this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
1528 points (97.6% liked)

Science Memes

10970 readers
2095 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kromem@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm assuming you are asking about the first part?

So the double slit experiment was a starting point, and there's been a bunch of variations testing different aspects.

One of which is that we can 'tag' the photons that go through path A with an indication it went through path A and tag photons passing through path B accordingly.

As would be expected, when tagged this way both result in ballistic patterns as if particles and not waves.

But the neat part is that if you add a polarizer after they are tagged which removes any way of recovering the tagging information about which path they went through, the interference pattern comes back and they behave like waves again.

If the explanation for why it goes from a wave to a particle in the first place is something like "it was disturbed by the act of measurement", adding additional disturbance would seem like the last thing to get it back to behaving like a wave, right?

The variation suggests that the collapse of the wave function relates to the continued existence of recoverable information about the photon, not necessarily the physical mechanics of its measurement at that instant in time.

As for the other comments I made, the TL;DR is that there's easily a dozen different interpretations of why quantum weirdness occurs among physicists, and so very often when you see someone saying "this is how it works" what you are really seeing is "this is how it works in the theory I subscribe to" but a different physicist might have a very different explanation.

The only explanation/representation that everyone can agree on is the mathematical representation, but translating the math into a physical reality is still very much disputed from physicist to physicist.

So for example, the Bohemian mechanics view would have disagreed with the idea that the probabilistic nature of the photon before measurement is a physical reality, instead claiming that it is just a reflection of what we can know about the photon, and that it already physically is a point in spacetime that's being guided by a wave, which is why it has wave-like behavior. But don't worry too much about it - just keep in mind it's worth taking any online explanations of why quanta behave in a certain way with a giant grain of salt as it's not a settled topic.

[–] Seudo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Despite knowing so much more than we did, the ol' quip holds true,
Anyone who claims to understand quantum physics is either lying or insane.

[–] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks. Do you know the many worlds interpretation of the double slit experiment?

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yes, effectively the photon goes through both slits, and the interference pattern or ballistic pattern relates to when decoherence occurs, either at the point a which slit measurement is made or at the point it hits the detector.

[–] confluence@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the continued existence of recoverable information

This phrase helped something click. Thanks for collapsing a wave function for me with all that information 😜

Seriously though, this is how information works even in evolution: continued existence of recoverable information. Genes that don't favor recovery of the genetic line, drop out of information's purview.

To see some basic analogy of natural selection at the quantum level is a bit exciting, to say the least.