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. SAI_Pe+FI[view] [source] 2020-04-27 01:30:24
>>eranat+eA
> while I get it that light is both a wave and a particle, but I have no clue what that means.

Because it's wrong. It's a quantum of the electromagnetic field. It's neither a wave nor a particle. It just happens to have some properties of both.

◧◩◪
3. AlanSE+yT[view] [source] 2020-04-27 03:50:04
>>SAI_Pe+FI
I've done plenty of layman reading into QFT, and I'm truly good with this. All particles are really waves. There are no particles. There's self-interaction, and all other kinds of weird stuff. (it's important to qualify that stable orbits and molecules and stuff exist)

But for the duality, there's something bigger that the responses always seem to blow past. Is wave-like nature for explaining behavior (wavy double-slit intensity pattern), or is it something to have a mathematical mapping to measured probabilities?

Quantum stories always seem so backwards. The root phenomenon is some sort of irreducible probability. But then the mechanical part (inference in double-slit) goes a totally different direction. Instead of just turning the situation into a probability of one-or-the-other slit, it STAYS as a wave.

Okay, now you have a new hole in the story. If the photon refuses to choose just 1 slit to go through, why does it choose 1 spot on the photo paper to land on?

Why do we not still have to consider interference in outcomes after the photon makes its mark on the paper? Why does there appear to be like a limit on entanglement, such that it goes away beyond a certain scale? Why are quantum computers hard?

◧◩◪◨
4. aetern+ge1[view] [source] 2020-04-27 08:30:20
>>AlanSE+yT
> If the photon refuses to choose just 1 slit to go through, why does it choose 1 spot on the photo paper to land on?

The photon (as a field excitation) goes through both slits, but is quantized so only has enough energy to trigger a mark at 1 spot on the photo paper.

> Why do we not still have to consider interference in outcomes after the photon makes its mark on the paper?

If we want to be completely accurate, we should. However so many interactions happen so quickly that the law of large numbers quickly takes over and obfuscates the quantum reality. Technical term for this is decoherence.

> Why are quantum computers hard?

Exactly because of this decoherence. It is very difficult to keep the qubit state isolated from the environment throughout the computation.

[go to top]