/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12082116

103KiB, 1382x585, quantumjumps_2880x1220_lede_hp-12_dragged.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Quantum leap

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 21:39:22 2020 No.12082116 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12082124 >>12082129 >>12082153 >>12082167 >>12082182

>Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time
https://quantuminstitute.yale.edu/publications/quantum-leaps-long-assumed-be-instantaneous-take-time

What does this mean for QM, if anything? Does this give more weight to some interpretations and less to others? Does this say anything about hidden variables?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 21:42:02 No.12082124 Report

Quoted By: >>12082143

>>12082116
I think it gives more weight to Howard Carmichael's model of quantum transitions, which I think these experiments explicitly mentioned. It makes a lot of sense physically and fits very well with experiment.
Many worlds is just cringe.

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk Thu 03 Sep 2020 21:43:38 No.12082129 Report

Quoted By:

>>12082116
Absolutely based
fuck theorists and fuck assumptions

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 21:48:03 No.12082143 Report

Quoted By:

>>12082124
Is that a deterministic model of QM?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 21:51:26 No.12082153 Report

Quoted By:

>>12082116
Particles btfo

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 21:54:53 No.12082167 Report

Quoted By: >>12082179 >>12082209

>>12082116
If the speed of a leap can be measured and is lower than the speed of light, this is a serious blow to all those /x/ retards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 21:58:04 No.12082179 Report

Quoted By: >>12082190

>>12082167
Well does this mean that there is no fundamental quantum randomness? How can this be possible if the universe is local? Pop-sci articles haven't said anything about this, but does this study mean that randomness in QM is only apparent? I am confused.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 21:58:54 No.12082182 Report

Quoted By:

>>12082116
So much for particle entaglment lmoa

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 22:02:19 No.12082190 Report

Quoted By: >>12082209 >>12082217

>>12082179
Shit is so tiny it might only appear random due to our limited methods of observation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 22:08:02 No.12082209 Report

Quoted By: >>12083329

>>12082167
>>12082190
One thing I understand here is that this experiment found out that the phenomenon of quantum jumps is not instantaneous. Did anyone think it was instantaneous before, meaning it happens faster than the speed of light? If the transition occurs slower than the speed of light, wasn't this expected? What were the implications of thinking it happens faster than the speed of light? I am confused.

If quantum jumps happen at a speed lower than c, relativity is not violated, right? Does this experiment add something to the question of whether realism or locality should be abandoned, as a consequence of Bell's theorem?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 22:10:05 No.12082217 Report

Quoted By:

>>12082190
Also, if it is only appearing random, this falls under hidden variable theories. Local hidden variables were ruled out by Bell's theorem, so the variables would have to be non-local. How does size and limits of measurements relate to non-locality?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 22:26:36 No.12082266 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 22:37:34 No.12082312 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 22:52:59 No.12082359 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 23:35:56 No.12082504 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 23:48:38 No.12082538 Report

Quoted By: >>12083162

Wow. /sci/ is fucken useless, lol.
Altmetric.com for the paper gave this:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/484675/does-the-new-finding-on-reversing-a-quantum-jump-mid-flight-rule-out-any-inter
So basically this result "owns" nothing, Copenhagen still works, no serious scientists believed in instantaneous hops anyways, the result doesn't grant new support to any interpretation, and Bohmian mechanics supporters are grasping at straws again.

I am convinced that the best evidence we have tells us the universe is non-realist (indeterministic).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 00:25:18 No.12082637 Report

Quoted By:

Bump cause stackoverflow owned /sci/ brainlets

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 01:32:31 No.12082798 Report

Quoted By:

iirc feynman was saying
>an electron jiggles, sends off a photon, and then a little bit before that happened another electron jiggles and receives that sent photon

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 03:56:52 No.12083162 Report

Quoted By: >>12083244

>>12082538
Fuck off nigger, the universe is deterministic you like it or not. Reality doesn't bend to your feelings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 04:33:18 No.12083244 Report

Quoted By:

>>12083162
u mad?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 05:17:04 No.12083329 Report

Quoted By:

>>12082209
c was supposed to be a constant goin higher is "problematic"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 08:22:10 No.12083660 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 09:57:10 No.12083836 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches