~from~. I will look at the article again and see if it specifically states this. In the link below scroll down to Quantum Teleportation. Then scroll down to the bottom of it, just above Mathematics in Quantum Teleportation. Go up to the third paragraph. In it we are told quantum information cannot be copied, so when you send the quantum information of one entangled particle to its "partner", this original information is necessarily destroyed (at the sending particle). lightlike.com/teleport/So this experiment doesn't prove that identical atoms can exist simultaneously in completely different places, it's just about the transfer of information for the computers of the future?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 13, 2017 16:44:50 GMT -5
That's what teleportation IS. When you transfer the quantum information to other particle, it destroys the quantum state of the particle you transferred the information ~from~. I will look at the article again and see if it specifically states this. In the link below scroll down to Quantum Teleportation. Then scroll down to the bottom of it, just above Mathematics in Quantum Teleportation. Go up to the third paragraph. In it we are told quantum information cannot be copied, so when you send the quantum information of one entangled particle to its "partner", this original information is necessarily destroyed (at the sending particle). lightlike.com/teleport/So this experiment doesn't prove that identical atoms can exist simultaneously in completely different places, it's just about the transfer of information for the computers of the future? Teleportation is based on entangled particles. It begins by creating the entangled particles (making them entangled). So correct, the experiment doesn't prove that identical atoms exist simultaneously in completely different places. Once the teleportation is completed (sending the information/state from one entangled particle to its entangled partner) the quantum state/information at the original no longer exists. Quantum computing is a different issue (different from teleportation). In quantum computing the entangled pairs remain in the computer, and when the computing is done, you access the answer. As an aside, if quantum teleportation is ever used to send information, it can't do so faster than light. It would be a two-step process. The key code would have to be sent by ordinary speed of light means (say over optic fibers). The reason for this has to do with the randomness of the quantum world. (Basically, in the quantum world, you never know what's going to come up, "heads" or "tails", so you can't send quantum encoded information. Basically, you can't create a quantum key code). And then quantum encryption or decryption is a different question. This will be one of the primary uses of quantum computing, creating an encryption that cannot be broken.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2018 16:09:50 GMT -5
"Although measurement, observation, and detection are recurring words in this book, they can be misleading. These words give the misimpression that quantum physics is simply about laboratory measurements rather than about the universe. In standard English usage, a "measurement" is the human process of gathering data about some object. If we follow this usage, then a "quantum measurement" would have to mean the human process of gathering data about some quantum object. Historically, the term was used in quantum physics for many decades in just this way, but this turns out to be a far too narrow definition. Without delving into the history at this point, it turns out that this definition of "measurement" as a human process led to the misconception that humans have something fundamental to do wiht the quantum principles of the universe. It might be best simply to stop using the word measurement and find some other term instead, but this word is now so widely used it's impossible to remove it.
So the best solution is to broaden the meaning of the term. By quantum measurement, we mean any process in which a quantum phenomenon causes a microscopic change, regardless of whether a human is involved in causing or observing the change.
.......Just a few months before his untimely death in 1990, quantum physicist John Bell wrote an article titled "Against measurement", advocating banning the term measurement because it carries the false connotation that quantum physics is connected in some way to laboratories and humans. Bell knew that quantum physics has no more to do with humans than do, say, the laws of gravity". pages 35,36 Tales of the Quantum, Understanding Physics' Most Fundamental Theory, by Art Hobson, 2017, Oxford University Press
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 21, 2018 1:03:47 GMT -5
Agreed. I have no problem with QM because the math works. My only stumbling block was the idea of thingness. Despite the math, we don't really know what a photon is beyond an abstract idea. Trying to visualize it as if it were a wave, particle, or something else, is a visualization exercise rather than a non-conceptual knowing of whatever it's isness is. Unlike the macro-world we see and feel, everything about the composition of the micro-world must be inferred, and all we really see are patterns on the screens of our test equipment or trails in a cloud chamber. Particle/wave/field/woo-woo weirdness. We simply know that if we do such and such, our test equipment responds by doing such and such. What we call "energy" and "matter" are more like states of something energetic that manifests in QM experiments as spooky stuff--even spooky stuff at a distance (non-locality). Our math simulates reality, so the meta-reality of math can be used to predict unknown things about reality, itself. Einstein's e=mc2 made scientists realize that the right kind of matter could be converted to an enormous amount of energy, and Hiroshima was a concrete result. Einstein was a visualizer, and I understand why he had a problem with QM