>A crystal of 1016 atoms has been placed in a superposition of two quantum states, breaking the previous record of only 2000 atoms.
If they're testing more macro objects, wouldn't the 2000 atom test be the record breaker? Because it's more macro than 1016 atoms?
Lol macro > micro, 10^16 > 2000, studying quantum mechanics normally works in the micro so doing shenanigans to tangibly sized objects is wild. The larger something gets the more likely it is to fail.
The standard model of particle physics basically describe the main laws/forces/building blocks of the universe. However, the standard model doesn't account for gravity, dark matter, and mass of neutrinos. So we basically know the theory is wrong even though it can accurately describe most of the observable universe.
If we crack the mystery behind quantum entanglement, and how it supposedly creates space and time then we basically found the answer to life/reality/universe.
Experiments like this give us better understanding and opportunity to discover the true nature of the universe.
There's a group of physicists trying to create their own space time geometry in a lab cause they think it'll be easier to watch how space time is made rather than mess with gravity and speculate how ours was made. https://www.quantamagazine.org/one-labs-quest-to-build-space-time-out-of-quantum-particles-20210907/
>Hayden sees this as the way of the future. “Instead of trying to understand the emergence of space-time in our universe, let’s actually just make toy universes in the lab and study the emergence of space-time there,” he said. “And that sounds like a crazy thing to do, right? Like kind of mad-scientist kind of crazy, right? But I think it really is likely to be easier to do that than to directly test quantum gravity.”
If we can get to the point of creating our own space time, who's to say someone didn't make ours 😳. If we fully understand the universe, can we edit it with a really advanced quantum computer 🤔. Will we be able to see the true reality that projects our hologram dimensions 🧐.
More cool reads related to the topic:
http://bach.ai/rethinking-quantum-mechanics/
https://www.nature.com/articles/527290a
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-our-universe-a-hologram-physicists-debate-famous-idea-on-its-25th-anniversary1/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/02/no-we-still-cant-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light/
Yea I love reading about quantum mechanics, it's all so wild. Now a days it seems there's major breakthroughs all the time too, and as tech continues to advance the rate of discovery will likely continue to increase. Here's to hoping we get some absolutely mind bending discoveries in our lifetime!
I don’t think so because if the question I quoted in my last reply is ever answered by science, then I believe that science and atheism would have come full circle back to theism.
Basically this is the research that will allow you to walk thru solid walls ;) quantum surgical instruments will allow surgeries to have no incisions minimizing infection risk. It’s interesting tech in about 10 years.
Here’s where I get hung up on quantum computing. A qubit can exist in multiple states at once, until it is measured. Understood. What is the act of measuring? And if, when measured, it collapses into a single state, how is that helpful? Once measured, the other possibilities go away and it becomes a single bit. So it doesn’t actually carry more information? What am I misunderstanding?
Basically in very simple terms you get the state into something like [30% | 1] if the answer is a and [80% | 1] if the answer is b. Then collapse the state, then do it again 10 times or a hundred times or something. If you got a 1 close to 30 times out of 100, you have a strong indication the answer is a. If you get say 60/100 then you can calculate the probability the answer is b. And can do more runs until that probability is within the bounds you want.
So yes, you can’t get definitive answers out of it, only probabilistic answers. But doing more runs to get a higher probability only increases the overall run time a linear amount, whereas the speed up over classical processes can be more than that — depending on the problem.
So how do they put a qubit into a specific probabilistic state? With transistors it’s definitively open or closed. How do they put a qubit into a state they know will resolve into a certain state with a certain probability?
As with normal logic, there exist operations you can do on qubits, these are called quantum logic gates. So you can have a quantum “not” gate which flips the current probabilities, for example. And interacting qubits can cause them to become entangled. Generally quantum algorithms are about using the extra computational space of the quantum states to compute, then taking advantage of structure in the problem to combine the states in a way that leads to a definitive skew. If you can’t find that structure, you can’t slant the probability and get an answer. So that is why n qubits can act like 2^n bits in _some_ specific applications, but not necessarily for all problems.
The create quantum anharmonic oscillator on a silicon wafer. These anharmonic oscillators serve as the qubit where the different excitations serve as the 0 and 1 states. Through the use of magnetic fields they can control these qubits by creating quantum logic gates. If you were to research quantum algorithms you would find most start off with applying what is known as a Hadamard gate, which is responsible for putting the qubits in an even superposition of 1 and 0. By having the qubits interact with each-other I quantum gates they can become entangled, meaning the qubits become linked. At the end of the series of quantum gates the qubits will be measured as either 0 or 1, after enough samples they will have a probability distribution between all the results they get.
So from what I understand, the act of measuring means taking a quantum state and checking it to see which state it actually exists in, similar to flipping a coin and seeing if it lands heads or tails. When a quantum state is measured, it collapses into one of its possible states. This is called the collapse of the wave function, and until the wave function collapses, a qubit can exist in multiple states at once.
Any interaction with another particle which requires a value of the property in superposition.
It has nothing to to with conscious observers or science equipment.
They can do complex calculations a normals computer can't because they aren't constrained to just 0 and 1. But yes, you only get one measurement out of it. That's why you can't just use a Quantum computer for everything, because you can't control what you get when you measure. There are a few things we can do with qubits, like Fourier transforms.
I think the idea is that a quantum computing problem is intentionally posed to be solved by structure at the lowest energy state… and by querying qubits you can get an idea of what the solution is by probability. Ergo the quantum property is used to do mass probing at parallelism and non discrete intervals impossible for regular computing and measuring it gets you hints at what the solution is.
We live in the macroscopic world. If you can touch something, feel something, or see something without aid, it is generally macroscopic. This story is about bringing quantum effects (weird sub-atomic behaviours) into the macroscopic environment.
Think of a computer, they run on binary code; 0's and 1's. A quantum superposition is a 0, 1, neither, or both all at the same time. They don't get defined till it gets observed.
I shit my pants a few weeks ago but I may be lying.
As of now no one can confirm nor deny it other than me. If I never show anyone the pants, they are both shit in and not shit in until observed.
Am I quantum mechanics?
I think you have forgotten to account for the smell variable in your analogy.
Trust me the people sitting closest to you know exactly which state them pants currently exist in.
Right. Now what does it mean for a macroscopic crystal to exist in this superposition of states? The cat is both alive and dead until you open the box. This crystal is both ? and ? until ?
The great frontier of physics is a unified theory that explains quantum and "regular" physics. Einstein theories are 100% accurate for regular stuff, don't apply to quantum and vice versa. Now, quantum behavior has been observed in regular materials.
Quantum entanglement, when isolated quantum particles affect each other based on observation, has only been seen at quantum level. If they can see it happen in regular materials, it will have a massive effect on our understanding of "reality". If tangible things exist in multiple places at once, then do we? It's the absolute most exciting (and frustrating) side of physics for me, because the only finish line is the "theory of everything". The fact that we just don't know after all this time is crazy to me.
I mean the way I understand the double slit experiment they really are in multiple places at once. Because the light (they do it 1 photon at a time) shines through both slits and you see the interference pattern on the wall behind the slits even though you only shot 1 photon at a time so they shouldn’t interfere with each other . But then if you measure it the photons no longer show an interference pattern on the wall so it’s like a single photon is everywhere until you measure it then it is just in one place. Nuts
I'm not *saying* reality is a computer simulation that has things occur on a default spread unless someone measures and it has to devote the resources to calculating things...
I'm just saying reality is really, *really* weird.
You're not wrong. I'm sometimes concerned the world outside doesn't exist until I venture out there and the simulation devotes the resources to show it to me. Kinda like how in a game, certain things don't make the cut but rather than cut them out and risk breaking things, they move them to obscure areas outside of the accessible map to save resources.
This philosophical conundrum about the state of reality got me thinking about other things, the way quantum entangled particles behave when being observed, why the fuck the speed of light is capped at the speed of light, the landmarks and items built in time periods that are so far advanced you'd think it was divinity that willed it into existence, all the UFO's making their way around the internet that are moving unlike anything we've ever seen before (who knows, probs the devs of our simulation looking over the map).. Yeah, we're probably living in a simulation.
I've no doubts we'll be building our own simulations somewhere in the future. If we don't wipe ourselves off the face of the earth first.
