Jump to content

crowded quantum information


hoola

Recommended Posts

On 11/27/2022 at 3:33 PM, MigL said:

may be an example brought to an absurd level, but it illustrates perfectly that QM says there is no reality until an observation/interaction is made.
Which side of the wall are you on

Is it possible to be on both sides of the wall?

Is  there  a medium that holds all the interactions?

The field?

Is that a school of thought?(or even mainstream theory?)

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 3:49 PM, geordief said:

Could they just  meet again under the influence of gravity?

Their trajectory could be altered if  either  or both of them went close enough to a small black hole 

I imagine entanglement would be lost when they met again

I’m not sure why it needs to be so contrived. You can redirect photons with an optical fiber, or mirrors/beamsplitters. Photons can pass through each other quite easily. I don’t see why entanglement would necessarily be affected

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Is it possible to be on both sides of the wall?

The 'wall' was referencing Markus' observation that whereas quantum particles can pass through a wall, as opposed to classical particles which cannot, some of us are thinking 'classically', and nothing is getting through.

The question originally posed is, regardless of the mechanism for doing so, can a quantum particle lose coherence by interaction with its entangled partner ?
Or does the common wave function alreadytake the interaction into account and simply 'updates' itself ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 'wall' was referencing Markus' observation that whereas quantum particles can pass through a wall, as opposed to classical particles which cannot, some of us are thinking 'classically', and nothing is getting through.

The question originally posed is, regardless of the mechanism for doing so, can a quantum particle lose coherence by interaction with its entangled partner ?
Or does the common wave function alreadytake the interaction into account and simply 'updates' itself ?

Ah yes,I forgot about M's wall

 

Perhaps I will ask that question of mine   again elsewhere.

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure why it needs to be so contrived. You can redirect photons with an optical fiber, or mirrors/beamsplitters. Photons can pass through each other quite easily. I don’t see why entanglement would necessarily be affected

 

So reflecting  off the side of an optical fibre would not be  an interaction that would cause a loss of entanglement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Entanglement would be slightly more difficult to illustrate with a light cone than ordinary events because it would usually require two or more separate but overlapping light cones to illustrate and I have never seen it done.

Eh? Joigus did it:

image.png

  

21 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The value of c works perfectly well as a universally observed dimensional constant and it behaves nothing like a speed. Just because c is the ratio of distance over time doesn’t mean it is a speed, and since c=d/t is a constant, that should be our first clue that c isn’t a speed.

It seems you really do not understand EM either. Just take the historical lesson:

  1. Maxwell discovered the laws of EM, based on the experimental results of Faraday, and his ideas of electric and magnetic fields.
  2. Maxwell discovered that his equations implied that EM waves should be possible, because he could derive a wave equation from them.
  3. According to plain old classical wave mechanics, he showed that the speed of the waves should be sqrt(1/(mu_naught * epsilon_naught)).
  4. As this fitted very well to the known speed of light, he concluded that light is an EM wave.

And now you say that c is not so much light speed????? Oh my.

I also want to mention, that you obviously simply do not understand, or evade all explanations given. On one side, you said you fully agreed with Markus' first explanation (but where for me it was obvious that this could not be, he clearly explained why you were wrong). But then, Markus showed you made the same errors all over again. So you did not understand one word of what he was arguing. Please, learn real physics. 

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:
  • Nothing about relativity allows instantaneous interactions.
  • Nothing about relativity says anything about particles having to be "similar" in any way.

Entanglement is not a part of relativity and only the ‘second postulate’ and entanglement are not in agreement. The rest of relativity is OK.

 

On 11/28/2022 at 6:38 AM, Lorentz Jr said:
  • Every light cone is defined by either an event or some other specified point in spacetime, and no light cone that isn't defined by an interaction involving one of the particles in question (which would be necessary for them to be "in the same light cone") can be relevant to their mutual interactions.
  • If two particles "interact instantaneously", that means whatever changes occur to the particles are outside of each other's light cones.