because I'm also a visualizer. I wanted to understand what a photon looks like at the level of a photon, so that I could intellectually grasp it, but it can't be done. Any attempt to imagine it as a sparkler, a ray, sequential quantized flashes, a particle, a wave, etc. is doomed to failure. If my physics professor had understood what I was asking, he would have said, "Bob, a photon is just a useful concept; it's not a discrete thing in any ordinary sense, so don't try to picture it in any strongly-defined or bounded way. All we can know is that if light strikes a photo-electric cell, our voltmeter will register that an electric current has been generated." Physicists first imagined that an atom was like a group of small spherical balls (protons and neutrons) stuck together by a strong force with tiny balls (electrons) flying around them at a distance. They called it "the planetary model," and everyone could picture that like planets orbiting a star. Later, electrons became imagined more like a cloud of probability, surrounding a somewhat diffuse energetic core, but even this idea finally collapsed, and only the math continued. These days I have no idea how physicists try to imagine an atom, but I suspect that it's more like a field of probability. What I know is that the ordinary world we sense is, fundamentally, beyond human comprehension, and our ideas ABOUT it are like simplistic cartoons compared to the ineffable complexity of the living truth. Nice post again. I like David Bohm's 'idea' of our Explicate world arising out-from the hidden-invisible Implicate Order. I don't think we can call that Bohm's idea. Plato said just the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 21, 2018 1:09:02 GMT -5
Good post ZD, a few comments. But present scientific abstractions, specifically QM, allow scientists and inventors and then manufacturers to manipulate the world. In the '50's the transistor became inventable because of QM, IOW, no QM, no transistors. I read recently that 25% of products we use today have come-from QM in some way or another, TV's, computers and smart phones for example. IOW, the world we live in today, another example, smart houses, comes about from these abstractions, figuring out to the extent possible, how reality works. I'm pretty sure my view is the same as ZD's, as he seems to be 'looking' at the same thing I am. I've said that science is more an act of creation than discovery. Before the scientist asks 'how', there literally IS no how. There doesn't need to be an explanation for that which happens only in Consciousness until somebody asks for one. This is basically the same philosophical premise that guides modern physics.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 21, 2018 1:14:10 GMT -5
We just disagree here. This is what I've tried to point out on the QM for dummies thread. The physical universe has existed about 13.8 billion years. Discovering decoherence is the key to understanding this (as opposed to things just coming out of Consciousness). So I say science is more discovery than creation. Science has to stop relying on the outer senses only. QM is a step in the right direction. Yes, QM models desribe but do not depict. They are completely counter-intuitive and make no claim to represent.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 22, 2018 4:03:20 GMT -5
"Although measurement, observation, and detection are recurring words in this book, they can be misleading. These words give the misimpression that quantum physics is simply about laboratory measurements rather than about the universe. In standard English usage, a "measurement" is the human process of gathering data about some object. If we follow this usage, then a "quantum measurement" would have to mean the human process of gathering data about some quantum object. Historically, the term was used in quantum physics for many decades in just this way, but this turns out to be a far too narrow definition. Without delving into the history at this point, it turns out that this definition of "measurement" as a human process led to the misconception that humans have something fundamental to do wiht the quantum principles of the universe. It might be best simply to stop using the word measurement and find some other term instead, but this word is now so widely used it's impossible to remove it. So the best solution is to broaden the meaning of the term. By quantum measurement, we mean any process in which a quantum phenomenon causes a microscopic change, regardless of whether a human is involved in causing or observing the change. .......Just a few months before his untimely death in 1990, quantum physicist John Bell wrote an article titled "Against measurement", advocating banning the term measurement because it carries the false connotation that quantum physics is connected in some way to laboratories and humans. Bell knew that quantum physics has no more to do with humans than do, say, the laws of gravity". pages 35,36 Tales of the Quantum, Understanding Physics' Most Fundamental Theory, by Art Hobson, 2017, Oxford University Press Well, not humans per-se, but observers yes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2018 13:27:27 GMT -5
