down here on planet-free-for-all, all things
are made up on the spot. Unless one has the
video tape of the invent, then the perception
is most likely fabricated to some degree.
"I saw it with my own two eyes"
so ?
Albert Einstein
It was recently revealed that, toward the end of his life, Albert
Einstein wrote a letter in which he dismissed belief in God as
superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish.
During a time when atheists have emerged rather aggressively in the
popular culture, it was, to say the least, discouraging to hear that the
most brilliant scientist of the twentieth century seemed to be
antipathetic to religion. It appeared as though Einstein would have
agreed with the Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harrises and Richard
Dawkins of the world in holding that religious belief belongs to the childhood of the human race.
It just so happens that the revelation of this letter coincided with my reading of Walter Isaacson’s wonderful biography of Einstein, a book
that presents a far more complex picture of the great scientist’s
attitude toward religion than his late career musing would suggest. In
1930, Einstein composed a kind of creed entitled “What I Believe,” at
the conclusion of which he wrote: “To sense that behind everything that
can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness.
In this sense...I am a devoutly religious man.” In response to a young
girl who had asked him whether he believed in God, he wrote: “everyone
who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced
that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.” And during a talk at Union Theological
Seminary on the relationship between religion and science, Einstein
declared: “the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
These reflections of Einstein—and he made many more like them throughout his career—bring the German physicist close to the position of a rather influential German theologian. In his 1968 book Introduction to
Christianity, Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, offered this
simple but penetrating argument for God’s existence: the universal intelligibility of nature, which is the presupposition of all science,
can only be explained through recourse to an infinite and creative mind
which has thought the world into being. No scientist, Ratzinger said,
could even begin to work unless and until he assumed that the aspect of nature he was investigating was knowable, intelligible, marked by form.
But this fundamentally mystical assumption rests upon the conviction
that whatever he comes to know through his scientific work is simply an
act of re-thinking or re-cognizing what a far greater mind has already conceived.
Ratzinger’s elegant proof demonstrates that, at bottom, religion and science ought never to be enemies, since both involve an intuition of
God’s existence and intelligence. In fact, many have argued that it is
no accident that the modern physical sciences emerged precisely out of
the universities of the Christian west, where the idea of creation
through the divine word was clearly taught. Unhappily, in far too many tellings of the history of ideas, modernity is seen as emerging out of,
and in stark opposition to, repressive, obscurantist, and superstitious Christianity. (How many authors, up to the present day, rehearse the struggles of Galileo to make just this point). As a result, Christianity—especially in its Catholic expression—is often presented as a kind of foil to science, when in fact there is a deep congruity
between the disciplines that search for objective truth and the religion
that says, “in the beginning was the Word.”
What sense, then, can we make of Einstein’s recently discovered letter? Given the many other things he said about belief, perhaps it’s best to
say that he was reacting against primitive and superstitious forms of religion, just as St. Paul was when he said that we must put away
childish things when we’ve come of age spiritually. And what of his dismissal of the Bible? Here I think we have to make a distinction. A
person can be a genius in one field of endeavor and remain naïve, even inept, in another. Few would dispute that Einstein was the greatest theoretical physicist of the last century, but this is no guarantee that
he had even an adequate appreciation for Sacred Scripture. The “infantile” stories of the Bible have been the object of sophisticated interpretation for two and half millenia. Masters such as Origen, Philo, Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and John Henry Newman have
uncovered the complexity and multivalence of the Bible’s symbolism and
have delighted in showing the literary artistry that lies below its
sometimes deceptively simple surface.
So I think we can say in conclusion that religious people can, to a
large extent, claim Einstein as an ally, though in regard to Scripture interpretation, we can find far better guides than he.
LowRider wrote...as
Albert Einstein
It was recently revealed that, toward the end of his life, Albert Einstein wrote a letter in which he dismissed belief in God as superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish. During a time when atheists have emerged rather aggressively in the popular culture, it was, to say the least, discouraging to hear that the most brilliant scientist of the twentieth century seemed to be antipathetic to religion. It appeared as though Einstein would have agreed with the Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harrises and Richard
Dawkins of the world in holding that religious belief belongs to the childhood of the human race.
