Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Quantum mystics
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:07:53 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <v455j9$3pg5n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me>
 <bs1c6j997p6g70nbdhi28trk09grbg47ol@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 23:07:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c9efd3985fc111fdc695a0fb53bc20d";
	logging-data="3981495"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/sgxhVz0Oz/AqYYpNX9DShOdnCQvplPB6yl73DiRbvXw=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yc7sVBF8AiPyQkVYGiLehYdpk0w=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <bs1c6j997p6g70nbdhi28trk09grbg47ol@4ax.com>
Bytes: 4959

On 09/06/2024 21:08, john larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
> 
>> 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.

Link please? It is impossible to comment without seeing his talk.
>>
>> I feel a rant bubbling up!
> 
> Good so far!

It was true when I was an undergraduate and it is still just as true 
today that if you claim to fully understand quantum mechanics then you 
don't fully understand quantum mechanics.

>> 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.
> 
> Light isn't packaged in discrete photons of measurable energy?

It is a bit more nuanced than that. You can certainly show from metal 
work functions that the energy they carry is quantised and also that for 
very low photon densities such that only one photon can be in the 
instrument at a time the diffraction pattern still occurs. That is 
pretty conclusive evidence that QM is a real phenomena.

Likewise you can get diffraction patterns from silver ions or 
buckyballs. I'm not sure what the current record mass is today.

We can haggle about mechanism and it is likely that a better theory will 
eventually come along that is much less "action at a distance" than the 
QM one we have now. In the same way that GR displaced Newtonian gravity.

> Of course you can't say much about a thing that has never been
> detected. It's just a rumor.

Everything that we observe has to be detected somehow.
It is possible for systematic errors to creep in. The speed of light 
with error bars as a function of time is a salutary lesson on that.

>> 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.
> 
> Do people still say "duh" ?

The intensity interferometer Hanbury-Brown & Twiss was a canonical 
example of a QM prediction that almost no physicists believed at the 
time until they actually made it work at Jodrell Bank. Today they can do 
long(ish) baseline coherent optical interferometry up to the near IR.

>> 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.
> 
> Most measurements, and the measuring instruments, are defined in
> advance of the event.  Calibrated even.

Life gets tricky in relativistic QM but you can still get around it by 
making the signals travel around loops and/or moving atomic clocks very 
slowly to each measurement point. 5km long optical fibres are relatively 
cheap...

"Simultaneous" is only well defined at a particular point in space-time.

>> He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
>> many, too.
> 
> That's hardly usual, or a reason to call him wrong. He won the Nobel
> Prize just to get free plane tickets.

I'm not quite sure what he has said that annoyed JB - usually any 
popular science programme for a general audience dumbs down quantum 
mechanics to a point where it is completely unrecognisable to 
professional physicists.

-- 
Martin Brown