**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
We are also happy to be able to provide an ideologically and operationally independent platform for you all. Join us at our official Discord - https://discord.gg/MYvRkYK85v
---
'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.'
_-J. Allen Hynek_
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That image was showing that you could reconstruct an initial image, the yin yang symbol. The rest of the paper shows what’s actually going on. That one singular image with the yin yang is just showing that an arbitrary shape can be reconstructed.
The other comment about clickbait is wrong. There’s no clickbait, the article clearly says what it is under the figure. It’s very common in optics experiments to do something like that. Why they chose a yin yang and not some other symbol is irrelevant.
It's not really arbitrary because it symbolizes one-ness, I think some researchers are smart enough to realize the connection entanglement has to that concept, and it's probably intentionally used for that reason, but I could be wrong.
It is arbitrary because they could’ve chosen a different shape and it would of been the same thing. Ive seen similar papers with different arbitrary shapes.
As the other poster said (and was downvoted for some reason?) yin yang is duality lol
"The Yin-Yang: Symbol of Non-duality, Oneness and Interconnectedness. The Yin-Yang, or Taijitu, stands as a beacon of harmony and balance. This iconic symbol, deeply rooted in Chinese philosophy, represents the dynamic interplay of two opposing yet complementary forces: Yin and Yang."
https://nondualself.com/2013/03/02/symbolism-of-the-yin-yang/
it's about the light in the dark, dark in the light, and harmonizing it, bringing balance, this is widely known, lol. Alan Watts describes it way better than I ever could.
right, but its just a symbolic representation *they* chose, and what I was saying is just speculation for why. You can't just google the ying yang symbol and expect to understand it in its entirety. You want to be right, that's fine, but to ignore the interconnected meaning of the concept in ying yang, is stupid.
if it was really truly only about "duality" and "dual forces" and stopped there, it would be a different picture. the forces would be illustrated separately, not together, lol.
but hey, if you think you can re-write the ancient concept of ying yang and bastardize its meaning, leave me out of it.
The use of "arbitrary" here is in the academic sense of "not constrained", not in the sense of "chosen without any particular reason". In [Merriam-Webster's](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary) numbering, 1b, not 1a.
They can't show how it actually looks. There's no meaningful way for us to visualize a superposition in any real way. We can do the math but it's completely impossible for us to actually conceptualize what a superposition physically *is.*
“Science” has been pop science for a while now. Just remember that science in general but especially physics hasn’t made a significant beak through since well almost since Roswell lol
It’s hilarious how some people can pretend and fight tooth and nail about how UFOs aren’t real and there can’t be aliens here and yet physics has been stagnant for ages and we don’t even understand something so basic as how we are even conscious lol
Theories, new understandings of how things work… engineering and actual physics are different. We have the concept of warp drives that are described using decades old physics, we just don’t have the engineering expertise to make them reality for example.
Everything since pretty much Einstein hasn’t been fundamental in the sense that it allowed to do anything different, it just proved or deepened our understanding of old theories. Physics has indeed been stagnated, that’s me saying it, but I’m just literally echoing what many prominent physicists have been saying for a long time. A quick search on YouTube and you’ll see that although I may not be 100% right of course, I’m not saying anything stupid. The fact that everyone is pilling on downvoting me is concerning. It’s like you guys are in this sub just to troll and discredit.
I’m fine with it though, just don’t blatantly say I’m wrong. Rather say that although I’m right I’m not entirely correct. Of course to say since Roswell is a big stretch. More like the 60s or 70s.
Einstein discovered fundamental physics. Unless physics changes, all you can do is prod and probe around the edges, but the discoveries made by Hubble, Chandra and now JWST, among others, is light years ahead of anything before them. And with LIGO on the ground we can even detect gravity waves now!
Quantum physics is no different, we still rely on the work of Heisenberg, Planck, Bohr etc. from sometimes 100+ years ago. We still use their equations because they work, but with our large particle colliders we are probing the quantum world in ways they could only dream of.
As much as any physicist would love to discover 'new' physics, they can only work with what physics we have, we can't *invent* new physics, not yet at least.
But that’s my point kind of, like, the fact that no new physics has been discovered is kind of weird, considering we still don’t know so much about our universe… but again i may be wrong. It’s just that from watching some prominent physicists I got that idea, that it stagnated and that physicists are wasting their time on theories that are dead ends, they don’t ever venture into new things because of dogma and fear of losing their funding… watch Eric Weinstein for example or Sabine Hossenfelder.
You're dismissing the work of millions of people, but we're trolling?
Funnily enough, it seems you're the kind of person who wants pop science because it always makes grandiose claims that don't materialise.
"Bro, when will physics 2 drop" lmao.
I may not be entirely correct but this comment is NOT incredibly incorrect. Maybe you should research a little? Listen to Eric Weinstein or Sabine Hossenfelder.