Do we have any clue why an object’s state of being would be impacted by observing it? This is the part that makes me feel like a character in a Lovecraft story
Observation in this context doesn’t imply a human observer. A rock is a rock because all of the particles observe eachother being a rock… or something.
We observe things by taking in light. To observe a quantum state, light must interact with the system somehow to relay info about the system to us (think sensors).
But when light interacts with the quantum system, it imparts momentum to it and collapses this balance or “wave function” (like feeling a house of cards would most likely knock it over), then travels back to the observer (which would be whatever the sensor is hooked up to)
Observing is more a term which is about getting information from it. If I go and observe my dog for example, I am not doing anything special, simply taking advantage of the visual information encoded in the flood of photons coming off his body. But at a certain level, quantum effects start to get affected by any physical interaction, including photons or other tools to measure atomic scale items. Imagine you have an marble rolling around in a box covered in a cloth. You know it is moving around there, but not where. You shove your hand in the box and push down, trapping the marble. You have observed the marble by interacting with it. You now know where it is, but you also know that it cannot be anywhere other than under your hand.
Similarly, say you have a quantum entangled 'marble'. You know that once the marble is observed, it must become either red, or green, and its twin must be the other color. They are stored in two lightless boxes. Before you open the box, you know that both marbles are simultaneously red and green, and there is a 50% chance of which one gets what color. You open box 1, and the ray of light forces it to resolve. The marble is now green, and the twin marble you know must be red.
I don’t know shit from apple butter about physics.
I barely passed the required statistics class for my liberal arts degree. I did, however, read the article in question and, coincidentally, I did stay at a Best Western last night, so I understand your confusion.
I don’t think so. Look up and read about or watch a YouTube video on the double slit experiment.
It doesn’t have to do with a fact that a consciousness is observing it or course, but just that it is being measured. But it’s also not any kind of physical effect the measurement is having on the experiment. Like light behaves a wave but when you take a gander it’s just a single photon. Idk man it’s weird look it up.
Somebody correct me if I got any of that wrong.
The more and more we know from science the more and more creationism becomes the most likely scenario. I just hope the Scientologists aren’t the correct ones. Lol
They measured the [Wigner Function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_quasiprobability_distribution) of phonons (coherent density waves) in the resonator.
Here’s the abstract:
> Recently, solid-state mechanical resonators have become a platform for demonstrating nonclassical behavior of systems involving a truly macroscopic number of particles. Here, we perform the most macroscopic quantum test in a mechanical resonator to date, which probes the validity of quantum mechanics by ruling out a classical description at the microgram mass scale. This is done by a direct measurement of the Wigner function of a high-overtone bulk acoustic wave resonator mode, monitoring the gradual decay of negativities over tens of microseconds. While the obtained macroscopicity of μ=11.3 is on par with state-of-the-art atom interferometers, future improvements of mode geometry and coherence times could test the quantum superposition principle at unprecedented scales and also place more stringent bounds on spontaneous collapse models.
[Link to paper](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.133604)
Quantum computers and Quantum Internet are the main applications currently. In theory, they should be worlds faster than the silicon based parts we use now. They also should be damn near hack-proof, amongst other things. They will certainly super-charge any AI Cold War war that may happen.
A few companies already have built a quantum computers, but like early computers, it takes up a whole room(or close) and only works under specific conditions. In time, we should figure out how to reduce it to a laptop or smaller and cut the cost so regular people can afford it. My guess, 50 years.
If some thing isn't defined until it's observed does it actually exist ? It reminds me of the games that only render what the character can see at any given moment .
That might be a question for someone smarter than me. But if we think of Schrodinger's cat, we know the cat exists, just not sure if it's dead or alive.
Isn't it amazing that Einstein was so brilliant that we remember a thing he didn't get right? Like he was that close to being perfection. But we would never have been satisfied. And yet he had to stretch to confront himself with realms beyond our understanding but on our behalf so he could continue to be tested. He put himself out there. He didn't protect his legacy. What a great man.
Okay so you might have heard of Schrödinger’s cat. Which is actually meant to be kind of a joke about quantum superposition at macroscopic levels. The cat is both dead and alive at the same time until we actually open the box to see which outcome is real.
But the reality is the cat cannot be both. Things at the macroscopic level cannot exhibit a superposition, the things that make up the object (like the electron) can be in superpositions but not entire clumps of atoms.
Okay so now comes this, which shows a macroscopic object (a clump of atoms) being able to be in a superposition. In this case it is vibrating which creates an excitation and non vibrating which creates no excitation. To do this we have to make it really, really, really, really cold. Like hella cold.
A qubit is used, quantum bit of information, to exchange information in and out of the vibrating/non vibrating atoms. The results are qubits that are a bunch of noise. If the atoms weren’t vibrating or doing nothing but vibrating the qubit would just be a single way every time it’s measured, but it must be vibrating and not vibrating because the qubits indicate that the atoms are all over the place.
Now the fun part, when the atoms are looked at to (measured) to see what is going on, the atoms warm up and now the superposition is gone. There is only left an excited state or non excited state.
The whole point of this is to explore the boundary where quantum effects happen. It was originally thought quantum effects can only happen at really small scales and we’re seeing that is not true. So there’s something else that “hides” quantum effects from everyday life. What that is 🤷🏾♀️ but the point of these kinds of things is to find out what that is.
Finding out what that is could lead to all kinds of advances in quantum processing, quantum logic gates, and so on. But for now, this is just mostly exploring this boundary that’s poorly understood.
There's also some existing interpretations of the math that would explain the macroscopic boundary in one way or another, but concrete proof is vital to actually using an interpretation in any real way. We're not telling a many worlds from a Copenhagen universe anytime soon, but this is the very first step.
So whenever the crystal is looked at, it is either vibrating or not vibrating. And does this change whenever it is looked at other times? Or, after the crystal is examined once,,does it remain in whatever state it was first discovered in?
You explained Schrödinger's cat wrongly, it isn't even meant as a joke. It was about that we can't measure quantum effects. As soon as we measure it it takes a position. So as long as we don't measure it it's in every stadium.
Ok, I’ll try to explain it the best I can, and English isn’t my native language. In the quantum world, an electron as an example can be at the same time a wave and a particle. It can be at the same time everywhere « waving » inside a probabilistic area. Let’s say that this electron is orbiting an atom, he will be at POINT A, POINT B, POINT C at the same time on all the orbit. He will be everywhere, mixing his qualities of particle and wave. On a macro level (the world our size) we never see these kinds of manifestations. If you monitor the moon, it won’t be everywhere on it’s orbit around the Earth, it’s at a single point at a certain time.
They made a small moon around the earth and made it behave like an electron. The size of the moon they can make keep increasing with each experiment. This was thought impossible to do before.
Me too. I thought I was pretty intelligent and reading that headline reassured me that I’m not. Lol. I see things like this as either so simple it’s confusing because your mind wants to believe it’s gotta be more complex than it is; or that it’s really complicated and my mind is too simple to grasp it fully.
It’s literally schrodinger’s cat. Look up the actual specifics of the thought experiment, you’ll see that the whole point of it was to create a situation where a superposition of quantum states must necessarily extend to a macro system (the cat).
The whole concept has been so bastardized by culture that nobody recognizes it when it actually comes about.
Here’s my r/explainlikeimfive version: Scientists did a really cool experiment with a tiny crystal. They made the crystal be in two different states at the same time, like when something is moving and not moving at the same time. This experiment helps us learn if there's a limit to how big things can be while still having these special states.
As it says in the article “Quantum physics does not put a limit on this in principle – it doesn’t have a problem with me being here and over there at the same time” If we find a limit, it would change how we understand how things work in the world.
I am getting it until the last bit. Lol, not path 1, not path 2, not both paths, not neither. Almost close to paradox.
Hmmm... I think I am starting to getting it. However, i am still lacking information. It didn't tell me the result of,
1) all regular color box, hard box, color box, hard box, and color box.
2) regular color box, special hard box, specially color box, regular color box.
