Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pumpkin_enthusiast_ t1_j290w9w wrote

I i understand correctly this could help solve a bunch of quantum physics paradox like Schrodinger's cat paradox or quantum entanglement, or is it to limited for this yet ?

−5

habeus_coitus t1_j29h6ky wrote

There aren’t any paradoxes in QM that I know of (purely within QM, there is a paradox between it and GR concerning black holes). A paradox means that a framework allows for two or more completely contradictory outcomes to occur, implying that the framework is flawed/incomplete. There’s nothing contradictory within QM atm. It does predict seemingly contradictory things, but these have all been experimentally verified, proving that they actually aren’t contradictory, our everyday intuition just doesn’t apply at quantum scales.

One arguable shortcoming of QM is that it only describes how things behave (the mechanics part of quantum mechanics), not how the underlying phenomena arise. Like, we know what happens to particles when you entangle them, but we still don’t fully understand what entanglement is. We’ve verified that it propagates faster than the speed of light, but we don’t know why. It would be like us understanding how things move under the influence of gravity but not knowing what gravity itself is (which we do know thanks to GR).

12

IcyOrio t1_j29l5zm wrote

What about the double slit experiment?

0

sticklebat t1_j29mmmp wrote

Nothing about the double slit experiment is paradoxical. It’s just unintuitive.

14

habeus_coitus t1_j29mdgj wrote

What about it? The outcomes of the experiment are unintuitive but repeatable.

8

pumpkin_enthusiast_ t1_j29ziir wrote

Maybe paradox is not the right word, but if this new method help give some amount of explanation of why those phenomenon that we observe happen then i think it's a pretty big deal.

i personally do not find the "this is how particle behave because magic" to be a complete and satisfactory answer.

edit : spelling

−1

habeus_coitus t1_j2a64j2 wrote

My read of the article is that this will not do that. This appears to be a novel technique for measuring information about quantum objects (specifically microwave photons) in an indirect way. What are the implications of that? Hard to say. But it probably won’t lead to any insights or discoveries in fundamental physics.

2

tornpentacle t1_j29uqhm wrote

The Schrödinger's cat thing is just some nonsense he said that science educators have adopted as a teaching method, God knows why. The entire point of the "thought experiment" was to make quantum mechanics seem ridiculous and incredible (in the literal sense of the word). It isn't a paradox at all. Quantum entanglement is not a paradox either; it just means something is going on that we don't understand yet.

Anyway, this study has nothing to do with "solving" either of those (quotation marks because I more mean "making the way the world works appear intuitive to humans, whose cognitive biases and other ridiculous habits of cognition are extraordinarily far from conducive to understanding reality").

8

Shishire t1_j2cyukt wrote

The whole point of Schrödinger's Cat is to point out that the Copenhagen interpretation allows an obviously absurd situation to occur, so that interpretation must be incorrect, and instead, something like Many Worlds, Superdeterminism, or another theory must be correct (despite the anachronism, he knew Copenhagen was wrong, but not what was right).

2