It just so happens that the revelation of this letter coincided with my reading of Walter Isaacson’s wonderful biography of Einstein, a book that presents a far more complex picture of the great scientist’s attitude toward religion than his late career musing would suggest. In 1930, Einstein composed a kind of creed entitled “What I Believe,” at the conclusion of which he wrote: “To sense that behind everything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense...I am a devoutly religious man.” In response to a young girl who had asked him whether he believed in God, he wrote: “everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.” And during a talk at Union Theological Seminary on the relationship between religion and science, Einstein declared: “the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
These reflections of Einstein—and he made many more like them throughout
his career—bring the German physicist close to the position of a rather influential German theologian. In his 1968 book Introduction to Christianity, Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, offered this simple but penetrating argument for God’s existence: the universal intelligibility of nature, which is the presupposition of all science, can only be explained through recourse to an infinite and creative mind which has thought the world into being. No scientist, Ratzinger said, could even begin to work unless and until he assumed that the aspect of nature he was investigating was knowable, intelligible, marked by form. But this fundamentally mystical assumption rests upon the conviction
that whatever he comes to know through his scientific work is simply an act of re-thinking or re-cognizing what a far greater mind has already conceived.
Ratzinger’s elegant proof demonstrates that, at bottom, religion and science ought never to be enemies, since both involve an intuition of God’s existence and intelligence. In fact, many have argued that it is no accident that the modern physical sciences emerged precisely out of the universities of the Christian west, where the idea of creation through the divine word was clearly taught. Unhappily, in far too many tellings of the history of ideas, modernity is seen as emerging out of, and in stark opposition to, repressive, obscurantist, and superstitious Christianity. (How many authors, up to the present day, rehearse the struggles of Galileo to make just this point). As a result, Christianity—especially in its Catholic expression—is often presented
a kind of foil to science, when in fact there is a deep congruity
between the disciplines that search for objective truth and the religion that says, “in the beginning was the Word.”
What sense, then, can we make of Einstein’s recently discovered letter? Given the many other things he said about belief, perhaps it’s best to say that he was reacting against primitive and superstitious forms of religion, just as St. Paul was when he said that we must put away childish things when we’ve come of age spiritually. And what of his dismissal of the Bible? Here I think we have to make a distinction. A person can be a genius in one field of endeavor and remain naïve, even inept, in another. Few would dispute that Einstein was the greatest theoretical physicist of the last century, but this is no guarantee that he had even an adequate appreciation for Sacred Scripture. The “infantile” stories of the Bible have been the object of sophisticated
interpretation for two and half millenia. Masters such as Origen, Philo, Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and John Henry Newman have uncovered the complexity and multivalence of the Bible’s symbolism and have delighted in showing the literary artistry that lies below its sometimes deceptively simple surface.
So I think we can say in conclusion that religious people can, to a
large extent, claim Einstein as an ally, though in regard to Scripture interpretation, we can find far better guides than he.
### - a diffi-cult subject because most people default to emotionally charged concepts & realisations to call Truth, superimposed values that bear little reference (or indeed relevance) to Truth per se... Not being able to personally 'touch' it and know things that way for themselves,
they instead defer to 3rd-party elegant-seeming solutions & explanations that 'make-sense' today but which are forever becoming nonsense tomorrow...
and when in-truth we dunno know shit about anything really, we just want
to be comforted...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99tOPGWmQug
That's a great movie, that scene in a similar vain to
Chauncy Gardner in "Being There"
This is a great bit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYeVQzTVyLk
That's a great movie, that scene in a similar vain to
Chauncy Gardner in "Being There"
This is a great bit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYeVQzTVyLk
### - i love that movie! and another all time fav!
he's too stupid (has rice pudding for brains ahaha) to be all intellectual >about things :)
and is effectively a zen master because it it!
and of course we all think he IS just an idiot until he walks on water at
the end?
but then just takes 'that' all in his stride too hehehe :)))
a truly wonderful movie, one of the greats!
perforce no one understood it hahaha :D
'We're no angels' being very similar in many ways, their display of
telepathy at the end? haha ;)
profound movies!
ditto a long list of them mostly overlooked...
e.g., 'Pleasantville'
https://ok.ru/video/31880120862
LowRider wrote...
Albert Einstein
It was recently revealed that, toward the end of his life, Albert
Einstein wrote a letter in which he dismissed belief in God as
superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish.
