Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Quantum mystics
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:25:30 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v4799p$h5qj$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me> <v4651b$1ejef$1@solani.org>
 <gm2e6jdple0j6iuskqjkig5vfcqruq7pj4@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:23:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f74b2c313d93f30388b5e90f23423bd";
	logging-data="563027"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gFPPUksJkeu+rAtBF6iHg"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8cW+8g8uwl9EDZ+jCwbdNiiGrNI=
In-Reply-To: <gm2e6jdple0j6iuskqjkig5vfcqruq7pj4@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4458

On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:04:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> 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?

Jeroen Belleman