Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jeroen Belleman Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Quantum mystics Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:58:54 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 113 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:56:46 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f74b2c313d93f30388b5e90f23423bd"; logging-data="680108"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ikdQOysBIcRHeHcqpn7mH" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:x9eyk0idfsFgP6TPa3unK4BlaJY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6325 On 6/10/24 23:17, john larkin wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:31:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman > wrote: > >> On 6/10/24 20:59, john larkin wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:25:30 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:04:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman >>>>>> wrote in : >>>>>> >>>>>>> I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics >>>>>>> at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about >>>>>>> quantum effects and entanglement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I feel a rant bubbling up! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that >>>>>>> light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts >>>>>>> clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if >>>>>>> the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light >>>>>>> *detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light >>>>>>> itself is so too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that >>>>>>> the results of measurements made at two remote places come out >>>>>>> identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true, >>>>>>> but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did >>>>>>> not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to >>>>>>> detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what* >>>>>>> measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies >>>>>>> that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or >>>>>>> select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this >>>>>>> skews the data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of >>>>>>> many, too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman >>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed, so much quantum crap, almost like glowball worming sales... >>>>>> Perfessors, Albert the stone counter.. >>>>>> This is nice and came close to the space filled with a fluid paper you gave a link to: >>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240606152154.htm >>>>>> it is likely not 100% correct, but a fluid of femtoscopic black holes? >>>>>> >>>>>> In my school days I came across cases that were obviously wrong, >>>>>> I declined arguing with the teacher in the days before the exams.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Entanglement >>>>>> Imagine you on the beach. >>>>>> You put a ball in the water, and a few meters away somebody else does the same. >>>>>> Mysteriously both balls go up and down at the same moment, >>>>>> 'entangled' >>>>>> Wave crashing on the beach. >>>>>> There was an experiment recently where they had 2 detectors in the lab, meters away, >>>>>> connected by a mile of fiber. >>>>>> Photons were entangled... >>>>>> Well , in that beach experiment you can tie a wire a mile long between the balls and they still go up and down the same time. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is simplified, but the detection is then indeed quantified. >>>>>> I like to play with PMTs etc, do those perfessors know ANYTHING about the equipment they use? >>>>>> Or even DESIGNED anything ? >>>>> >>>>> But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in >>>>> classic-physics terms. >>>>> >>>>> Nor can single-photon interferance. >>>>> >>>>> Just accept and enjoy it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's false! Entanglement and interference can easily be understood >>>> in terms of waves and quantized detectors. It's the QM view, with its >>>> imagined photon particle flying everywhere at once that is confusing. >>>> >>>> What size do you imagine a photon to be? >>> >>> It's unlimited. You can have an interferometer with different arm >>> lengths and still get single-photon interferance. >>> >>> I noticed that on a lithium niobate Mach-Zender e/o modulator. The >>> interfering path lengths are different by thousands of wavelengths. >>> >> >> Exactly! The path length difference is limited only by the coherence >> length of the light source. This is all quite natural when thinking >> in terms of waves. When you think of it in terms of photons, it stops >> making any sense. >> >> Jeroen Belleman > > A single photon has an infinite coherence length. > > What's weird is that I can pulse a superfast laser and hit a detector > with picosecond time delay jitter, even though another experiment > shows that each photon is very long. > > It's apparently easy for you to accept that light is made of waves > until it's detected, at which time it turns into particles. > > That's the part that's magical to me. > I wouldn't say it like that. I'd say that the incident wave causes a detection event. I'd never say that *light* is a particle. Where matter and waves interact, quantization occurs. Jeroen Belleman