During a time when atheists have emerged rather aggressively in the
popular culture, it was, to say the least, discouraging to hear that the
most brilliant scientist of the twentieth century seemed to be
antipathetic to religion. It appeared as though Einstein would have
agreed with the Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harrises and Richard
Dawkins of the world in holding that religious belief belongs to the
childhood of the human race.
It just so happens that the revelation of this letter coincided with my
reading of Walter Isaacson’s wonderful biography of Einstein, a book
that presents a far more complex picture of the great scientist’s
attitude toward religion than his late career musing would suggest. In
1930, Einstein composed a kind of creed entitled “What I Believe,” at
the conclusion of which he wrote: “To sense that behind everything that
can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose
beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness.
In this sense...I am a devoutly religious man.” In response to a young
girl who had asked him whether he believed in God, he wrote: “everyone
who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced
that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly
superior to that of man.” And during a talk at Union Theological
Seminary on the relationship between religion and science, Einstein
declared: “the situation may be expressed by an image: science without
religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
These reflections of Einstein—and he made many more like them throughout >> his career—bring the German physicist close to the position of a rather
influential German theologian. In his 1968 book Introduction to
Christianity, Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, offered this
simple but penetrating argument for God’s existence: the universal
intelligibility of nature, which is the presupposition of all science,
can only be explained through recourse to an infinite and creative mind
which has thought the world into being. No scientist, Ratzinger said,
could even begin to work unless and until he assumed that the aspect of
nature he was investigating was knowable, intelligible, marked by form.
But this fundamentally mystical assumption rests upon the conviction
that whatever he comes to know through his scientific work is simply an
act of re-thinking or re-cognizing what a far greater mind has already
conceived.
Ratzinger’s elegant proof demonstrates that, at bottom, religion and
science ought never to be enemies, since both involve an intuition of
God’s existence and intelligence. In fact, many have argued that it is
no accident that the modern physical sciences emerged precisely out of
the universities of the Christian west, where the idea of creation
through the divine word was clearly taught. Unhappily, in far too many
tellings of the history of ideas, modernity is seen as emerging out of,
and in stark opposition to, repressive, obscurantist, and superstitious
Christianity. (How many authors, up to the present day, rehearse the
struggles of Galileo to make just this point). As a result,
Christianity—especially in its Catholic expression—is often presented as >> a kind of foil to science, when in fact there is a deep congruity
between the disciplines that search for objective truth and the religion
that says, “in the beginning was the Word.”
What sense, then, can we make of Einstein’s recently discovered letter?
Given the many other things he said about belief, perhaps it’s best to
say that he was reacting against primitive and superstitious forms of
religion, just as St. Paul was when he said that we must put away
childish things when we’ve come of age spiritually. And what of his
dismissal of the Bible? Here I think we have to make a distinction. A
person can be a genius in one field of endeavor and remain naïve, even
inept, in another. Few would dispute that Einstein was the greatest
theoretical physicist of the last century, but this is no guarantee that
he had even an adequate appreciation for Sacred Scripture. The
“infantile” stories of the Bible have been the object of sophisticated >> interpretation for two and half millenia. Masters such as Origen, Philo,
Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and John Henry Newman have
uncovered the complexity and multivalence of the Bible’s symbolism and
have delighted in showing the literary artistry that lies below its
sometimes deceptively simple surface.
So I think we can say in conclusion that religious people can, to a
large extent, claim Einstein as an ally, though in regard to Scripture
interpretation, we can find far better guides than he.
### - a diffi-cult subject because most people default to emotionally
charged concepts & realisations to call Truth, superimposed values that
bear little reference (or indeed relevance) to Truth per se... Not being
able to personally 'touch' it and know things that way for themselves,
they instead defer to 3rd-party elegant-seeming solutions & explanations
that 'make-sense' today but which are forever becoming nonsense tomorrow...
and when in-truth we dunno know shit about anything really, we just want
to be comforted...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99tOPGWmQug
The Science Of Comedy
The Comedy Of Science
Cool clip on space time as a mirage of geometry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmBh2xHILIo&feature=youtu.be&t=313
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics)
Different observations of the same reality (in photons) may both be
correct, according quantum mechanics.
Can two versions of reality exist at the same time? Physicists say they
can — at the quantum level, that is.
Researchers recently conducted experiments to answer a decades-old theoretical physics question about dueling realities. This tricky
thought experiment proposed that two individuals observing the same
photon could arrive at different conclusions about that photon's state — and yet both of their observations would be correct.