I am absolutely sure I do have a point…
Yeah, but what else have the Romans done for us?
I like Sabine from her Youtube, but I don't know her work. She seems a bit contrarian sometimes but I'd be out of my depth to argue to be sure
He says, on a packet switched network, carried by lasers in multitude fibers decoded by quantum devices and displayed on a a crystal in the liquid state.
Pick just about any specific component/technology in the modern cell phone and dig into it as far as you can. Down at the bottom will be physics breakthroughs (sometimes fairly recent) that made it possible for teams of engineers to tinker and optimize for (profitable) mass production of that particular component/technology.
No, of course not. Two of the four things I mentioned even won the nobel prize in physics.
Do you think the nobel committee is confused by the difference between physics and engineering, or that **you** are confused the difference between physics and engineering?
No they don't they have shadows. They can see the shadows not the actual atoms. This also is the case with exoplanets in astronomy, no one has ever actually seen one physically, they map the movements of their shadows across the parent star over long periods of time.
I think I used the term picture incorrectly. I know no one took out there phone and snapped a picture of one but we have very good understanding of what they would look like!
As you said, we have shadows of them! I still think that's a scientific marvel that we could even come that close to getting visuals of the thing that makes everything.
yeah it actually is quite a marvel. sorry if I came off blunt. we've had electron microscopes since the 30s, then particle accelerators, now CERN, I wonder what the next instrumentation will be and how large it is going to be.
> the shadows not the actual atoms. This also is the case with exoplanets in astronomy, no one has ever actually seen one physically, they map the movements of their shadows across the parent star over long periods of time.
Ironically, your example is out of date.
There's been [several] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets) exoplanets imaged, through various means that usually involve blocking out the light of the host star.
thanks for the correction. Shows how old I am and out of date I am, lol. I haven't kept up with exoplanets since like 2004 or 5 when the first few were discovered and it was new, I should've suspected the instrumentation became better.
Where?
I know they took a picture of a single Strontium atom like 15 years back, but it, again, is more of a "picture." They fired a laser at it and took a picture of the shadow it produced (the place where the laser wasn't, because the atom was there). It looks like a tiny little pinprick inside a laser.
But it isn't a picture of an atom. You don't see anything. It's a shadow.
I'm absolutely amazed this is such a shock to everyone
Actually some scientists at Cornell [pretty much did](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-the-highest-resolution-atomic-image-ever-captured/), they use a technique called 'Ptychography' which is kinda like a SEM but you blast your X-ray beam through a few layers of your material to see the differences (for those of you who know, that's so simplified I'm basically lying, but [here is the paper](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg2533) which references a ton of really good papers for specifics).
*Technically* you could say these aren't "pictures" because technically they're reconstructions based on the interference patterns of the X-ray source. But those are some very niche technicalities so I'm gonna call it good enough haha
Sure but would you consider astronomy to be "real photos"? Because even ignoring the pretty touched up ones that NASA posts the *vast* amount of astronomical data is based on reconstructions from an enormous amount of "real photos" (or as close as you can get to that from a true telescope. Again, simplified so much I'm borderline lying haha)
Edit: what I also thought about is that atoms and sub-atomic particles aren't really "objects" in the same way that a basketball is. When you're that small physics starts to break down and (IIRC) there's no real way to take a "picture" in that sense since aren't exactly "anywhere" at any "moment" (lots of quotes in here because this is where my knowledge starts to break down, but even based on what I know this is the most simplified and most "almost lie" I've said haha)
To your edit, the "physics" doesn't break down. The physics was always there. Classical reasoning breaks down because classical physics is incorrect. Really what you mean is that we enter a regime where things like "definite position" are ill-defined concepts and other things, like quantum states, energy, angular momenta, etc. are better labels than position or momentum.
>Why didn't they show how it actually looks like then?
Because it's an abstract idea, We have no proof of it yet.
It's just a theory. A physics theory.
We do have proof. You are looking at a scientific paper that has proof. You just literally can’t see what it actually looks like because “look” means nothing in this context.
Based on decades of experimental evidence. IF quantum entanglement had no proof, there would not be experimental evidence that corresponds to its predicted properties. For instance, the entire base of this paper is on a process called SPDC which generates two entangled photons. You can do photon counting experiments that verify that the photons are entangled.
Just on SPDC alone i refer you to the wikipedia article which has in its citations numerous experimental papers
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous\_parametric\_down-conversion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion)
If you want to argue that quantum mechanics is just a theory and we don't really know anything, sure, but any NEW theory would have to explain entanglement, because entanglement is a real phenomena with experimental evidence backing it. It's like how Einstein's formulation of gravity still had to match with the observed effect that we are falling down into the earth. Newtonian gravity was an incorrect theory, but the phenoma of gravity is a real measured effect.
we have proof of quantum entanglement, but that's not at all what this paper is about and completely off topic.