The end of an entanglement would be in the same light cone but represented as two simultaneous events in different locations. This is entanglement and not classical physics.

On 11/28/2022 at 6:41 AM, joigus said:

Again: "In the same light cone" doesn't mean anything. I've shown you two distinct cases of events; a couple of them were space-like separated; the other two were time-like separated. In both cases, you can make them be either in the same light cone, or in different light cones, at will. It's painfully obvious you didn't understand.

Your light cones were intelligible because they had no world lines for the entangled particles. The world lines also wandered outside the bounds of the cones and failed to pass through the intersection between past and future. Mainly they demonstrated nothing about entanglement.

In classical physics, an electron can only interact with a limited number of other electrons through some form of direct physical contact.

However, with entanglement an electron can establish an instant two-way resonant connection with any other electron on its pair of light cones if the intervening space permits. And such a pair can interact as if they are side-by-side even if they are galaxies apart. That is entanglement.

Entanglement is what Einstein called, “Spooky action at a distance.” but it has been demonstrated experimentally many times over since Aspect and Clauser.

You appear to reject the whole notion of ‘action at a distance’ as well as the violation of Bell’s inequalities in favor of ‘hidden variables’ and the EPR effect.

This is why I find your views to be fifty years out of date.

On 11/28/2022 at 6:41 AM, joigus said:

Here's a good Veritasium video that will make you understand this concept. It's highly imbued in physical intuition, and I highly recommend it:

Why do you assume I know nothing about electric fields and how a circuit works? This is old stuff to me and it has little to do with the topic of entanglement which you apparently either reject or know little about.

22 hours ago, MigL said:

Causal contact has a very specific meaning in Physics, and is subject to the speed of light, c .It implies cause and effect, the very things Bangstrom is arguing against, as non-locality requires an 'effect' before information about the 'cause 'can reach that point

I am arguing that entanglement needs no direct physical intervention between two remote particles to precipitate a cause and effect. The particles may be remote from each other, but while entangled, they act as if side-by-side or superimposed. You can’t affect one without instantly effecting the other even when they are beyond reach of a light signal. That is what is called non-local action or action at a distance and it is not classical physics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Eh? Joigus did it:

Your light cone makes sense. Joigus's didn't.

 

4 hours ago, Eise said:

And now you say that c is not so much light speed????? Oh my.

I say the value of c works better in SR as a spacetime dimensional constant than when considered as a speed. 

In 1676, Olaus Roemer discovered that c was simply a constant relation between measures of observational distance and observational time in the constant ratio of c. He was looking for a speed and discovered a universal constant ratio of time to distance. Unfortunately he called it a speed and it has been known as a speed ever since.

The true speed of light is unknown and unknowable because our units of length, time, and c are all mutually defined.The length of a meter is now defined as the distance light travels in 1/c seconds etc..Any attempt to measure the speed of light is like trying to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light year.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

I also want to mention, that you obviously simply do not understand, or evade all explanations given. On one side, you said you fully agreed with Markus' first explanation (but where for me it was obvious that this could not be, he clearly explained why you were wrong). But then, Markus showed you made the same errors all over again. So you did not understand one word of what he was arguing. Please, learn real physics. 

As I recall, Markus was claiming that the anti-coordination revealed at the end of an entanglement was there from the start. This was one of the first 'hidden variables' ruled out by the violation of Bell's inequalities and debunked by the experiments of Aspect and Clauser.

Also, Zeilinger's teleportation demonstrated that an entire series of entangled quantum properties can be reversed remotely and in an instant. This would not be possible if the quantum properties were fixed and unchanging from the start.

I agreed with his first statement but the one point about the quantum properties being fixed from the start was where our views parted company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

Entanglement is not a part of relativity and only the ‘second postulate’ and entanglement are not in agreement. The rest of relativity is OK.

As @Eise has told you many times, SR is an embedding theory about observation of events in ST. He used the word "metatheory." It should  be clear enough. For you it's not, for some reason.

