_ _ _ _.
Idiot authors like this make already difficult subjects virtually impossible to understand.
Not so hard to expose, but devilishly hard for people to recognize it in themselves.
Not entirely sure but I’ll guess it somehow relates to this...
“The EPR paradox (or Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox) is a topic in quantum physics and the philosophy of science concerning the measurement and description of microscopic systems (such as individual photons, electrons or atoms) by the methods of quantum physics. It refers to the dichotomy that either the measurement of a physical quantity in one system must affect the measurement of a physical quantity in another, spatially separate, system or the description of reality given by a wave function must be incomplete.
This challenge to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (that only the position or momentum of a particle, but not both, can be known with certainty) originated from the consequences of a thought experiment authored in 1935 by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. The paper they authored indicated what seemed to be a flaw in the interpretation. The experiment involved two systems that initially interact with each other and are then separated. Then the position or momentum of one of the systems is measured, and due to the known relationship between the (measured) value of the first particle and the value of the second particle, the observer is aware of that value in the second particle. A measurement of the other value is then made on the second particle, and, once again, due to the relationship between the two particles, that value is then known in the first particle. This outcome seems to violate the uncertainty principle, as both the position and momentum of a single particle would be known with certainty.[1]
Einstein struggled to the end of his life for a theory that could better comply with causality, protesting against the view that there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement interpreted in terms of quantum mechanical formalism. However, since Einstein’s death, experiments analogous to that of the EPR paradox have been carried out, starting in 1976 by French scientists at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre. These experiments appear to show that the local realism theory is false.[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
"In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states precise inequalities that constrain certain pairs of physical properties, such as measuring the present position while determining future momentum; both cannot be simultaneously done to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled or determined. One may, at least, be able to identify the average momentum and position of particles using weak measurements. Furthermore, it is possible to imagine a hypothetical apparatus that measures the history of a particular particle's successive positions and momentums while also measuring times and energies to arbitrary accuracies.[citation needed]
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle implies that it is impossible to simultaneously both measure the present position while "determining" the future momentum of an electron or any other particle with an arbitrary degree of accuracy and certainty. This is not a statement about researchers' ability to measure one quantity while determining the other quantity. Rather, it is a statement about the laws of physics. That is, a system cannot be defined to simultaneously measure one value while determining the future value of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of ħ, the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
“The original EPR [Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen] paradox challenges the prediction of quantum mechanics that it is impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle. This can be extended to other pairs of physical properties.
[edit] EPR paper
The original paper describes what happens to “two systems I and II, which we permit to interact ...”, and, after some time, “we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two parts.” In the words of Kumar (2009), it has “Two particles, A and B, [which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions.”[6] According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B, say, exactly. However, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A and the exact momentum of particle B. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known. Also, with the exact momentum of particle B known, the exact momentum of particle A can be worked out. “EPR argued that they had proved that ... particle B can have simultaneously exact values of position and momentum.”
This is a paradox in Quantum Mechanics: The theory predicts that both values cannot be known for a particle, and yet the EPR experiment shows that they can. “Therefore, the quantum mechanical description of physical reality, EPR conclude, is incomplete.”[7] The paper says: “We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete.”
The EPR paper ends with:
While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Barack O-quanta?
New research in quantum physics has shown that a quantum know-it-all could lack information about a subject as a whole, yet answer almost perfectly any question about the subject's parts.
Which has nothing to do with Quantum Physics, and more to do with the human 'reasoning' process.
"This is something conceptually very weird,"
Only because you can get a grant for something that is pretty much common sense.
Alice reads the book and is allowed to give Bob one page's worth of information from it.
So the results of the test are dependent on Alice's skills as well as Bob's. Nothing like having multiple variables to make the results of a test invalid.
If Bob only has classical information, it is always possible to work out what he doesn't know.
Human beings are quite resourceful, but the ability to 'work out' the unknown is another factor that is not a constant. Some do better than others.
An examiner, having secretly inspected Bob's crib notes, could set questions that Bob couldn't answer.
Yeah..... well IF we KNEW where the ELECTRON was, we wouldn't have to LOOK to tell, and it wouldn't move because we looked. The examiner looking at Bob's crib notes alters the results of the test. If we just understood what the test was 'for', then maybe we could see how it relates to quantum physics. The only thing I could find was this:
New research in quantum physics has shown that a quantum know-it-all could lack information about a subject as a whole, yet answer almost perfectly any question about the subject's parts.
The use of COULD and ALMOST seems to leave a lot of wiggle room, and make the 'test' seem questionable. Polar Bears could move to my city and almost Almost clean up the environment.
The craziness comes if Bob gets one page's worth of quantum information from Alice.
It all seems logical. The only reason to say 'craziness' is this pre-conceived idea that it is quantum(unpredictable).
In this case, the researchers show, there is no-way to pinpoint what information Bob is missing.
Only due to the way the test was designed.
Challenge Bob, and he can guess either page of the book almost perfectly.
Well, maybe not perfectly. He does have a 50/50 chance.
An examiner could not expose Bob's ignorance even having seen his notes as long as the questions cover no more than half the course – the total amount of information Bob can recount cannot exceed the size of his notes.
Again, the test is rigged so that Bob succeeds once he reaches 50%, and the testers must allow mistakes due to memory loss of what he was told.
It is an unexpected discovery.
Only to them.
Researchers had been trying to prove that quantum ignorance would follow classical intuition and be traceable to ignorance of details,
Making a false assumption to there is an easy target to hit.
... and finding that it isn't raises new questions.
$$$$$Grants.
"We have observed this effect but we don't really understand where it comes from,"
I would tell them, but they know it all and would never listen to me.
What the never heard of “context”
“Physicists show that quantum ignorance is hard to expose” - ain’t that the truth.
I heard that Heisenberg was stopped once by a policeman
for speeding in his car, when the officer asked
Heisenberg, “Hey, did you know how fast you were going?”,
then Heisenberg said, “No, but I knew where I was!”
In one Quantum reality, I scored 100% on every Quantum reality exam I took.
Is this why my Kindle is missing random pages? And because the page number is not shown before or after the missing pages I can never determine exactly which pages are missing? I wonder what will happen if I hold a paperback version next to it and see if the systems interact. Flipping paper pages will determine which electronic page numbers can be seen?
I had to reread it, but this appears to be no more than a theoretical physicists theoretical thought experiment. There doesn’t seem to be any science here, only postulation. It’s interesting in its own right, but really is not a science story about quantum mechanics.
It's called confabulation. Old drunks are masters at it.