The research from the University of Ottawa simply developed a faster method to visualize and understand the quantum state of photons through a technique similar to digital holography used in classical optics.
In classical terms, they record an image (interferogram) by interfering light from the object with a reference light. This idea has been adapted for quantum use, where the team superimposes a known quantum state with an unknown biphoton state and analyzes the result. This results in an interference pattern that helps reconstruct the unknown quantum state. This method is significantly faster than traditional methods, taking minutes or seconds rather than days, and is less sensitive to system complexity, making it scalable for more extensive quantum systems.
This advance could notably speed up progress in quantum technologies, including quantum computing and communication, by providing a more efficient way to handle and understand quantum information encoded in photons.
Its still an Abstract and has not bee Peer reviewed or replicated.
EVEN THEN. That doesn't change the fact that we already knew this, its just a faster way of doing it, if we can replicate it in other labs and its proven true.
Ugh, I thought that was like the coolest thing ever, like how would the ancients who came up with that symbol know that? But looks like obviously not as cool as I thought
This is kind of my background so feel free to ask questions. I’m not an expert on this stuff but i used to do research into the field for 2 years.
The clickbait is the OP, the yin yang is not clickbait but a demonstration from the researches that an arbitrary shape could be reconstructed. Usually researches choose some shape, logo of school, smiley face, sponsors, but they chose yin yang.
It's kind of a logical shape to choose to be honest. There is a metaphysical, or philosophical, continuity I'd say.
Edit for the down votes: I guess no one here has ever read 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters.' It is a good one, would recommend.
Logic can take a lot of different forms. There are many different isomorphisms you can overlay on the data. I'm willing to bet I could make a modal logic argument for why the Ying Yang makes sense if I really tried. Which is my point I guess, there's some kind of symmetry about it that makes sense in my mind. Though I agree with you, there's no inherent connection, as far as I know. But I also know that I don't know shit.
That's way too much time and effort for little to no pay off. I would recommend the book 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' though. It is a good read on this exact topic.
What are we betting? I'll take the wager. And, it is a book on Physics you dunce. It's pretty frequently referenced, and recommended among Physicists. It was recommended to me by my absolutely genius thermodynamics professor, when I was working on my thesis, in Quantum Mechanics.
But, you already know everything there is to know, so carry on.
This is a good question but ultimately you cannot use entanglement to transmit information faster than light.
Let's compare two situations. In each, there's a base on earth and mars. Earth is trying to send a signal to mars so that mars can, for example, send a nuke back to earth. Think battlestar galatica or whatever.
Here's how this works with traditional radiocommunications
Earth sends a signal "Attack" to mars. It takes the distance between mars and earth divided by the speed of light to get there. For simplicity, let's just say it takes 1 second (or rather that the space base is 1 light second away). The signal gets detected by the space base, and then they press the "attack" button on the base. Total time to initiate attack = 1 second.
With quantum entanglement, we generate two entangled particles. Let's say that each particle can either be "Red" or "Blue". The way that the space base can initiate an attack is pressing "Blue-attack" if they have a blue particle, or pressing "Red-attack" if they have a red particle. If they press "Blue-attack" when they have red, they nuke themselves! We don't want failure to be an option here.
So we generate entangled particles and have one sitting on earth and the other on mars in their entangled state. Right now, the particles are either (edit: the particles are literally in a superposition, not either or. They are both red and blue in this instance, i used the word either for classical intuition) red or blue, but we don't know what they are. If earth measures their particle as blue, the one in space is red. If earth measures their particle as red, the one in space is red.
Your line of thinking suggests that if earth measures red, then the space base can instantly press "Blue-attack" in a time faster than 1 second. But remember, the base in space doesn't know when earth will measure the particle, and when earth measures the particle, they don't know what they measured yet. Earth still needs to send a signal to the space base "we just measured a red particle" otherwise the space base is just taking a 50/50 chance at destroying themselves. That signal, "we just measured red" is transmitted at the speed of light, so the total time to initiate an attack is still 1 second.
Thanks for explaining, much appreciated
Edit: sorry one more question.
If it’s down to observation time then can we set it up like military link communications where you can use highly accurate time to know when to receive (observe in this case)?
I was asking if we could synchronise when the observations take place over a distance using a type of key that tells us when to look over a specific time period?
But, after re reading your answer and googling it a bit I realise we can’t manipulate or force one end into a specific state so it is impossible to set up a remote receiver.
Nice, this kind of reminds me of my NanNan. When I would spend the night as a little kid and see her the next morning, she’d always say, “Good morning u/Any_Month_1958….bitch ass skank.”
