zlacker

[return to "Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?"]
1. eranat+eA[view] [source] 2020-04-27 00:05:43
>>qqqqqu+(OP)
Lot's of quantum related phenomenon here, but what keeps bothering me is that while I get it that light is both a wave and a particle, but I have no clue what that means. I mean, a wave of sound, is made from air particles, a wave of ripples in a pond is made of movement of water molecules. In the double slit experiment, it's explained that the single photon has to be "interfering with itself", so I don't get it if by being a "wave" it means that the single photon is basically a bunch of "magic" photon ghosts that behave like a wave, but once it is measured or any other reason to "collapse" these ghosts "disappear". I just don't get what the "wave" of light/radio wave is. Is it just an abstract concept of something that behaves like a wave but not the same as sound waves / ripples since we simply don't know? Or is it just a wave of these "not yet collapsed" probabilities of the photons locations that are interfering with each other right until we ask them to choose a location, then they just collapse magically into a single "real" photon. Another thing I don't get is in the double slit experiment, a LOT of the measure before, measure after, etc, are told to be thought experiments, but it's also claimed that someone managed to actually replicate them. Why isn't there a video showing it? I obviously believe they happened, and understand why more or less (e.g. in the one photon at a time experiment, it's spooky that over time you get the same pattern that indicates interference as if you shoot many) but the more spooky result is that thought experiment, that if you measure which slit the photon actually traveled through, you'll see 2 slits on the screen vs the famous pattern. e.g. you'll cause the wave to collapse back to particles. So any video of reproducing of that thought experiment or explanation why it's so hard to reproduce, will be super helpful.
◧◩
2. Jabavu+rF[view] [source] 2020-04-27 00:54:06
>>eranat+eA
Sorry, don't have time to unpack all this, as some are things that scientists understand, but some are so deep that ... not.

When talking about light or radio waves, you're probably talking about Classical Electrodynamics, which does not include the notion of a photon. In Classical EM, light is an EM wave in the sense that if you look at the electric field E or magnetic field B (of a plane wave) at a fixed point in space it is varying sinusoidally. So the waviness is in the amplitude of the E and B fields.

Once you talk about photons, you're in the realm of Quantum Mechanics (QM), and yes things are harder to understand.

It's actually all just fields according to the Standard Model (particle physics), a quantum field theory (QFT).

In QFT there's a field for each fundamental particle that permeates the whole universe. E.g. an electron field, a photon field, etc. Disturbances in these fields are what one would call particles in non-relativistic QM.

So Classical -> QM (quantum system, classical observer/apparatus) -> QFT (quantum everything)

In classical EM, light is a wave. In QM, light is particles. In QFT particles are just disturbances in the all-pervading fields.

Binney has said that QM is just measurement for grownups, or some such. What is a measurement? It's when the system you're observing becomes entangled with the measuring device. We don't know the exact state of every atom in our measuring device, but these could all perturb the system we're measuring. So QM is a hack where you treat the system as quantum but the observer/measuring device as classical which is why you need this confusing wave-function collapse. It was a conscious choice in the development of the theory. This last bit might give some insight into why trying to sense the photon at one of the double-slits ruins the interference pattern.

◧◩◪
3. eranat+IY[view] [source] 2020-04-27 05:08:09
>>Jabavu+rF
Wow, any chance with a few MooCs in physics I’ll be able to understand this better? Or it needs years of study. I’m worried about the math mostly (Ms in CS, but I got Bs in all the math classes :))
[go to top]