The two slit experiment and 'quantum memory'

  • 7 Replies
  • 2999 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« on: December 05, 2013, 11:32:09 pm »
Ran into this article the other day: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/light-particle-wave-quantum-nonlocality_n_2076011.html

Make your own conclusions on it, but in terms of posting about mine is that there isn't a quantum memory involved - what you have is basically an other dimensional object pushing into this dimension. The other dimension object does not change at all - it merely changes the side of itself that it presents, when pushing in - thus it seems to be able to be two things, when what is happening is that just one part of the two things is pressing through at once.

It's like in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imt-_SCP2yg

See when he trolls the 2D world person, by sticking his fingers into their dimension and they *poof* just appear, from the 2D persons view, to come from out of nowhere - yet it's all quite logical from the third dimension? Imagine he puts his hand in with fingers straight and flat together. Then he widens his fingers, splaying them - they would appear to the 2nd dimension person as being both a kind of wave (the flat hand), yet also particles (the seperated fingers). How can it be both at once!?!?1!? Well, ta da!

Though I'll add this probably isn't even a dimension thing - it's probably that were so near sighted that in our study of physics, weve probably taken about half of this dimension, and call that the entirety of our dimension. Then when we start to see our error, we make a further mistake and call it another dimension. But for now I'll keep with other dimensional objects, because that's cool and fun to say!

And finally, hey, what if your brains functioning hinged on 'quantum memory'? Or in how I put it, whether another interdimensional object decides to show it's trunk, rather than it's leg?

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5607
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2013, 11:42:12 pm »
Ah the ever confounding world of quantum theory.

I don't have any real suggestions to offer , only that I think the existence of this experiment, and its results, are awesome. Basically everything in classical physics breaks down at a certain point and a bunch of smart guys drew up some observed rules and called it quantum theory.

I'm waiting for some kind of unification theory, then shit will really get real. Until then its all just magic to me lol.

btw when i first learned about the double slit experiment, my professor had an accent, and it sounded like "double shit experiment". I'm juvenile so I thought that was pretty funny.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 11:46:42 pm by Wilshire »
One of the other conditions of possibility.

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2013, 11:47:50 pm »
Yeah, I don't know how you can get all Neil Cassidy, when not only is everything you are is based on who knows what the funk, but why it even exists is a big question mark as well?

Wic

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Momurai
  • *****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2013, 04:10:06 pm »
The issue, as I've always seen it, is that our notions of waves and particles are simply the best approximations to what things like photons and electrons are actually like.  For instance when we talk about an electron orbit, we're actually talking about the shape of the probability distribution of that electron - which is not to say that the electron is somewhere in the cloud, but that the cloud is the electron, until it is interacted with by something else.  I mean, we just don't have anything on the macroscopic scale that behaves anything like things on the quantum scale.  Shit's crazy.

The flatland analogy fits with string theory, where you could imagine an ant crawling on the surface of a hose, thinking it's a flat two dimensional surface, but looked at from a different enough scale that hose looks more like a one dimensional object (strings in the theory would be coiled around the hose in varying arrangements which define different particles, and from a distance we see only the particle, not the arrangement).

Of course, I would suggest you take anything from the What The Bleep/Law of Attraction people with a grain of salt - they always slip something subversive in their otherwise accurate descriptions of models.

Meyna

  • *
  • Momurai
  • **
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2013, 12:24:26 pm »
The issue, as I've always seen it, is that our notions of waves and particles are simply the best approximations to what things like photons and electrons are actually like.  For instance when we talk about an electron orbit, we're actually talking about the shape of the probability distribution of that electron - which is not to say that the electron is somewhere in the cloud, but that the cloud is the electron, until it is interacted with by something else.  I mean, we just don't have anything on the macroscopic scale that behaves anything like things on the quantum scale.  Shit's crazy.

The flatland analogy fits with string theory, where you could imagine an ant crawling on the surface of a hose, thinking it's a flat two dimensional surface, but looked at from a different enough scale that hose looks more like a one dimensional object (strings in the theory would be coiled around the hose in varying arrangements which define different particles, and from a distance we see only the particle, not the arrangement).

Of course, I would suggest you take anything from the What The Bleep/Law of Attraction people with a grain of salt - they always slip something subversive in their otherwise accurate descriptions of models.

Great post, especially with regard to the problematic nature of trying to explain quantum effects with more "traditional" models, and the deception peddled by What The Bleep Do We Know. There are behaviors on the macro-scale that can only be explained with quantum mechanics, though (e.g., the stimulated emission from lasers, or the color of the Lycurgus Cup), so it's not only nano-scale smoke and mirrors. The point remains that anyone wanting to understand quantum concepts would do well to discard all expectations based on "everyday" explanations.
witness

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5607
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2013, 08:27:38 pm »

(e.g., the stimulated emission from lasers, or the color of the Lycurgus Cup), so it's not only nano-scale smoke and mirrors. The point remains that anyone wanting to understand quantum concepts would do well to discard all expectations based on "everyday" explanations.

I love the effects of nano-particles. If you don't know anything about the Lycurgus Cup (which is awesome) then simply look at old stained glass. They used to make it out of gold and silver nanoparticles to make all those pretty colors. Awesome. Though the nano scale is still almost macro when talking about a lot of quantum stuff.

How about quantum tunneling or quantum entanglment. awesome.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

Wic

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Momurai
  • *****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2013, 05:33:26 am »
What's interesting about the nanoscale is that visible light exists within it at 400-700nm.  Which is to say that all of our visual perceptions exist within the scope of many of the accelerations, reflections, absorptions, etc, of electrons.  This allows us to, for instance, see most solid objects, or extremely heated materials, and is just wicked useful if you're gonna be a physical creature moving about in a physical world. 

Infrared light gives us a lower resolution and is generally less useful, and ultraviolet light tends to be quite destructive to proteins, DNA, and other cellular material that we would all rather avoid than try absorbing and interpreting.  The visible light range is a very practical little slice of the electromagnetic spectrum. :)

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5210
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2013, 04:35:46 am »
...

Wish you'd share your perspective more often, Wic, but I am glad you do when you can.

There's a great visual analogy somewhere on the internet of the Buckminster Fuller quote from the Incubus song New Skin with two bisecting perpendicular lines; one is the electromagnetic spectrum and the other is the frequency spectrum and where they intersect is the miniscule portion that humans can perceive ;).

Though, obviously, there are contentions like Natasha Demkina, whether or not her perception is valid, or the more (or less) mundane tetrachromats.

(Apologies for derailing)
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer