Don't Let Yourself Get Tangled Up by These 4 Quantum Mechanics Misconceptions

sciencealert.com ^ | ALESSANDRO FEDRIZZI & MEHUL MALIK,

[BenLurkin]

1. A cat can be dead and alive

Obviously, a cat is nothing like an individual photon in a controlled lab environment, it is much bigger and more complex.

Any coherence that the trillions upon trillions of atoms that make up the cat might have with each other is extremely short-lived.

This does not mean that quantum coherence is impossible in biological systems, just that it generally won't apply to big creatures such as cats or a human.

2. Simple analogies can explain entanglement

Quantum particles are just mysteriously correlated in ways we can't describe with everyday logic or language – they don't communicate while also containing a hidden code, as Einstein had thought.

So forget about everyday objects when you think about entanglement.

3. Nature is unreal and 'non-local'

Bell's theorem is often said to prove that nature isn't "local", that an object isn't just directly influenced by its immediate surroundings. Another common interpretation is that it implies properties of quantum objects aren't "real", that they do not exist prior to measurement.

However, most options on the table – for example, time flowing backward, or the absence of free will – are at least as absurd as giving up on the concept of local reality.

4. Nobody understands quantum mechanics

We understand it extremely well, to a point where we can predict quantum phenomena with high precision, simulate highly complex quantum systems, and even start to build quantum computers.

[Right_Wing_Madman]

The cat thought experiment follows exactly the same rules as the quantum particle entanglement does.

Yeah, quantum mechanics tangled up the author of this article too. Schrodinger's cat is indeed dead and alive at the same time. And to take it one step further, the observation or measurement of a phenomenon does not influence its outcome, but determines its outcome.

[metmom]

Trust me, I won’t be losing any sleep over it.

[alexander_busek]

Being able to solve quantum field equations says nothing about having an intuitive understanding of what they actually mean.

Our "intuition" evolved to solve real-world, macroscopic problems like "Will shaking this tree limb cause that fruit to fall down?", "Will we be able to take down this mastodon and harvest most of its flesh before the other predators come?", or "Is she smiling at me because she likes me, or because she has contempt for me?" - and is thus not suited to, e.g., describing the behavior of subatomic particles over mere femtoseconds of time.

Regards,

[.44 Special]

By the time the vial got to the alternate universe you can bet your ass that the cat would be dead.
Alternatively, the cat would have been killed by a deranged freeper such as yours truly.

[norwaypinesavage]

There is measurement, and then there's "measurement".

I can measure the speed of a race car in the Indie 500 with a stopwatch while watching the race on TV, knowing only the circumference of the track. There is absolutely no way that my measurement influences the race outcome.

On the other hand, multi-trillion atom me, can't measure the speed of a single electron whizzing around a hydrogen nucleus, or a photon wiggling its wave through a double slit, without disrupting it.

The difference, of course, is the definition of 'measurement'. "Measuring" the quantum state of anything by humans will be disruptive using current technology. The problem is the use of common words like "measurement" meaning totally different actions.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks BenLurkin. Tabby, or not tabby, that is the question.

---

---

· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·

---

[Redcitizen]

“ Trust me, I won’t be losing any sleep over it.”

As long as you put the cat outside.

[Scrambler Bob]

I can measure the speed of a race car in the Indie 500 with a stopwatch while watching the race on TV, knowing only the circumference of the track. There is absolutely no way that my measurement influences the race outcome.
= = =

But if you watch ballot counting the result is different than if you did not!

[Scrambler Bob]

Only if noone is watching. if there is an observer, all bets are off.
]= = =

But if a man is in the woods and no one is watching, is he still wrong?

[wideminded]

4. Nobody understands quantum mechanics

We understand it extremely well, ..."

"Turning to quantum mechanics, we know immediately that here we get only the ability, apparently, to predict probabilities. Might I say immediately, so that you know where I really intend to go, that we always have had (secret, secret, close.the doors!) we always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it. And therefore, some of the younger students ... you know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there's no real problem. It has not yet become obvious to me that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem."

- Richard Feynman, 1981

[SunkenCiv]

When it finally, the bottom fell out, I became withdrawn, the only theory I knew how to do was to keep on keepin’ on.

[SunkenCiv]

If Helen Keller falls down in the woods and she’s by herself, does she make any noise?

[SunkenCiv]

The Big Bang Theory - Schrodinger’s cat
WikdGamer
11 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNTMYNj2Ulk

[wideminded]

FWIW Helen Keller could make noise in general. I knew someone who heard her give a speech.