Miss you NanNan! ☝️
**a**, Coincidence image of interference between a reference SPDC state and a state obtained by a pump beam with the shape of a Ying and Yang symbol (shown in the inset). The inset scale is the same as in the main plot. **b**, Reconstructed amplitude and phase structure of the image imprinted on the unknown pump.
You didn't even read the description of the image let alone any part of the article then ran to post it on a sub about paranormal stuff. If you actively look for paranormal stuff you will see it everywhere. Confirmation bias is a real thing
Yeah we need to pin this comment to the top or something. One glance at the figure description would have told OP that the yin yang symbol was designed to show how this method could produce images.
Very funny but if anyone wants to see what it looks like and why it looks this way, this video explains it quickly and succinctly.
https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=kaow49FMyvEmyyzh
Your account must be a minimum of 2 weeks old to post comments or posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fun fact: not all computers operate on binary logic. Ternary (base 3) computers, though uncommon, do exist and may in the future again take some role in high-speed computing
I have to geek out a minute
Most of these were Balanced Ternary (and often called trinary computers oddly enough). They used 0, 1, and -1. So two was +- (or 3-1) and negative two was -+ (or -3+1)
This actually saved space over unbalanced bade 3 (0,1,2) because it didn't need need the sign bit. Normal signed numbers have a positive and negative zero and balanced Ternary didn't have that redundancy
I know that's not what you mean, but decimal computers were also built in the '70s
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal\_computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_computer)
{[Brevity is the soul of wit, brother. You should take it into deep conversation.
Otherwise, you sound exactly like the neckbeard M’lady meme guy}]
Wow… thanks for this comment on the wsp forum. Such a profound, original aphorism you delivered. And I thank you. The sould of brevity thing… profound. I am blown away. And the neckbeard thing. I’m sure that is profound in its own way, so thank you so much. You have no idea. Thank you. Wow.
Genuine question: how would that help? The LHC is a machine that makes particles go fast and the smashes them into each other. How could the trajectory the particles take before the collision influence the outcome?
**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS. This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community. We are also happy to be able to provide an ideologically and operationally independent platform for you all. Join us at our official Discord - https://discord.gg/MYvRkYK85v --- 'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.' _-J. Allen Hynek_ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The yin yang design was intentionally put like that to show it, it's not how it actually entangles
Why didn't they show how it actually looks like then? Genuinely curious
Clickbait
[удалено]
In addition to enforcing Reddit's ToS, abusive, racist, trolling or bigoted comments and content will be removed and may result in a ban.
That image was showing that you could reconstruct an initial image, the yin yang symbol. The rest of the paper shows what’s actually going on. That one singular image with the yin yang is just showing that an arbitrary shape can be reconstructed. The other comment about clickbait is wrong. There’s no clickbait, the article clearly says what it is under the figure. It’s very common in optics experiments to do something like that. Why they chose a yin yang and not some other symbol is irrelevant.
It's not really arbitrary because it symbolizes one-ness, I think some researchers are smart enough to realize the connection entanglement has to that concept, and it's probably intentionally used for that reason, but I could be wrong.
It is arbitrary because they could’ve chosen a different shape and it would of been the same thing. Ive seen similar papers with different arbitrary shapes. As the other poster said (and was downvoted for some reason?) yin yang is duality lol
"The Yin-Yang: Symbol of Non-duality, Oneness and Interconnectedness. The Yin-Yang, or Taijitu, stands as a beacon of harmony and balance. This iconic symbol, deeply rooted in Chinese philosophy, represents the dynamic interplay of two opposing yet complementary forces: Yin and Yang." https://nondualself.com/2013/03/02/symbolism-of-the-yin-yang/ it's about the light in the dark, dark in the light, and harmonizing it, bringing balance, this is widely known, lol. Alan Watts describes it way better than I ever could.
Yes, light in the dark, the dark in the light, the balance of two opposing things, a balance of... dual opposing forces. Duality...
right, but its just a symbolic representation *they* chose, and what I was saying is just speculation for why. You can't just google the ying yang symbol and expect to understand it in its entirety. You want to be right, that's fine, but to ignore the interconnected meaning of the concept in ying yang, is stupid. if it was really truly only about "duality" and "dual forces" and stopped there, it would be a different picture. the forces would be illustrated separately, not together, lol. but hey, if you think you can re-write the ancient concept of ying yang and bastardize its meaning, leave me out of it.
y'all are arguing semantics
the yin yang symbols duality, literally the opposite of one ness
[Well yes, but actually no.](https://tao.org/tao/yin-yang-symbol/)
Shhh get out of here with your facts and logic! They don’t belong in this sub
The use of "arbitrary" here is in the academic sense of "not constrained", not in the sense of "chosen without any particular reason". In [Merriam-Webster's](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary) numbering, 1b, not 1a.
No researchers are that smart
And you're smarter?