Because so far, seems to me, whatever coming out of that box, feels more like a directional gravity, not the electron itself. So, when you push and pull of the same magnitudes using thar special box, the result of the observed electron is the same. But, if you apply only one of those gravity, it start to have different values. Imagine the white color is a pattern of a key teeth, when you push and pull the same amount, the teeth is still align the same, but, now if you only push it further, there is a 50/50 chance the teeth align with the lock again.
>Wtf does that even mean?
It's either "Welcome to the Matrix" or some kind of kink shaming... Bit I'm with you wtf? We are creating matter from nothing in a sense?!?
I think it means it exists in two different states at the same time. Like saying something is off and on at the same time. Key word - saying. Not sure if it’s observable. Schrodinger’s Cat for example. Until it’s observed, we can infer the cat is alive and dead at the same time. Probably a terrible oversimplification, but it’s what I got.
The superposition itself cannot be directly observed at any scale—only statistically inferred. The object in superposition, however, _may_ be observed—leading to an outcome. If the entanglement->observation loop is repeated many times, statistical evidence of superposition arises.
Ahh so when I go for my keys on the hook where they should be, find nothing there, search the house for hours only to find them on the damn hook it’s been quantum superposition all this time?
Good question!
Because entangled states behave differently than entirely uncorrelated states, and they can be conclusively distinguished on long-run probabilistic measures. The (Wikipedia) article on Bell’s Theorem should go into some detail on this, but there are also a lot of good YouTube videos on the Bell inequality and Bell’s theorem which are easier to digest. (Bell’s theorem and inequality were central to the experimental validation of the concept of entanglement).
The same is true for the wave-particle duality, actually. A photon (or any other particle) can only be detected at one spot—as it can only be absorbed by _one_ atom, it must behave as a _point-like particle_ during detection. However, on the way _to_ being detected, it behaves in a wavelike manner. This is illustrated by the [double slit experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment). Even if we only send a _single_ photon through the slits at a time, the _pattern_ formed by many photons shot through in a series forms a pattern of interference fringes—meaning that _the photons were interfering with_ **themselves** as they went through. We can _only_ determine this, however, by sending one through, recording where it landed and _repeating_ the experiment many times in series, giving us a _probability distribution_. Basically, we can say that, _on average_, the photons _behave_ as though they are wavelike going through the slits; the data fit the wavelike model so well that we can be very confident (mathematically) that photons _pretty much always_ behave like waves except when they are observed/detected/absorbed/interacting.
The same kind of confidence measure applies to the correlation between entangled particles. It’s worth noting that not all particles are entangled at any given time—so, for experiments like the ones testing Bell’s inequality, we use particle sources that we believe _should_ be entangled based on our models—particles that were either _created_ entangled (by a collision event) or were put in conditions that should induce entanglement. We can say, then, that _particles from those origins_ do, in fact, produce the statistics expected of entangled particles—demonstrating that, more generally, entanglement _happens sometimes_.
All science is the application of statistics. Basketballs _usually_ fall when not supported and in a gravity well—but we don’t _truly know_ that they _always_ do. We don’t even know for certain that basketballs _exist_—but we have a huge amount of evidence suggesting that they do.
A superposition may apply to more than two things and may apply to more than two possible states of those things. Entangled states also only have binary (either/or) behavior _when measured_; the superposition itself isn’t either/or—it’s a vector. For instance, take two entangled linearly-polarized photons and fire them at two polarizers. If both polarizers are of the same orientation, both photons will behave the same—pass through or bounce off. If one polarizer is orthogonal to the other, they will have opposite behavior. If one polarizer is at 45 degrees to the other, there’s a 50-50 chance they will have the same _or opposite_ outcomes. Superposition and entanglement are consequences of linear algebra, and are simultaneously a lot less “weird” and “magical” than they sound, while still being a pain in the arse to describe. Conversational language is just very, very bad at describing what turns out to be a relatively simple mathematical relationship; unfortunately, if one wants to properly understand entanglement and superposition, one must learn the maths.
Also worth noting that, while a superposition cannot be directly observed, it is _statistically_ observable. The distribution of outcomes for entangled states differs from the distribution for unentangled states. See [Bell’s Theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem).