For the first time, scientists have replicated conditions described in
the thought experiment. Their results, published Feb. 13 in the preprint journal arXiv, confirmed that even when observers described different
states in the same photon, the two conflicting realities could both be
true. [The Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics]
"You can verify both of them," study co-author Martin Ringbauer, a postdoctoral researcher with the Department of Experimental Physics at
the University of Innsbrück in Austria, told Live Science.
Wigner's friend
This perplexing idea was the brainchild of Eugene Wigner, winner of the
Nobel Prize for Physics in 1963. In 1961, Wigner had introduced a
thought experiment that became known as "Wigner's friend." It begins
with a photon — a particle of light. When an observer in an isolated laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particle's
polarization — the axis on which it spins — is either vertical or horizontal.
However, before the photon is measured, the photon displays both polarizations at once, as dictated by the laws of quantum mechanics; it exists in a "superposition" of two possible states.
Once the person in the lab measures the photon, the particle assumes a
fixed polarization. But for someone outside that closed laboratory who doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is
still in a state of superposition.
That outsider's observation — their reality — therefore diverges from
the reality of the person in the lab who measured the photon. Yet,
neither of those conflicting observations is thought to be wrong,
according to quantum mechanics.
Altered states
For decades, Wigner's mind-bending proposal was just an interesting
thought experiment. But in recent years, important advances in physics finally enabled experts to put Wigner's proposal to the test, Ringbauer
said.
"Theoretical advances were needed to formulate the problem in a way that
is testable. Then, the experimental side needed developments on the
control of quantum systems to implement something like that," he
explained.
Ringbauer and his colleagues tested Wigner's original idea with an even
more rigorous experiment which doubled the scenario. They designated two "laboratories" where the experiments would take place and introduced two pairs of entangled photons, meaning that their fates were linked, so
that knowing the state of one automatically tells you the state of the
other. (The photons in the setup were real. Four "people" in the
scenario — "Alice," "Bob" and a "friend" of each — were not real, but instead represented observers of the experiment).
The two friends of Alice and Bob, who were located "inside" each of the
labs, each measured one photon in an entangled pair. This broke the entanglement and collapsed the superposition, meaning that the photon
they measured existed in a definite state of polarization. They recorded
the results in quantum memory — copied in the polarization of the second photon.
Alice and Bob, who were "outside" the closed laboratories, were then presented with two choices for conducting their own observations. They
could measure their friends' results that were stored in quantum memory,
and thereby arrive at the same conclusions about the polarized photons.
But they could also conduct their own experiment between the entangled photons. In this experiment, known as an interference experiment, if the photons act as waves and still exist in a superposition of states, then
Alice and Bob would see a characteristic pattern of light and dark
fringes, where the peaks and valleys of the light waves add up or cancel
each other out. If the particles have "chosen" their state, you'd see a different pattern than if they hadn't. Wigner had previously proposed
that this would reveal that the photons were still in an entangled state.
The authors of the new study found that even in their doubled scenario,
the results described by Wigner held. Alice and Bob could arrive at conclusions about the photons that were correct and provable and that
yet still differed from the observations of their friends — which were
also correct and provable, according to the study.
Quantum mechanics describes how the world works at a scale so small that
the normal rules of physics no longer apply; over many decades, experts
who study the field have offered numerous interpretations of what that
means, Ringbauer said.
However, if measurements themselves aren't absolutes — as these new findings suggest — that challenges the very meaning of quantum mechanics.
"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results
cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to
the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said.
"The stories we tell about quantum mechanics have to adapt to that," he
said.
LowRider wrote...
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics)
Different observations of the same reality (in photons) may both be correct, according quantum mechanics.
Can two versions of reality exist at the same time? Physicists say they can — at the quantum level, that is.
Researchers recently conducted experiments to answer a decades-old theoretical physics question about dueling realities. This tricky
thought experiment proposed that two individuals observing the same photon could arrive at different conclusions about that photon's state —
and yet both of their observations would be correct.
For the first time, scientists have replicated conditions described in the thought experiment. Their results, published Feb. 13 in the preprint journal arXiv, confirmed that even when observers described different states in the same photon, the two conflicting realities could both be true. [The Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics]
"You can verify both of them," study co-author Martin Ringbauer, a postdoctoral researcher with the Department of Experimental Physics at the University of Innsbrück in Austria, told Live Science.