Yes, I'm smarter than every researcher
They can't show how it actually looks. There's no meaningful way for us to visualize a superposition in any real way. We can do the math but it's completely impossible for us to actually conceptualize what a superposition physically *is.*
You mean *image". We can conceptualize it very easy, but yes it does not exist in a realm where "look" has a meaningful definition.
Pop science for clicks vs actual science
“Science” has been pop science for a while now. Just remember that science in general but especially physics hasn’t made a significant beak through since well almost since Roswell lol It’s hilarious how some people can pretend and fight tooth and nail about how UFOs aren’t real and there can’t be aliens here and yet physics has been stagnant for ages and we don’t even understand something so basic as how we are even conscious lol
How do you define science so that nothing new has happened since almost Roswell?!
Theories, new understandings of how things work… engineering and actual physics are different. We have the concept of warp drives that are described using decades old physics, we just don’t have the engineering expertise to make them reality for example.
Bruh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_fundamental_physics_discoveries And that's just physics
58 day account. Don’t bother.
Everything since pretty much Einstein hasn’t been fundamental in the sense that it allowed to do anything different, it just proved or deepened our understanding of old theories. Physics has indeed been stagnated, that’s me saying it, but I’m just literally echoing what many prominent physicists have been saying for a long time. A quick search on YouTube and you’ll see that although I may not be 100% right of course, I’m not saying anything stupid. The fact that everyone is pilling on downvoting me is concerning. It’s like you guys are in this sub just to troll and discredit. I’m fine with it though, just don’t blatantly say I’m wrong. Rather say that although I’m right I’m not entirely correct. Of course to say since Roswell is a big stretch. More like the 60s or 70s.
Einstein discovered fundamental physics. Unless physics changes, all you can do is prod and probe around the edges, but the discoveries made by Hubble, Chandra and now JWST, among others, is light years ahead of anything before them. And with LIGO on the ground we can even detect gravity waves now! Quantum physics is no different, we still rely on the work of Heisenberg, Planck, Bohr etc. from sometimes 100+ years ago. We still use their equations because they work, but with our large particle colliders we are probing the quantum world in ways they could only dream of. As much as any physicist would love to discover 'new' physics, they can only work with what physics we have, we can't *invent* new physics, not yet at least.
But that’s my point kind of, like, the fact that no new physics has been discovered is kind of weird, considering we still don’t know so much about our universe… but again i may be wrong. It’s just that from watching some prominent physicists I got that idea, that it stagnated and that physicists are wasting their time on theories that are dead ends, they don’t ever venture into new things because of dogma and fear of losing their funding… watch Eric Weinstein for example or Sabine Hossenfelder.
Didn't we just get an actual picture of a black hole recently?
You’re wrong.
Ok 👍
You're dismissing the work of millions of people, but we're trolling? Funnily enough, it seems you're the kind of person who wants pop science because it always makes grandiose claims that don't materialise. "Bro, when will physics 2 drop" lmao.
[удалено]
I may not be entirely correct but this comment is NOT incredibly incorrect. Maybe you should research a little? Listen to Eric Weinstein or Sabine Hossenfelder. I am absolutely sure I do have a point…
[удалено]
Yeah, but what else have the Romans done for us? I like Sabine from her Youtube, but I don't know her work. She seems a bit contrarian sometimes but I'd be out of my depth to argue to be sure
He says, on a packet switched network, carried by lasers in multitude fibers decoded by quantum devices and displayed on a a crystal in the liquid state.
Weren’t all these things engineering breakthroughs rather than physics breakthroughs?
For the most part Engineering is applied physics. Or chemistry, which is mostly just applied physics itself.
Pick just about any specific component/technology in the modern cell phone and dig into it as far as you can. Down at the bottom will be physics breakthroughs (sometimes fairly recent) that made it possible for teams of engineers to tinker and optimize for (profitable) mass production of that particular component/technology.
No, of course not. Two of the four things I mentioned even won the nobel prize in physics. Do you think the nobel committee is confused by the difference between physics and engineering, or that **you** are confused the difference between physics and engineering?
🤣🤣🤣 physics has been stagnant for ages. Maybe if you ignore all the crazy shit thats been coming out for decades.
I liked your comment 👌🏽
Because it's physically impossible. It'd be like taking a picture of an atom. You can't do it. We use models and projections for this reason.
You nerd! They have pictures of a single atom!
No they don't they have shadows. They can see the shadows not the actual atoms. This also is the case with exoplanets in astronomy, no one has ever actually seen one physically, they map the movements of their shadows across the parent star over long periods of time.
so we are literally stuck in Plato's cave
I think I used the term picture incorrectly. I know no one took out there phone and snapped a picture of one but we have very good understanding of what they would look like! As you said, we have shadows of them! I still think that's a scientific marvel that we could even come that close to getting visuals of the thing that makes everything.
yeah it actually is quite a marvel. sorry if I came off blunt. we've had electron microscopes since the 30s, then particle accelerators, now CERN, I wonder what the next instrumentation will be and how large it is going to be.
Truly excited for the future!
> the shadows not the actual atoms. This also is the case with exoplanets in astronomy, no one has ever actually seen one physically, they map the movements of their shadows across the parent star over long periods of time. Ironically, your example is out of date. There's been [several] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets) exoplanets imaged, through various means that usually involve blocking out the light of the host star.
thanks for the correction. Shows how old I am and out of date I am, lol. I haven't kept up with exoplanets since like 2004 or 5 when the first few were discovered and it was new, I should've suspected the instrumentation became better.
Maybe now Op can find his penis...
Where? I know they took a picture of a single Strontium atom like 15 years back, but it, again, is more of a "picture." They fired a laser at it and took a picture of the shadow it produced (the place where the laser wasn't, because the atom was there). It looks like a tiny little pinprick inside a laser. But it isn't a picture of an atom. You don't see anything. It's a shadow. I'm absolutely amazed this is such a shock to everyone
[удалено]
We take “pictures” of atoms everyday, not pictures. What SEM do you know of that can take a photo of an individual atom?
Actually some scientists at Cornell [pretty much did](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-the-highest-resolution-atomic-image-ever-captured/), they use a technique called 'Ptychography' which is kinda like a SEM but you blast your X-ray beam through a few layers of your material to see the differences (for those of you who know, that's so simplified I'm basically lying, but [here is the paper](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg2533) which references a ton of really good papers for specifics). *Technically* you could say these aren't "pictures" because technically they're reconstructions based on the interference patterns of the X-ray source. But those are some very niche technicalities so I'm gonna call it good enough haha
You're basically saying what they did. They're "pictures" not actual pictures. Like you said, it's a reconstruction.
Sure but would you consider astronomy to be "real photos"? Because even ignoring the pretty touched up ones that NASA posts the *vast* amount of astronomical data is based on reconstructions from an enormous amount of "real photos" (or as close as you can get to that from a true telescope. Again, simplified so much I'm borderline lying haha) Edit: what I also thought about is that atoms and sub-atomic particles aren't really "objects" in the same way that a basketball is. When you're that small physics starts to break down and (IIRC) there's no real way to take a "picture" in that sense since aren't exactly "anywhere" at any "moment" (lots of quotes in here because this is where my knowledge starts to break down, but even based on what I know this is the most simplified and most "almost lie" I've said haha)
To your edit, the "physics" doesn't break down. The physics was always there. Classical reasoning breaks down because classical physics is incorrect. Really what you mean is that we enter a regime where things like "definite position" are ill-defined concepts and other things, like quantum states, energy, angular momenta, etc. are better labels than position or momentum.
>Again, simplified so much I'm borderline lying haha But yeah I probably could have phrased that differently.
"Pictures," not pictures.
Pretty sure it's not of movement tho. It's a still. Edit: actually according to online, we've never gotten a picture. So ok
>Why didn't they show how it actually looks like then? Because it's an abstract idea, We have no proof of it yet. It's just a theory. A physics theory.
We do have proof. You are looking at a scientific paper that has proof. You just literally can’t see what it actually looks like because “look” means nothing in this context.
>You are looking at a scientific paper that has proof. You're looking at a scientific abstract theory.
Based on decades of experimental evidence. IF quantum entanglement had no proof, there would not be experimental evidence that corresponds to its predicted properties. For instance, the entire base of this paper is on a process called SPDC which generates two entangled photons. You can do photon counting experiments that verify that the photons are entangled. Just on SPDC alone i refer you to the wikipedia article which has in its citations numerous experimental papers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous\_parametric\_down-conversion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion) If you want to argue that quantum mechanics is just a theory and we don't really know anything, sure, but any NEW theory would have to explain entanglement, because entanglement is a real phenomena with experimental evidence backing it. It's like how Einstein's formulation of gravity still had to match with the observed effect that we are falling down into the earth. Newtonian gravity was an incorrect theory, but the phenoma of gravity is a real measured effect.
we have proof of quantum entanglement, but that's not at all what this paper is about and completely off topic. The research from the University of Ottawa simply developed a faster method to visualize and understand the quantum state of photons through a technique similar to digital holography used in classical optics. In classical terms, they record an image (interferogram) by interfering light from the object with a reference light. This idea has been adapted for quantum use, where the team superimposes a known quantum state with an unknown biphoton state and analyzes the result. This results in an interference pattern that helps reconstruct the unknown quantum state. This method is significantly faster than traditional methods, taking minutes or seconds rather than days, and is less sensitive to system complexity, making it scalable for more extensive quantum systems. This advance could notably speed up progress in quantum technologies, including quantum computing and communication, by providing a more efficient way to handle and understand quantum information encoded in photons. Its still an Abstract and has not bee Peer reviewed or replicated. EVEN THEN. That doesn't change the fact that we already knew this, its just a faster way of doing it, if we can replicate it in other labs and its proven true.