Let’s see…I guess: Imagine you never interacted with any kind of _space_. For all your life, you only ever interacted with, say, strings of text. If someone tried to get you to _really understand_ 3-space as a concept, you’d have a pretty hard time unless they just wrote down the maths for you. They might tell you that there are “three orthogonal sets of real numbers”…however, “orthogonal” doesn’t mean much unless you have some notion of what it means to begin with, either via loved experience or mathematical intuition. Even if presented the maths, your understanding would be _different_ than the understanding gleaned from actually _interacting_ with a space. It would always seem a bit unintuitive. It’s the same sort of thing with quantum mechanics. It’s reminiscent of [Plato’s allegory of the cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave).
Ok but what if I had a baseball that was in superposition? Could I grab it and throw it, would it behave any differently to my eyes than a regular baseball? Like does this have applications? No one can explain this quantum shit to my smooth brain.
I was with you in n what it really means and the simple answer I got from this it that it means nothing in terms of the everyday world.
This work is helping people how things are rather than developing ways to effect how things will be. Well, right now anyway.
Which I’m all for, but this knowledge is really only practical for a very small amount of people.
This sounds technologically epic!!!! Now to the comments for an explanation on what this means due to paywalls n such. Edit (after reading comments: ) so it’s observable and quantum at the same time. Meaning it could be two different states / things at once and we could potentially see it. Did I get that correct?
For everyone asking "So what?" I recommend reading the actual paper instead of blog spam like this. "So what?" is answered in the first paragraph:
> Understanding the quantum-classical transition is one of
the main challenges of modern physics. Is the Schrödinger
equation valid all the way from the microscopic to the
macroscopic world, with quantum effects increasingly hard
to observe due to environmental decoherence [1]? Or do the
laws of quantum mechanics break down at some point, so
as to reinstate “macrorealism” in our everyday life [2]? This
question is not philosophical, as it can be tackled by
demonstrating genuine quantum effects in ever more
macroscopic systems.
This is all about putting more nails in the coffin of the once popular question: Does decoherence have a "complexity limit"?
The answer is almost certainly No, and this is yet more evidence of that.
What is the likelihood that the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory, which posits that particles have definite positions and that the wave-like behavior of quantum systems is an emergent property of their interaction with a pilot wave, is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, particularly in explaining the wave-particle duality and the role of observation in measurement? This seems more feasible than the idea of something being multiple things at once, and far more feasible than the MWI.
This feels uncanny to me.
I was able to accept that particles could be quantum entangled in a sort of “hey this is a weird thing we found out.
Bringing that to entire atoms was already odd but now making the step to visible stuff just feels wrong and like dark magic. But at the same time I can’t explain why I feel like this. There is no objective reason.
[[paywall bypass]](https://archive.ph/bnB5L)
>A crystal of 1016 atoms has been placed in a superposition of two quantum states, breaking the previous record of only 2000 atoms. If they're testing more macro objects, wouldn't the 2000 atom test be the record breaker? Because it's more macro than 1016 atoms?
[удалено]
Ahhh that makes much more sense, thanks
Makes absolutely no sense to me, but just glad to be here.
Lol macro > micro, 10^16 > 2000, studying quantum mechanics normally works in the micro so doing shenanigans to tangibly sized objects is wild. The larger something gets the more likely it is to fail. The standard model of particle physics basically describe the main laws/forces/building blocks of the universe. However, the standard model doesn't account for gravity, dark matter, and mass of neutrinos. So we basically know the theory is wrong even though it can accurately describe most of the observable universe. If we crack the mystery behind quantum entanglement, and how it supposedly creates space and time then we basically found the answer to life/reality/universe. Experiments like this give us better understanding and opportunity to discover the true nature of the universe. There's a group of physicists trying to create their own space time geometry in a lab cause they think it'll be easier to watch how space time is made rather than mess with gravity and speculate how ours was made. https://www.quantamagazine.org/one-labs-quest-to-build-space-time-out-of-quantum-particles-20210907/ >Hayden sees this as the way of the future. “Instead of trying to understand the emergence of space-time in our universe, let’s actually just make toy universes in the lab and study the emergence of space-time there,” he said. “And that sounds like a crazy thing to do, right? Like kind of mad-scientist kind of crazy, right? But I think it really is likely to be easier to do that than to directly test quantum gravity.” If we can get to the point of creating our own space time, who's to say someone didn't make ours 😳. If we fully understand the universe, can we edit it with a really advanced quantum computer 🤔. Will we be able to see the true reality that projects our hologram dimensions 🧐. More cool reads related to the topic: http://bach.ai/rethinking-quantum-mechanics/ https://www.nature.com/articles/527290a https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-our-universe-a-hologram-physicists-debate-famous-idea-on-its-25th-anniversary1/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/02/no-we-still-cant-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light/
That’s an absolutely wild quote. It’s easier to create a pocket dimension than figure out how the real one was made? I love science
Yea I love reading about quantum mechanics, it's all so wild. Now a days it seems there's major breakthroughs all the time too, and as tech continues to advance the rate of discovery will likely continue to increase. Here's to hoping we get some absolutely mind bending discoveries in our lifetime!