Wigner's friend
This perplexing idea was the brainchild of Eugene Wigner, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1963. In 1961, Wigner had introduced a
thought experiment that became known as "Wigner's friend." It begins
with a photon — a particle of light. When an observer in an isolated laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particle's polarization — the axis on which it spins — is either vertical or horizontal.
However, before the photon is measured, the photon displays both polarizations at once, as dictated by the laws of quantum mechanics; it exists in a "superposition" of two possible states.
Once the person in the lab measures the photon, the particle assumes a fixed polarization. But for someone outside that closed laboratory who doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is still in a state of superposition.
That outsider's observation — their reality — therefore diverges from the reality of the person in the lab who measured the photon. Yet, neither of those conflicting observations is thought to be wrong, according to quantum mechanics.
Altered states
For decades, Wigner's mind-bending proposal was just an interesting thought experiment. But in recent years, important advances in physics finally enabled experts to put Wigner's proposal to the test, Ringbauer said.
"Theoretical advances were needed to formulate the problem in a way that is testable. Then, the experimental side needed developments on the control of quantum systems to implement something like that," he explained.
Ringbauer and his colleagues tested Wigner's original idea with an even more rigorous experiment which doubled the scenario. They designated two "laboratories" where the experiments would take place and introduced two pairs of entangled photons, meaning that their fates were linked, so
that knowing the state of one automatically tells you the state of the other. (The photons in the setup were real. Four "people" in the
scenario — "Alice," "Bob" and a "friend" of each — were not real, but instead represented observers of the experiment).
The two friends of Alice and Bob, who were located "inside" each of the labs, each measured one photon in an entangled pair. This broke the entanglement and collapsed the superposition, meaning that the photon they measured existed in a definite state of polarization. They recorded the results in quantum memory — copied in the polarization of the second
photon.
Alice and Bob, who were "outside" the closed laboratories, were then presented with two choices for conducting their own observations. They could measure their friends' results that were stored in quantum memory, and thereby arrive at the same conclusions about the polarized photons.
But they could also conduct their own experiment between the entangled photons. In this experiment, known as an interference experiment, if the photons act as waves and still exist in a superposition of states, then Alice and Bob would see a characteristic pattern of light and dark fringes, where the peaks and valleys of the light waves add up or cancel each other out. If the particles have "chosen" their state, you'd see a different pattern than if they hadn't. Wigner had previously proposed that this would reveal that the photons were still in an entangled state.
The authors of the new study found that even in their doubled scenario, the results described by Wigner held. Alice and Bob could arrive at conclusions about the photons that were correct and provable and that
yet still differed from the observations of their friends — which were also correct and provable, according to the study.
Quantum mechanics describes how the world works at a scale so small that the normal rules of physics no longer apply; over many decades, experts who study the field have offered numerous interpretations of what that means, Ringbauer said.
However, if measurements themselves aren't absolutes — as these new findings suggest — that challenges the very meaning of quantum mechanics.
"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said.
"The stories we tell about quantum mechanics have to adapt to that," he said.
### - that's actually quite interesting; the 'implication' being that both entangled states and un-entangled states exist at the same time depending on the pov of who's observing them, the 'deeper' implication being that of a '3rd-state' that remains unchanging regardless of who's observing it!
an unknown *3rd* constant perhaps?
LowRider wrote...
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics)
Different observations of the same reality (in photons) may both be correct, according quantum mechanics.
Can two versions of reality exist at the same time? Physicists say they can — at the quantum level, that is.
Researchers recently conducted experiments to answer a decades-old theoretical physics question about dueling realities. This tricky
thought experiment proposed that two individuals observing the same photon could arrive at different conclusions about that photon's state —
and yet both of their observations would be correct.
For the first time, scientists have replicated conditions described in the thought experiment. Their results, published Feb. 13 in the preprint journal arXiv, confirmed that even when observers described different states in the same photon, the two conflicting realities could both be true. [The Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics]
"You can verify both of them," study co-author Martin Ringbauer, a postdoctoral researcher with the Department of Experimental Physics at the University of Innsbrück in Austria, told Live Science.