"Although measurement, observation, and detection are recurring words in this book, they can be misleading. These words give the misimpression that quantum physics is simply about laboratory measurements rather than about the universe. In standard English usage, a "measurement" is the human process of gathering data about some object. If we follow this usage, then a "quantum measurement" would have to mean the human process of gathering data about some quantum object. Historically, the term was used in quantum physics for many decades in just this way, but this turns out to be a far too narrow definition. Without delving into the history at this point, it turns out that this definition of "measurement" as a human process led to the misconception that humans have something fundamental to do wiht the quantum principles of the universe. It might be best simply to stop using the word measurement and find some other term instead, but this word is now so widely used it's impossible to remove it. So the best solution is to broaden the meaning of the term. By quantum measurement, we mean any process in which a quantum phenomenon causes a microscopic change, regardless of whether a human is involved in causing or observing the change. .......Just a few months before his untimely death in 1990, quantum physicist John Bell wrote an article titled "Against measurement", advocating banning the term measurement because it carries the false connotation that quantum physics is connected in some way to laboratories and humans. Bell knew that quantum physics has no more to do with humans than do, say, the laws of gravity". pages 35,36 Tales of the Quantum, Understanding Physics' Most Fundamental Theory, by Art Hobson, 2017, Oxford University Press Well, not humans per-se, but observers yes. ".. .measurement is an objective activity having nothing necessarily to do with human observation, or laboratories. ...it's clear today that quantum measurement is an entirely natural process that refers to any macroscopic impression made by quantum phenomena and is not related necessarily to human observations. A single electron impacting a viewing screen creates a more precise position for the electron regardless of whether any human observes or records the event. As noted in Chapter 1, a lot of pseudoscience has been concocted from the supposed connection between quantum physics and human consciousness, but there is no evidence of any such connection. The quantum universe would be unchanged even if humans didn't exist". pg 144, same book (So you might want to elaborate on what you mean by observers).
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 30, 2018 21:21:10 GMT -5
Well, not humans per-se, but observers yes. ".. .measurement is an objective activity having nothing necessarily to do with human observation, or laboratories. ...it's clear today that quantum measurement is an entirely natural process that refers to any macroscopic impression made by quantum phenomena and is not related necessarily to human observations. A single electron impacting a viewing screen creates a more precise position for the electron regardless of whether any human observes or records the event. As noted in Chapter 1, a lot of pseudoscience has been concocted from the supposed connection between quantum physics and human consciousness, but there is no evidence of any such connection. The quantum universe would be unchanged even if humans didn't exist". pg 144, same book (So you might want to elaborate on what you mean by observers). An observer is the most primary element in physics since Einstein's relativity. In QM I think observation integral to field collapse. The paradigm has three basic elements a field, a collapse, an observation. The electron doesn't 'appear' anywhere unless there is an observation. The problem with mystics is they presume cause and say electrons appear because they are observed, but QM has no evidence of that, and indications are that electrons appear concurrently with observation, without any cause. As to what the observer is... there is no 'observer particle' so 'observation' is only a category of field collapse. It's incorrect to say 'an observer' causes the universe to exist. The universe has the inherent quality of 'observation'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 31, 2018 1:10:05 GMT -5
".. .measurement is an objective activity having nothing necessarily to do with human observation, or laboratories. ...it's clear today that quantum measurement is an entirely natural process that refers to any macroscopic impression made by quantum phenomena and is not related necessarily to human observations. A single electron impacting a viewing screen creates a more precise position for the electron regardless of whether any human observes or records the event. As noted in Chapter 1, a lot of pseudoscience has been concocted from the supposed connection between quantum physics and human consciousness, but there is no evidence of any such connection. The quantum universe would be unchanged even if humans didn't exist". pg 144, same book (So you might want to elaborate on what you mean by observers). An observer is the most primary element in physics since Einstein's relativity. In QM I think observation integral to field collapse. The paradigm has three basic elements a field, a collapse, an observation. The electron doesn't 'appear' anywhere unless there is an observation. The problem with mystics is they presume cause and say electrons appear because they are observed, but QM has no evidence of that, and indications are that electrons appear concurrently with observation, without any cause. As to what the observer is... there is no 'observer particle' so 'observation' is only a category of field collapse. It's incorrect to say 'an observer' causes the universe to exist. The universe has the inherent quality of 'observation'. What you've elucidated is a subtlety of the Copenhagen Interpretation that Heisenberg made quite clear in his stab at writing a philosophy book. It's completely unsatisfactory to anyone unwilling to consider a perspective that describes the whole, from the appearance of the perspective within that whole, that isn't separate from the whole, with no possibility of a perspective outside of the whole. The point that physical reality only takes shape on paper in the context of an observation is just another way of saying that there's no separating the observer and the observed in the definition of that reality. This still leaves the existential question -- as clearly, I am not you, and you are not me -- but deprives the questioner of the option of answering it in terms of an objective physical reality independent of his existence, because in the observation, there he is.
|
|