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

Your light cones were intelligible because they had no world lines for the entangled particles. The world lines also wandered outside the bounds of the cones and failed to pass through the intersection between past and future. Mainly they demonstrated nothing about entanglement.

 

I'm assuming you mean "unintelligible." But anyway. You don't need world lines. Light cones are about events. Go back to an elementary physics book and learn the stuff. Nobody should be suffering your ignorance any longer.

While you're at it, study some classical EM theory too. It shows that you don't understand it either.

Including world lines makes the argument I'm trying to get across, if anything, more compelling, as both particles come from the same space-time point (tiny region). So it becomes obvious that the whole thing has a common cause in the past.

 

35 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

Your light cone makes sense. Joigus's didn't.

 

@Eise is reproducing one of several light cones that I drew for you. The very first one was showing you particle histories.

The last one showed only events, because you said "particles in the same light cone," which has about as much meaning as "we're both in some region of space."

I'm positive now that we're dealing with an attention-span problem, among other things.

Edited by joigus
minor correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

Your light cone makes sense. Joigus's didn't.

Alain Aspect was the first to design an experiment that avoided the locality ‘loophole’; @joigus example, as far as I can tell, neatly displays a loophole-avoiding experiment using light cones. If one understand Aspects contribution* Jogious' light cone picture is trivial. It is also possible to draw** other versions with overlapping light cones displaying the loop hole that Aspect avoided. 

In case you missed the importance of SR in connection to Aspect and QM it was covered here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127795-crowded-quantum-information/page/20/#comment-1221385

 

*) Or, more generally, QM in relation to SR
**) I may post an attempt if there is interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, joigus said:

Maybe @Markus Hanke has better guidance to offer on this idea. It wouldn't surprise me if he has.

I’m afraid I don’t have much to offer on this either.

Educated guess: first of all, the mathematical form of an entangled state does not in any way depend on either the metric of the background spacetime, nor on the spatial trajectories of the particle pair. Hence I don’t see any a priori reason why simply following a geodesic path (which is what “scattering” on a BH really is) should in itself break the entanglement relationship.

In order to break the entanglement, you need to interact with any part of the entangled system in a way that constitutes a measurement of whatever property has been entangled. For example, if you have a pair of particles whose spins have been entangled, then the way to break that correlation is to do something to either of these particles that allows you to figure out its direction of spin, which (if you follow the Copenhagen interpretation) “collapses the wave function”. Just scattering these particles in a curved spacetime does not itself allow you to figure out their spin directions, so in this case the entanglement should persist. By “you” I mean the environment, so by “measurement” I mean that the entangled system’s respective degree of freedom in question becomes coupled to a suitable degree of freedom in its environment. Thus, even if the two entangled particles meet again, the entanglement should persist so long as the system remains isolated from its environment.

That’s my thoughts on this - someone correct me please if I’m overlooking something obvious here.

Edited by Markus Hanke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, unless the interaction of an entangled particle, with its partner, 'fixes' the particular state of the entangled property, the system has no reason to decohere.
It is only when the interaction with the entangled partner results in a defined state ( even if we don't know it ? ) that entanglement is lost.

Makes sense; thanks Markus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MigL said:

So, unless the interaction of an entangled particle, with its partner, 'fixes' the particular state of the entangled property, the system has no reason to decohere.
It is only when the interaction with the entangled partner results in a defined state ( even if we don't know it ? ) that entanglement is lost.

Yes, precisely. Entanglement requires the absence of counterfactual definiteness - once the property in question can be given a definite state (no matter if we know what this state is or not), entanglement cannot exist.

All these principles remain valid irrespective of the geometry of the background spacetime; even if we allow one of the entangled particles to (e.g.) fall past an event horizon, the entanglement relationship will persist.

Another important observation (that may or may not have been mentioned already on this thread) is that placing a barrier between the entangled particles does not in any way affect the statistical correlation between them. This is irrespective of the precise nature of the barrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Entanglement is not a part of relativity and only the ‘second postulate’ and entanglement are not in agreement. The rest of relativity is OK.

The second postulate is that the speed of light is the same for all observers. (And not that c is the limiting speed of material objects.) 

18 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Your light cone makes sense. Joigus's didn't.

As said, 'my light cone' was also of Joigus. AFAIU Joigus' intention with the latest, was to show that your remarks about light cones were much too vague (as usual): they also fit these funny space-time diagrams.

19 hours ago, bangstrom said:

In 1676, Olaus Roemer discovered that c was simply a constant relation between measures of observational distance and observational time in the constant ratio of c. He was looking for a speed and discovered a universal constant ratio of time to distance. Unfortunately he called it a speed and it has been known as a speed ever since.

So you are just reinterpreting a piece of science history. I am sure Ole Rømer hypothesized that the anomaly in the orbital times of Jupiter moons was caused by a signal delay, i.e. that the light signals do have some measurable speed.  So this is no argument at all. 

19 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The true speed of light is unknown and unknowable because our units of length, time, and c are all mutually defined.

The units, yes. But light has a fixed speed in vacuum, independent on which units we use, be it inches, cm, meters, seconds, minutes, hours.

19 hours ago, bangstrom said:

As I recall, Markus was claiming that the anti-coordination revealed at the end of an entanglement was there from the start. This was one of the first 'hidden variables' ruled out by the violation of Bell's inequalities and debunked by the experiments of Aspect and Clauser.

Yep, this anti-correlation is given, as we are talking about entangled particles. What would entangled particles be without correlation? So the correlation 'an sich' is not a hidden variable at all. The Bell experiments prove that the correlation is stronger than can understood classically. And you are arguing classically all the time, so no wonder you keep hammering on the idea that there should be a signal, interaction or whatever. 

20 hours ago, bangstrom said:

I agreed with his first statement but the one point about the quantum properties being fixed from the start was where our views parted company.

Where did Markus say that the direction of the spins are fixed?

20 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Also, Zeilinger's teleportation demonstrated that an entire series of entangled quantum properties can be reversed remotely and in an instant. This would not be possible if the quantum properties were fixed and unchanging from the start.

Nope. They even had to delay the entangled photon, so that the classical signal would be at the other side first. The correlation between the entangled photons is instantly, yes, but

  • that is just an attribute of any form of correlation, like the left and right shoe example.
  • quantum teleportation as a whole is not instantly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

The only opportunity for interference would be at the point where they cross. 

Would that interference be between their probability  waves?

It wouldn't affect their respective frequencies?(I assume they would have to be identical?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, geordief said:

Would that interference be between their probability  waves?

It wouldn't affect their respective frequencies?(I assume they would have to be identical?)

Here is a most interesting applied maths  (fear not you only need the four arithmetic functions to +,-, * ,/  to follow it)

discussion which in cludes the answer to your question and may help with many of you other ones.

 

https://risingentropy.com/matter-and-interaction-in-quantum-mechanics/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, geordief said:

Would that interference be between their probability  waves?

It wouldn't affect their respective frequencies?(I assume they would have to be identical?)

I have to amend my previous statement. They can interfere under other situations, depending on the kind of entanglement.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68181-1

 

Interference does not affect the frequency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2022 at 4:33 AM, Eise said:

As said, 'my light cone' was also of Joigus. AFAIU Joigus' intention with the latest, was to show that your remarks about light cones were much too vague (as usual): they also fit these funny space-time diagrams.

All I saw was incorrectly drawn light cones.

On 11/30/2022 at 4:33 AM, Eise said:

So you are just reinterpreting a piece of science history. I am sure Ole Rømer hypothesized that the anomaly in the orbital times of Jupiter moons was caused by a signal delay, i.e. that the light signals do have some measurable speed.  So this is no argument at all. 

Rømer's 'speed' could also be correctly called a dimensional constant. The usage of c as the 'speed of light' in relativity works best when considered as a dimensional constant rather than as a speed.