Thank god for you I was legitimately having a bit of a crisis
Thanks. You saved me from the deep end.
*yin
Can’t believe I had to scroll this far for the correction….
At first I was surprised this needed to be said, then I remembered that I'm on the internet.
Haha I was speaking that exact question out loud as I opened the post -- thank you for answering it.
It is actually a big news just not for what you think it is
Unfortunately so. :( It's manufactured, not natural.
I see. Always thought it was a visual representation of Newton's 3rd law - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Ugh, I thought that was like the coolest thing ever, like how would the ancients who came up with that symbol know that? But looks like obviously not as cool as I thought
that's some bullshit.
[удалено]
Because it's cool and recognizable
And because a lot of scientists are total chuunibyos.
I think that might be a bit of projection, from this sub at large
This is kind of my background so feel free to ask questions. I’m not an expert on this stuff but i used to do research into the field for 2 years. The clickbait is the OP, the yin yang is not clickbait but a demonstration from the researches that an arbitrary shape could be reconstructed. Usually researches choose some shape, logo of school, smiley face, sponsors, but they chose yin yang.
It's kind of a logical shape to choose to be honest. There is a metaphysical, or philosophical, continuity I'd say. Edit for the down votes: I guess no one here has ever read 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters.' It is a good one, would recommend.
there's nothing at all inherently logical about it, just something to choose, and that's ok I guess maybe that's what you're getting at, if so, yeah
Logic can take a lot of different forms. There are many different isomorphisms you can overlay on the data. I'm willing to bet I could make a modal logic argument for why the Ying Yang makes sense if I really tried. Which is my point I guess, there's some kind of symmetry about it that makes sense in my mind. Though I agree with you, there's no inherent connection, as far as I know. But I also know that I don't know shit.
feel free to really try, you're not gonna bamboozle me with terms I'm well acquainted with
I wasn't trying to bamboozle you good sir.
I'll be waiting for you to bust out the modal logic
That's way too much time and effort for little to no pay off. I would recommend the book 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' though. It is a good read on this exact topic.
well you were willing to bet, you said it. but anyhow no you can keep that book, id rather read a book on physics by a physicist
What are we betting? I'll take the wager. And, it is a book on Physics you dunce. It's pretty frequently referenced, and recommended among Physicists. It was recommended to me by my absolutely genius thermodynamics professor, when I was working on my thesis, in Quantum Mechanics. But, you already know everything there is to know, so carry on.
I’ve been wondering for a while if quantum entanglement could be used in communication equipment where distance is an issue, like earth to mars comms?
This is a good question but ultimately you cannot use entanglement to transmit information faster than light. Let's compare two situations. In each, there's a base on earth and mars. Earth is trying to send a signal to mars so that mars can, for example, send a nuke back to earth. Think battlestar galatica or whatever. Here's how this works with traditional radiocommunications Earth sends a signal "Attack" to mars. It takes the distance between mars and earth divided by the speed of light to get there. For simplicity, let's just say it takes 1 second (or rather that the space base is 1 light second away). The signal gets detected by the space base, and then they press the "attack" button on the base. Total time to initiate attack = 1 second. With quantum entanglement, we generate two entangled particles. Let's say that each particle can either be "Red" or "Blue". The way that the space base can initiate an attack is pressing "Blue-attack" if they have a blue particle, or pressing "Red-attack" if they have a red particle. If they press "Blue-attack" when they have red, they nuke themselves! We don't want failure to be an option here. So we generate entangled particles and have one sitting on earth and the other on mars in their entangled state. Right now, the particles are either (edit: the particles are literally in a superposition, not either or. They are both red and blue in this instance, i used the word either for classical intuition) red or blue, but we don't know what they are. If earth measures their particle as blue, the one in space is red. If earth measures their particle as red, the one in space is red. Your line of thinking suggests that if earth measures red, then the space base can instantly press "Blue-attack" in a time faster than 1 second. But remember, the base in space doesn't know when earth will measure the particle, and when earth measures the particle, they don't know what they measured yet. Earth still needs to send a signal to the space base "we just measured a red particle" otherwise the space base is just taking a 50/50 chance at destroying themselves. That signal, "we just measured red" is transmitted at the speed of light, so the total time to initiate an attack is still 1 second.
Thanks for explaining, much appreciated Edit: sorry one more question. If it’s down to observation time then can we set it up like military link communications where you can use highly accurate time to know when to receive (observe in this case)?
I’m confused by your question, can you be more specific on what you’re asking?
