Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Spooky Action At A Distance' Of Quantum Mechanics Directly Observed
Science Daily ^ | March 4, 2009 | staff

Posted on 03/11/2009 8:20:34 PM PDT by grey_whiskers

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: voveo
So we only peeked at the particles and it didn’t matter?

They assure the particle it was an accident and it should go about doing whatever it was doing beforehand, they won't do it again, they swear.

21 posted on 03/11/2009 9:56:44 PM PDT by eclecticEel (I already have a Messiah, I don't need another one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: voveo
If one observes, it changes the results.

Only if they get caught.
You clearly missed quantum-plausible-deniability class!

(c8
22 posted on 03/11/2009 10:08:18 PM PDT by NonLinear ( If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

ping


23 posted on 03/11/2009 10:48:40 PM PDT by TheThinker (Shame and guilt mongering is the Left's favorite tool of control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Stan and Ollie’s Paradox?


24 posted on 03/12/2009 12:19:00 AM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voveo
It only changed each observation a little, and they compensated for that by doing many runs.

Werner Heisenberg has a few things to say about that.

Cheers!

25 posted on 03/12/2009 4:06:26 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker
Thanks for pinging me to my own thread...

Cheers!

26 posted on 03/12/2009 4:07:11 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinanju
This is *another* fine mess you've gotten us into...

Cheers!

27 posted on 03/12/2009 4:11:55 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

So, if I read a liberal newspaper, I can change the ink at the subatomic level to transform the shape of the letters into words that I like better?

Who knew?


28 posted on 03/12/2009 4:13:37 AM PDT by wxgesr (I want to be the first person to surf on another planet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Unlike Hardy’s original argument, our demonstration reveals the paradox by observation, rather than inference.”

This seems to be a mistaken conclusion.

Hardy’s Paradox: “the axiom that we cannot make inferences about past events that haven’t been directly observed while also acknowledging that the very act of observation affects the reality we seek to unearth”

If the observation affects the reality, the paradox applies. If the observation does not affect the reality, the paradox does not apply. By older technology, the observation affected the reality. With newer technology, an observation can be made in a less obtrusive manner, so that it does not affect the reality. That means that the paradox does not apply. It’s wrong to say that the paradox has been observed. It just does not apply.

It is kind of like saying that the ancient Greeks were wrong about atoms being the smallest building blocks of matter. They said there were smallest building blocks, which they called “atoms.” Modern scientists concluded that we had found the smallest building blocks, and they called them “atoms.” Later, scientists concluded that there were “sub-atomic” particles. This doesn’t mean that the ancient Greeks (ancient geeks) were wrong. It means that some modern scientists were wrong when they concluded that they had identified the smallest particles. They only identified the smallest particles known at that time.


29 posted on 03/12/2009 7:09:01 AM PDT by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert
Interesting take, and I haven't gone through the appendices in the original paper well enough to be confident in my conclusions...but it seems like they observed "a bit", in order that their disturbing of the system observed, for *each trial*, was limited to within some error bars -- like the difference between dirty eyeglasses and taking them off entirely :-)

Then they acquired statistics of (and hence information of the quantum states) by averaging over many trials.

I liked your comment at the end, btw -- the modern scientists jumped the gun on deciding what entity really was an ἄτομος.

Cheers!

30 posted on 03/12/2009 3:42:10 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IYellAtMyTV; AdmSmith; bvw; callisto; ckilmer; dandelion; ganeshpuri89; gobucks; KevinDavis; ...
Thanks IYellAtMyTV.

· Google ·

31 posted on 03/12/2009 5:07:07 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: voveo

If Werner’s mistress had not forced him to get entangled with ... oh, never mind.


32 posted on 03/12/2009 5:12:35 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

“’Spooky Action At A Distance’ Of Quantum Mechanics Directly Observed.”

Well, if it’s directly observed, how spooky is that?


33 posted on 03/12/2009 6:20:29 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ("It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy
About this spooky.

DON'T say you weren't warned.

Cheers!

34 posted on 03/12/2009 6:58:31 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Oh Jeez, my heart!!!


35 posted on 03/12/2009 7:23:45 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ("It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; ChessExpert
"Then they acquired statistics of (and hence information of the quantum states) by averaging over many trials"

Yet there is still no way that they can be assured that there isn't some significant, yet undeterminable systematic influence affecting their observations.

It would be illogical to expect to observe anything without affecting it. Its just that in our everyday measurements the uncertainty gets buried in the everpresent noise.

36 posted on 03/12/2009 8:09:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; chessmaster
Yet there is still no way that they can be assured that there isn't some significant, yet undeterminable systematic influence affecting their observations.

??? Sorry, I'm not sure I'm quite following you.

It would be illogical to expect to observe anything without affecting it. Its just that in our everyday measurements the uncertainty gets buried in the everpresent noise.

It's more than that -- it's that the magnitude of the uncertainty is also much smaller (Planck's constant) than the quantity being measured. Even with much higher precision, the error introduced is insignificant in such cases.

37 posted on 03/12/2009 8:11:33 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
"I'm quite following you."

There is likely to be a systematic bias in the way that they gathered their statistical data, of which they are unaware.

38 posted on 03/12/2009 8:33:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Sorry, not trying to be difficult -- could you point to something specific, or reference the paper?

Cheers!

39 posted on 03/12/2009 8:35:17 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

You provided a nice description of their technique. You are following the science.

I was merely following some of the philosophy and logic. I was a little surprised that their logical reasoning appeared wrong (on one point). I would have thought that logic would be easy and experimental science hard. Perhaps for some people it’s the other way around.


40 posted on 03/12/2009 10:01:39 PM PDT by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson