empleat Posted October 1, 2020 Posted October 1, 2020 If this is true, that's such a gigantic news!!! Absolutely staggering!!! Unreal! https://phys.org/news/2020-09-quantum-entanglement-distant-large.html Scientists were able to link 2 disparate quantum objects together in quantum entanglement. They say it is simple as taking information from one object and applying knowledge to other. It could be used to get rid of zero point fluctuations on mirrors in (LIGO), to get rid of a noise. They say this could erase uncertainty. By allowing them to create a sensor, which would allow measure both momentum and position of a quantum particle!!! Which was impossible until now! I can't even wrap my head around it. This is such a gigantic step in science, so interesting!!! Supposing what they say is true and they will be able to construct such a device. I will turn off a bit, if you excuse me and allow this. Reasons of this topic: 1. inform about this overwhelming news 2. ask about some important questions 3. it is related to subject i was interested greatly free will, i would like to know what this means Skip next 4 paragraphs to get to the point I was like Albert Camus would say striked all of the sudden: "At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face". I don't remember how it started, but i started having these deliberations about free will, that it is illusion. So i read during 1 year, 16 hours/day (almost every day), over 1M articles about it. Everything is either predetermined, or random in natural sciences. There is no other option! Also even it is currently, in an area of philosophy. That's only, because scientists don't study something: they can't test by an experiment. It is likely, it will be refuted when we get powerful Ai and more powerful computers... Still science already can say a lot. And also don't think our experience equals free will, or even resembles it remotely. Because i think way too much about everything, i spammed like 300k articles about psychology. There is like trillion e150 scenarios, which contradicts the free will. I could list like million things if i wanted and i would like to see someone to reconcile free will with them. I am just mentioning main aspects and i hope for discussion about this. Or we can be very likely in simulation, if argument 1. is true and 2. 3. is not, in simulation theory. Again likelyhood is just a ratio - "1:x". E.g. 1:1M, it doesn't say anything about whether, or not event will happen. If that was predetermined, even if there is chance 1:10e23. If event, which is represented by 1 here, will be predetermined. There was in reality chance 100%, this will happen and nothing else! I am just layman, i don't know anything, yet i know something... I don't care much about some formal education, i am great in logical and critical thinking. I have aphantasia - meaning no imagination. But i am great at solving problems and analytical thinking. So my knowledge is very selective and all over the place. I just care about facts. I won't wait like 50 years for whole planet to study this to give me an answer... Or study this whole life, there would be no point to this... I am just watching subject from time to time - today times. This could finally confirm determinism. Not that indeterminism would provide much hope for the free will. And help the free will, of which idea is just absurd in my opinion... I can't even imagine how that would be possible!!! Also dualism is probably not true: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/body-switching Yet there is panpsychism and some of its advocates say: that there is misunderstanding in science of 21 century. Which will often mention reductionism. Again just because it isn't currently solvable doesn't mean anything about: whether or not it is truth and we have emergence so... I think humanity would be better off with realizing free will is illusion. It wouldn't mean disintergration of laws and praxis in my opinion, depends how it would be handled. Because they are still important for survival... For example: nations are such an infantile disease of humanity, i never liked it, since when i was 11. Or democracy is just ridiculous, elon musk wants direct democracy on mars? Huh i was thinking the same! Or i was thinking about single entity controlling everything, which said Niel Bolstrom it is coming, could be ai e.g. Since civilization complexity is raising and it will be to difficult to control and everything is globalized. People care about status, or hoarding money. Yet they did nothing and aren't any better than anyone else... They just got better coinflipp... I read about everything that exists and i laugh about 1M of things, they are just dumb and absurd. I think realizing free will is illusion could be very good thing. It is not like you can't do whatever you want, you just can't chose what you desire. And it is more about control. I wouldn't go to the extent to make all people same. But some people don't have even water/food, health care and education and residence. While other people feels like have infinite money. And corporations lobby against studies, which proves sugar cause hearth disease and obesity and fossil fuel companies lobby against regulations and renewable energy and global warming, which is just fact. But politicians showed, they don't know anything. Usually people with most power, politics are about power, not politics... And they don't understand science! Yet scientists predict by 2030 all ice bergs will melt and by 2045 50% of animals will go extinct. Even tesla cars won't be spread in time. So it is hopeless unfortunately, humanity will be likely trapped on earth and go extinct sooner, or later... I am simply not interested in any other views, than materialistic in this thread. Because i have millions of reasons, why i think free will is nonsense! But it would require 1 year to explain. Lets say scientists will be able to measure momentum and position of an particle at the same time. Will they be able to predict any phenomena? I am not a physicist, i just was interested in free will. Because our computers still sucks. Supercomputer's predictions of drop of a water deviate, after a moment. Even quantum computers are like 2 to power of 64 more powerful. But not suitable for classic workloads. I have no idea what computers could be used for calculating this. Probably both together. Still it will take extraordinary computational power to predict even simple phenomena. It will probably take a long time, before human behavior can be predicted on 100% accuracy. And ofc. it will be difficult to entangle different particles, as they said. Also besides computational power problem, it can't be simple as predict some elementary particles how they behave and than deduce from it behavior of complex systems, like emergence. It will take probably a lot of research to figure how to calculate this. And it won't be probably priority. I could imagine, this will be first used on capturing gravitational waves and to reconcile QM with gravity. So this will be probably tested on simplest things from start, which have uncertainty currently. I think this is probably impossible to answer currently, even so i would like to ask some questions: - Does this prove, that everything is predetermined by initial state of the universe? - Will there be still some things, which have still uncertainty? - What does this mean for energy? - How long we can expect scientists will be able to predict: A. simple phenomena, B. more complex phenomena? PS: if something doesn't make sense, or written poorly sorry, i am not good at writing. And i am tired. Thanks for answers!
QuantumT Posted October 1, 2020 Posted October 1, 2020 Your reference link is pointing back to this page. Reference link: https://phys.org/news/2020-09-quantum-entanglement-distant-large.html
John Cuthber Posted October 1, 2020 Posted October 1, 2020 1 hour ago, empleat said: this could erase uncertainty. Are you sure? 4
Bufofrog Posted October 1, 2020 Posted October 1, 2020 I kept hitting the link and became trapped in a quantum loop thingy.
Markus Hanke Posted October 2, 2020 Posted October 2, 2020 10 hours ago, empleat said: By allowing them to create a sensor, which would allow measure both momentum and position of a quantum particle!!! You need to read this more carefully - it allows to determine position and momentum of the LIGO mirrors, which is a macroscopic and classical system. This does not work with quantum systems, since non-commuting observables are inherent in the very nature of such systems, and not due to measurement limitations. In fact, it is that very non-classicality which allows entanglement relationships in the first place. 3
empleat Posted October 2, 2020 Author Posted October 2, 2020 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said: You need to read this more carefully - it allows to determine position and momentum of the LIGO mirrors, which is a macroscopic and classical system. This does not work with quantum systems, since non-commuting observables are inherent in the very nature of such systems, and not due to measurement limitations. In fact, it is that very non-classicality which allows entanglement relationships in the first place. Aaah... That's disappointing, but still interesting. Thanks for clearing that up! Yeah i can't even read currently, i have chronic pain. I barely can read a sentence, not even kidding... To be fair, there is also written: "taking a step towards limitless precision of measurements of motion". But i don't about QM much and why exactly you can't predict particle's motion on the microscopic level. And already measuring gravitational waves is probably huge step towards reconciling QM with general relativity. So still huge discovery! Btw i thought entanglement is only possible between two particles - generated by some event. And than you can't connect any distant objects at your leisure. Edited October 2, 2020 by empleat
joigus Posted October 2, 2020 Posted October 2, 2020 I totally concur with Markus that you've read too much into it. The relative error for macroscopic reading variables can be made as small as you want, making measurements of atomic parameters, extremely precise; meaning as close to the UP bound as one wants. Nothing more.
QuantumT Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 They have eliminated Quantum Back Action. Here's an article about the setup, and how they did it: https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news17/clever-atomic-cloud-solves-heisenbergs-observational-problem/ As far as I understand, they have bypassed the uncertainty principle, or what?
swansont Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 1 hour ago, QuantumT said: They have eliminated Quantum Back Action. Here's an article about the setup, and how they did it: https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news17/clever-atomic-cloud-solves-heisenbergs-observational-problem/ As far as I understand, they have bypassed the uncertainty principle, or what? The article confuses the observer effect and the HUP
QuantumT Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, swansont said: The article confuses the observer effect and the HUP I doubt that very much. It's work done and published by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen. Bohr's own grandson works there.
swansont Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 1 hour ago, QuantumT said: I doubt that very much. It's work done and published by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen. Bohr's own grandson works there. The article confuses the two. Did you read it? Do you see the part about random kicks? That’s not the HUP. You didn’t link to the actual paper; the article link leads to a paywalled article. From this there’s no way to tell what the NBI actually said.
QuantumT Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, swansont said: The article confuses the two. Did you read it? Do you see the part about random kicks? That’s not the HUP. The random kicks has nothing to do with the observer effect. The OE isn't even mentioned. They are the back action that makes the HUP. Or at least that is what the article tries to explain. Are you claiming that back action and the observer effect is the same thing? Edited October 3, 2020 by QuantumT
swansont Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 7 minutes ago, QuantumT said: The random kicks has nothing to do with the observer effect. The OE isn't even mentioned. They are the back action that makes the HUP. Or at least that is what the article tries to explain. The HUP is inherent to QM and does not depend on making a measurement Here is a better article, IMO. It distinguishes between the HUP and back action. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/negative-mass-swing-beats-the-uncertainty-principle/?comments=1&post=33737037
QuantumT Posted October 3, 2020 Posted October 3, 2020 6 minutes ago, swansont said: The HUP is inherent to QM and does not depend on making a measurement Here is a better article, IMO. It distinguishes between the HUP and back action. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/negative-mass-swing-beats-the-uncertainty-principle/?comments=1&post=33737037 Thanks for the link. I will read it one of these days. I have a sleeping disorder, and right now my head is buzzing.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now