Wigner's friend
This perplexing idea was the brainchild of Eugene Wigner, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1963. In 1961, Wigner had introduced a
thought experiment that became known as "Wigner's friend." It begins
with a photon — a particle of light. When an observer in an isolated laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particle's polarization — the axis on which it spins — is either vertical or horizontal.
However, before the photon is measured, the photon displays both polarizations at once, as dictated by the laws of quantum mechanics; it exists in a "superposition" of two possible states.
Once the person in the lab measures the photon, the particle assumes a fixed polarization. But for someone outside that closed laboratory who doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is still in a state of superposition.
That outsider's observation — their reality — therefore diverges from the reality of the person in the lab who measured the photon. Yet, neither of those conflicting observations is thought to be wrong, according to quantum mechanics.
Altered states
For decades, Wigner's mind-bending proposal was just an interesting thought experiment. But in recent years, important advances in physics finally enabled experts to put Wigner's proposal to the test, Ringbauer said.
"Theoretical advances were needed to formulate the problem in a way that is testable. Then, the experimental side needed developments on the control of quantum systems to implement something like that," he explained.
Ringbauer and his colleagues tested Wigner's original idea with an even more rigorous experiment which doubled the scenario. They designated two "laboratories" where the experiments would take place and introduced two pairs of entangled photons, meaning that their fates were linked, so
that knowing the state of one automatically tells you the state of the other. (The photons in the setup were real. Four "people" in the
scenario — "Alice," "Bob" and a "friend" of each — were not real, but instead represented observers of the experiment).
The two friends of Alice and Bob, who were located "inside" each of the labs, each measured one photon in an entangled pair. This broke the entanglement and collapsed the superposition, meaning that the photon they measured existed in a definite state of polarization. They recorded the results in quantum memory — copied in the polarization of the second
photon.
Alice and Bob, who were "outside" the closed laboratories, were then presented with two choices for conducting their own observations. They could measure their friends' results that were stored in quantum memory, and thereby arrive at the same conclusions about the polarized photons.
But they could also conduct their own experiment between the entangled photons. In this experiment, known as an interference experiment, if the photons act as waves and still exist in a superposition of states, then Alice and Bob would see a characteristic pattern of light and dark fringes, where the peaks and valleys of the light waves add up or cancel each other out. If the particles have "chosen" their state, you'd see a different pattern than if they hadn't. Wigner had previously proposed that this would reveal that the photons were still in an entangled state.
The authors of the new study found that even in their doubled scenario, the results described by Wigner held. Alice and Bob could arrive at conclusions about the photons that were correct and provable and that
yet still differed from the observations of their friends — which were also correct and provable, according to the study.
Quantum mechanics describes how the world works at a scale so small that the normal rules of physics no longer apply; over many decades, experts who study the field have offered numerous interpretations of what that means, Ringbauer said.
However, if measurements themselves aren't absolutes — as these new findings suggest — that challenges the very meaning of quantum mechanics.
"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said.
"The stories we tell about quantum mechanics have to adapt to that," he said.
### - that's actually quite interesting; the 'implication' being that both entangled states and un-entangled states exist at the same time depending on the pov of who's observing them, the 'deeper' implication being that of a '3rd-state' that remains unchanging regardless of who's observing it!
an unknown *3rd* constant perhaps?
LowRider wrote...
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics)
Different observations of the same reality (in photons) may both be
correct, according quantum mechanics.
Can two versions of reality exist at the same time? Physicists say they
can — at the quantum level, that is.
Researchers recently conducted experiments to answer a decades-old
theoretical physics question about dueling realities. This tricky
thought experiment proposed that two individuals observing the same
photon could arrive at different conclusions about that photon's state — >> and yet both of their observations would be correct.
For the first time, scientists have replicated conditions described in
the thought experiment. Their results, published Feb. 13 in the preprint
journal arXiv, confirmed that even when observers described different
states in the same photon, the two conflicting realities could both be
true. [The Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics]
"You can verify both of them," study co-author Martin Ringbauer, a
postdoctoral researcher with the Department of Experimental Physics at
the University of Innsbrück in Austria, told Live Science.
Wigner's friend
This perplexing idea was the brainchild of Eugene Wigner, winner of the
Nobel Prize for Physics in 1963. In 1961, Wigner had introduced a
thought experiment that became known as "Wigner's friend." It begins
with a photon — a particle of light. When an observer in an isolated
laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particle's
polarization — the axis on which it spins — is either vertical or
horizontal.