On 11/30/2022 at 4:33 AM, Eise said:

The units, yes. But light has a fixed speed in vacuum, independent on which units we use, be it inches, cm, meters, seconds, minutes, hours.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a cliche but how can a speed be relative to a vacuum which is nothing at all and also the same for all observers? This is more like a dimensional constant than a speed.

On 11/30/2022 at 4:33 AM, Eise said:

Yep, this anti-correlation is given, as we are talking about entangled particles. What would entangled particles be without correlation? So the correlation 'an sich' is not a hidden variable at all. The Bell experiments prove that the correlation is stronger than can understood classically. And you are arguing classically all the time, so no wonder you keep hammering on the idea that there should be a signal, interaction or whatever. 

There is nothing classical about quantum teleportation and your claim that correlation is not a hidden variable is your view- not Bell's. The shoes in boxes thought experiment was shown to be invalid by the Bell test.

What is this anti-correlation "given" that is maintained throughout periods of superposition and changes of quantum properties.

On 11/30/2022 at 4:33 AM, Eise said:

Where did Markus say that the direction of the spins are fixed?

He said the anti-correlation was fixed from the start. This was one of the 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test.

On 11/30/2022 at 4:33 AM, Eise said:

Nope. They even had to delay the entangled photon, so that the classical signal would be at the other side first. The correlation between the entangled photons is instantly, yes, but

  • that is just an attribute of any form of correlation, like the left and right shoe example.
  • quantum teleportation as a whole is not instantly.

The classical signal was sent to set the angle of the polarizer on the receiving end in preparation to measure the incoming photon upon its arrival. It had no effect on the condition of the photon arriving on the other channel. The photon receiving the teleportation signal was sent through a fiber optic cable which gave the receiving end enough time to set the angle of the polarizer. The polarizer was electronic with no moving parts so it could be changed almost instantly.

The teleportation was achieved while the entangled photon was in transit. The 'signal' that decided the quantum state of the receding photon had to be far faster than light to catch up with a photon in flight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

The speed of light in a vacuum is a cliche but how can a speed be relative to a vacuum which is nothing at all and also the same for all observers?

Oh, c'mon. c is the lightspeed through vacuum, not relative to vacuum. 

23 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

He said the anti-correlation was fixed from the start.

Yep, that is what characterises entanglement. The directions of the spins are anti-correlated, meaning that we know from the beginning that if we 'add the spins' (when measured in the same direction), we will get zero. 

Just as a remark, in some experiments, with photons e.g. the particles are correlated. But I'll go with your anti-correlated example, no prob. 

28 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

This was one of the 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test.

Nope. The 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test are properties of the particles that determine in advance what spins will be measured.

30 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

There is nothing classical about quantum teleportation

On one side, exactly, but you look with 'classical eyes' on entanglement. That is your problem

On the other side, no: besides the entangle particles needed in quantum teleportation, there is also a classical signal needed. You know that very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

There is nothing classical about quantum teleportation

Of course there is - it requires both a quantum channel and a classical channel.

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The speed of light in a vacuum is a cliche but how can a speed be relative to a vacuum

The speed is of course relative to a given observer in vacuum. The point here is that it doesn’t matter which observer you choose, the numerical value of said speed will always come out the same, ie it is invariant.

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

He said the anti-correlation was fixed from the start.

Yes, I said the statistical correlation is fixed from the start (which is what ‘entanglement’ means) - I did not say that the direction of the spin is fixed. Those are not the same things at all, and they are in fact mutually exclusive, as I have already explained in some detail; you couldn’t have entanglement with a fully determined spin at the same time. I have been very explicit on several occasions about this lack of local realism.

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The teleportation was achieved while the entangled photon was in transit.

This thread is really about entanglement, not teleportation, these two being related but distinct concepts. If you wish to discuss quantum teleportation, it would be best if you opened a new thread. 