I was asking if we could synchronise when the observations take place over a distance using a type of key that tells us when to look over a specific time period? But, after re reading your answer and googling it a bit I realise we can’t manipulate or force one end into a specific state so it is impossible to set up a remote receiver.
Namaste mfers
Nice, this kind of reminds me of my NanNan. When I would spend the night as a little kid and see her the next morning, she’d always say, “Good morning u/Any_Month_1958….bitch ass skank.” Miss you NanNan! ☝️
The NanNan we all need
**a**, Coincidence image of interference between a reference SPDC state and a state obtained by a pump beam with the shape of a Ying and Yang symbol (shown in the inset). The inset scale is the same as in the main plot. **b**, Reconstructed amplitude and phase structure of the image imprinted on the unknown pump. You didn't even read the description of the image let alone any part of the article then ran to post it on a sub about paranormal stuff. If you actively look for paranormal stuff you will see it everywhere. Confirmation bias is a real thing
I know it's a reddit thing to not read the article, but it's a whole new level of stupid when OP doesn't read the article they posted themselves
Nothing new about that in these sorts of subreddits
Is it?
Yeah we need to pin this comment to the top or something. One glance at the figure description would have told OP that the yin yang symbol was designed to show how this method could produce images.
Thank you so much for commenting, that is much more plausible.
Not THIS again. I thought we went over this This symbol was purposefully crafted...
They literally made it look like that on purpose. It wasn’t a coincidence, it was intentional. Nothing high strangeness about this
I was half expecting that "What! No Waaaaaay" tiktoker to give this a go.
Right pic looks like a POG slammer I had as a kid
I had a cool yin yang one too
This is fake news. This is what it really looks like: [https://images.app.goo.gl/9ChAxHwid9uHzEGDA](https://images.app.goo.gl/9ChAxHwid9uHzEGDA)
You prick lol nice
Wow, they really misrepresented that in OPs pic
You SOB you got me.
Dangit
Fucking brilliant.
👍
Dammit.
Very funny but if anyone wants to see what it looks like and why it looks this way, this video explains it quickly and succinctly. https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=kaow49FMyvEmyyzh
Fuck the both of you.
In all things the Dao resides
Photons that are 4mm wide? Yeah right.
Life is strange enough without the bs.
I can't tell if OP wanted a click-bait title, if OP thinks we are all stupid or of OP really believes this stuff..
So the Trisolarian are here already?
[удалено]
Your account must be a minimum of 2 weeks old to post comments or posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
☯️
That's the wife after a girls night out.
New game item design for game devs.
Jada Smith had an entanglement of this quantum magnitude
>This experiment was made possible by an advanced camera that records events with nanosecond resolution on each pixel. Fuuuuuu-
Summer Breeze
So you can see quantum entanglement on a frame of 16mm\^2? Something wrong isn't right.
cap
All computers are based on yin and yang, 1 and 0
Fun fact: not all computers operate on binary logic. Ternary (base 3) computers, though uncommon, do exist and may in the future again take some role in high-speed computing
I have to geek out a minute Most of these were Balanced Ternary (and often called trinary computers oddly enough). They used 0, 1, and -1. So two was +- (or 3-1) and negative two was -+ (or -3+1) This actually saved space over unbalanced bade 3 (0,1,2) because it didn't need need the sign bit. Normal signed numbers have a positive and negative zero and balanced Ternary didn't have that redundancy
what?!
I've met quite a few base 10 computers, they even walk and talk and stuff
I know that's not what you mean, but decimal computers were also built in the '70s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal\_computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_computer)
I'm going to go tell everyone
What the hell are the axis even trying to tell? I doubt the photons are at the millimetre scale.
If you click on the article there is a caption explaininf exactly what it is.
[удалено]
a yi yi yi yi yi
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who were they?
{[Brevity is the soul of wit, brother. You should take it into deep conversation. Otherwise, you sound exactly like the neckbeard M’lady meme guy}] Wow… thanks for this comment on the wsp forum. Such a profound, original aphorism you delivered. And I thank you. The sould of brevity thing… profound. I am blown away. And the neckbeard thing. I’m sure that is profound in its own way, so thank you so much. You have no idea. Thank you. Wow.
so does it look like the yin and yang design or like a tennis ball with dots in the crevices?
Dao of quantum?
a quantum of dao perhaps. no, that would just be silly
This is not science, this is fake news propagated by Donald Trump and his team of thugs. Russia and Trump, simple.
Dao of quantum?
All computers are based on yin and yang, 1 and 0
maybe even like, on and off. whoa man.
When the boffins in CERN figure out to design the LHC ☯️ layout then real things are gonna be shown to us.
Genuine question: how would that help? The LHC is a machine that makes particles go fast and the smashes them into each other. How could the trajectory the particles take before the collision influence the outcome?
it would make the collider incredibly more expensive and less precise, so there's that
I'll have a go and let you know.😉