However, before the photon is measured, the photon displays both
polarizations at once, as dictated by the laws of quantum mechanics; it
exists in a "superposition" of two possible states.
Once the person in the lab measures the photon, the particle assumes a
fixed polarization. But for someone outside that closed laboratory who
doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is
still in a state of superposition.
That outsider's observation — their reality — therefore diverges from
the reality of the person in the lab who measured the photon. Yet,
neither of those conflicting observations is thought to be wrong,
according to quantum mechanics.
Altered states
For decades, Wigner's mind-bending proposal was just an interesting
thought experiment. But in recent years, important advances in physics
finally enabled experts to put Wigner's proposal to the test, Ringbauer
said.
"Theoretical advances were needed to formulate the problem in a way that
is testable. Then, the experimental side needed developments on the
control of quantum systems to implement something like that," he
explained.
Ringbauer and his colleagues tested Wigner's original idea with an even
more rigorous experiment which doubled the scenario. They designated two
"laboratories" where the experiments would take place and introduced two
pairs of entangled photons, meaning that their fates were linked, so
that knowing the state of one automatically tells you the state of the
other. (The photons in the setup were real. Four "people" in the
scenario — "Alice," "Bob" and a "friend" of each — were not real, but
instead represented observers of the experiment).
The two friends of Alice and Bob, who were located "inside" each of the
labs, each measured one photon in an entangled pair. This broke the
entanglement and collapsed the superposition, meaning that the photon
they measured existed in a definite state of polarization. They recorded
the results in quantum memory — copied in the polarization of the second >> photon.
Alice and Bob, who were "outside" the closed laboratories, were then
presented with two choices for conducting their own observations. They
could measure their friends' results that were stored in quantum memory,
and thereby arrive at the same conclusions about the polarized photons.
But they could also conduct their own experiment between the entangled
photons. In this experiment, known as an interference experiment, if the
photons act as waves and still exist in a superposition of states, then
Alice and Bob would see a characteristic pattern of light and dark
fringes, where the peaks and valleys of the light waves add up or cancel
each other out. If the particles have "chosen" their state, you'd see a
different pattern than if they hadn't. Wigner had previously proposed
that this would reveal that the photons were still in an entangled state.
The authors of the new study found that even in their doubled scenario,
the results described by Wigner held. Alice and Bob could arrive at
conclusions about the photons that were correct and provable and that
yet still differed from the observations of their friends — which were
also correct and provable, according to the study.
Quantum mechanics describes how the world works at a scale so small that
the normal rules of physics no longer apply; over many decades, experts
who study the field have offered numerous interpretations of what that
means, Ringbauer said.
However, if measurements themselves aren't absolutes — as these new
findings suggest — that challenges the very meaning of quantum mechanics. >>
"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results
cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to
the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said.
"The stories we tell about quantum mechanics have to adapt to that," he
said.
### - that's actually quite interesting; the 'implication' being that both >entangled states and un-entangled states exist at the same time depending
on the pov of who's observing them, the 'deeper' implication being that of
a '3rd-state' that remains unchanging regardless of who's observing it!
an unknown *3rd* constant perhaps?
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:13:29 -0000, slider <slider@atashram.com>
wrote:
LowRider wrote...
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics)
Different observations of the same reality (in photons) may both be
correct, according quantum mechanics.
Can two versions of reality exist at the same time? Physicists say they >> can — at the quantum level, that is.
Researchers recently conducted experiments to answer a decades-old
theoretical physics question about dueling realities. This tricky
thought experiment proposed that two individuals observing the same
photon could arrive at different conclusions about that photon's state —
and yet both of their observations would be correct.
For the first time, scientists have replicated conditions described in >> the thought experiment. Their results, published Feb. 13 in the preprint >> journal arXiv, confirmed that even when observers described different
states in the same photon, the two conflicting realities could both be >> true. [The Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics]
"You can verify both of them," study co-author Martin Ringbauer, a
postdoctoral researcher with the Department of Experimental Physics at >> the University of Innsbrück in Austria, told Live Science.
Wigner's friend
This perplexing idea was the brainchild of Eugene Wigner, winner of the >> Nobel Prize for Physics in 1963. In 1961, Wigner had introduced a
thought experiment that became known as "Wigner's friend." It begins
with a photon — a particle of light. When an observer in an isolated >> laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particle's
polarization — the axis on which it spins — is either vertical or
horizontal.