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The 'signal' that decided the quantum state of the receding photon

There is no ‘signal’ of any kind - what gives the spin direction a definite value (as opposed to a statistical probability) is the act of measuring it, meaning the process of it becoming coupled to suitable degrees of freedom of its immediate environment. Which is, of course, always a purely local process, irrespective of whether or not the particle is entangled at all.

Edited by Markus Hanke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Eise said:
22 hours ago, bangstrom said:

He said the anti-correlation was fixed from the start.

Yep, that is what characterises entanglement. The directions of the spins are anti-correlated, meaning that we know from the beginning that if we 'add the spins' (when measured in the same direction), we will get zero. 

 "From the beginning"implies one of the 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test.

 

22 hours ago, Eise said:
22 hours ago, bangstrom said:

This was one of the 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test.

Nope. The 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test are properties of the particles that determine in advance what spins will be measured.

The ‘hidden variables’ are not about what spins will be measured. And "from the beginning" implies that the entangled particles carry some prior set of instructions with them about how to respond when measured.

Hidden variables are, “either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in quantum` mechanics is not complete or (2) two quantum operators cannot have simultaneous reality.”- John Bell

Neither one of these possibilities explains entanglement where two particles can be observed to be correlated when measured- even if they are beyond reach of a light speed signal. That would give them a simultaneous reality and require some kind of ‘action at a distance’ not permitted by the conventional interpretations of relativity.

22 hours ago, Eise said:

On the other side, no: besides the entangle particles needed in quantum teleportation, there is also a classical signal needed. You know that very well.

The only purpose for the classical signal is to set the polarizer to the correct position to receive the incoming signal. The incoming signal is already prepared and on the way by then.

The classical channel plays no role in the completed entanglement.

 

 

20 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Of course there is - it requires both a quantum channel and a classical channel.

In the original Danube experiment and those that followed, the classical channel was for the purpose of preparing to measure the incoming signal from the entanglement experiment which was delayed in transit by being sent through a fiber optic cable. It had nothing to do with the preparation of the signal and was therefore not a requirement.

 

20 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, I said the statistical correlation is fixed from the start (which is what ‘entanglement’ means) - I did not say that the direction of the spin is fixed.

The prospect that entanglement is “fixed from the start” is one of the hidden variables ruled out by the Bell test. This was my objection and I know you never mentioned the direction of spin. That was part of a question from Eise.

My question is, what is the material explanation for the correlation?  That is, how does local environment of the second observation determine that the second particle be anti-coordinated with the first observation?

Their correlation upon observation suggests some kind of a signal from the first observed to the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

"From the beginning"implies one of the 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test.

 

No. It implies the statistical correlations proven by the CHSH test. Quantum mechanics has them, and the experiments have confirmed them. The quantum state has everything you need to explain the correlations without hidden variables.

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The ‘hidden variables’ are not about what spins will be measured. And "from the beginning" implies that the entangled particles carry some prior set of instructions with them about how to respond when measured.

No. The results are random, so no instructions. The quantum state does not respond in any fixed, pre-determined way.

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The only purpose for the classical signal is to set the polarizer to the correct position to receive the incoming signal. The incoming signal is already prepared and on the way by then.

 

There is no signal --except the classical data.

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

In the original Danube experiment and those that followed, the classical channel was for the purpose of preparing to measure the incoming signal from the entanglement experiment which was delayed in transit by being sent through a fiber optic cable. It had nothing to do with the preparation of the signal and was therefore not a requirement.

There is no signal --except the classical data.

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

My question is, what is the material explanation for the correlation?  That is, how does local environment of the second observation determine that the second particle be anti-coordinated with the first observation?

You only need to answer this question if you keep thinking classically. You keep thinking classically.

There are many, many questions that make no sense quantum mechanically. For example, "where is the electron now?", "what is the z-projection of spin now?", or "how many photons are within this volume now?"

Your confusion is unending, because you want to picture it classically. That's probably why you need a "signal" in your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.