However, before the photon is measured, the photon displays both
polarizations at once, as dictated by the laws of quantum mechanics; it >> exists in a "superposition" of two possible states.
Once the person in the lab measures the photon, the particle assumes a >> fixed polarization. But for someone outside that closed laboratory who >> doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is
still in a state of superposition.
That outsider's observation — their reality — therefore diverges from
the reality of the person in the lab who measured the photon. Yet,
neither of those conflicting observations is thought to be wrong,
according to quantum mechanics.
Altered states
For decades, Wigner's mind-bending proposal was just an interesting
thought experiment. But in recent years, important advances in physics >> finally enabled experts to put Wigner's proposal to the test, Ringbauer >> said.
"Theoretical advances were needed to formulate the problem in a way that >> is testable. Then, the experimental side needed developments on the
control of quantum systems to implement something like that," he
explained.
Ringbauer and his colleagues tested Wigner's original idea with an even >> more rigorous experiment which doubled the scenario. They designated two >> "laboratories" where the experiments would take place and introduced two >> pairs of entangled photons, meaning that their fates were linked, so
that knowing the state of one automatically tells you the state of the >> other. (The photons in the setup were real. Four "people" in the
scenario — "Alice," "Bob" and a "friend" of each — were not real, but
instead represented observers of the experiment).
The two friends of Alice and Bob, who were located "inside" each of the >> labs, each measured one photon in an entangled pair. This broke the
entanglement and collapsed the superposition, meaning that the photon
they measured existed in a definite state of polarization. They recorded >> the results in quantum memory — copied in the polarization of the second
mechanics.photon.
Alice and Bob, who were "outside" the closed laboratories, were then
presented with two choices for conducting their own observations. They >> could measure their friends' results that were stored in quantum memory, >> and thereby arrive at the same conclusions about the polarized photons.
But they could also conduct their own experiment between the entangled >> photons. In this experiment, known as an interference experiment, if the >> photons act as waves and still exist in a superposition of states, then >> Alice and Bob would see a characteristic pattern of light and dark
fringes, where the peaks and valleys of the light waves add up or cancel >> each other out. If the particles have "chosen" their state, you'd see a >> different pattern than if they hadn't. Wigner had previously proposed
that this would reveal that the photons were still in an entangled state. >>
The authors of the new study found that even in their doubled scenario, >> the results described by Wigner held. Alice and Bob could arrive at
conclusions about the photons that were correct and provable and that
yet still differed from the observations of their friends — which were >> also correct and provable, according to the study.
Quantum mechanics describes how the world works at a scale so small that >> the normal rules of physics no longer apply; over many decades, experts >> who study the field have offered numerous interpretations of what that >> means, Ringbauer said.
However, if measurements themselves aren't absolutes — as these new
findings suggest — that challenges the very meaning of quantum
"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results
cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to >> the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said.
"The stories we tell about quantum mechanics have to adapt to that," he >> said.
### - that's actually quite interesting; the 'implication' being that both >entangled states and un-entangled states exist at the same time depending >on the pov of who's observing them, the 'deeper' implication being that of >a '3rd-state' that remains unchanging regardless of who's observing it!
an unknown *3rd* constant perhaps?
Cut and paste and you don't as usual understand even a layman's
perspective of quantum mechanics.
Start point: google "wavefunction" and then google "Schrödinger
equation". Like most if not all fundamental quantum mechanics
equations, Schrödinger took a guess what de Broglie postulated - a
wave like function describing what's now the core of quantum mechanics
worked - mathematical particles.
"He simply wrote down what he thought a wave
equation for a particle such as an electron ought to look
like. That he seems to have made such a good guess is
even now rather extraordinary and mysterious. Or to put
it another way: Schrödinger’s wave equation, which is
now a part of the core conceptual machinery of quantum
mechanics, was built partly by intuition and imagination,
albeit combined with a deeply informed sense of
which parts of classical physics it was appropriate to commandeer."
That, Brian, is how science works. Not the soulless mechanistic way
you *think* it works, but by brilliant guesswork and intuition.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 101:55:10 |
| Calls: | 2,071 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 11,134 |
| Messages: | 946,992 |