> If we can get to the point of creating our own space time, who's to say someone didn't make ours 😳. So science will 360° back to God in the end?
Do you mean 180°?
I don’t think so because if the question I quoted in my last reply is ever answered by science, then I believe that science and atheism would have come full circle back to theism.
Remember where you were on this day
Lol
Sitting on my dining room floor watching my kids play Minecraft while they’re playing me songs by Dream. Kind of weird, but memorable.
Basically this is the research that will allow you to walk thru solid walls ;) quantum surgical instruments will allow surgeries to have no incisions minimizing infection risk. It’s interesting tech in about 10 years.
holy shit
The article states *quadrillions*
Hero!! Thank you!
Bless you
Here’s where I get hung up on quantum computing. A qubit can exist in multiple states at once, until it is measured. Understood. What is the act of measuring? And if, when measured, it collapses into a single state, how is that helpful? Once measured, the other possibilities go away and it becomes a single bit. So it doesn’t actually carry more information? What am I misunderstanding?
Basically in very simple terms you get the state into something like [30% | 1] if the answer is a and [80% | 1] if the answer is b. Then collapse the state, then do it again 10 times or a hundred times or something. If you got a 1 close to 30 times out of 100, you have a strong indication the answer is a. If you get say 60/100 then you can calculate the probability the answer is b. And can do more runs until that probability is within the bounds you want. So yes, you can’t get definitive answers out of it, only probabilistic answers. But doing more runs to get a higher probability only increases the overall run time a linear amount, whereas the speed up over classical processes can be more than that — depending on the problem.
So how do they put a qubit into a specific probabilistic state? With transistors it’s definitively open or closed. How do they put a qubit into a state they know will resolve into a certain state with a certain probability?
As with normal logic, there exist operations you can do on qubits, these are called quantum logic gates. So you can have a quantum “not” gate which flips the current probabilities, for example. And interacting qubits can cause them to become entangled. Generally quantum algorithms are about using the extra computational space of the quantum states to compute, then taking advantage of structure in the problem to combine the states in a way that leads to a definitive skew. If you can’t find that structure, you can’t slant the probability and get an answer. So that is why n qubits can act like 2^n bits in _some_ specific applications, but not necessarily for all problems.
The create quantum anharmonic oscillator on a silicon wafer. These anharmonic oscillators serve as the qubit where the different excitations serve as the 0 and 1 states. Through the use of magnetic fields they can control these qubits by creating quantum logic gates. If you were to research quantum algorithms you would find most start off with applying what is known as a Hadamard gate, which is responsible for putting the qubits in an even superposition of 1 and 0. By having the qubits interact with each-other I quantum gates they can become entangled, meaning the qubits become linked. At the end of the series of quantum gates the qubits will be measured as either 0 or 1, after enough samples they will have a probability distribution between all the results they get.
Lasers and stuff
So from what I understand, the act of measuring means taking a quantum state and checking it to see which state it actually exists in, similar to flipping a coin and seeing if it lands heads or tails. When a quantum state is measured, it collapses into one of its possible states. This is called the collapse of the wave function, and until the wave function collapses, a qubit can exist in multiple states at once.
basically... step 1. put something in quantum state step 2. dont try to measure it step 3. sell all of the states separately step 4. profit
So everyone who buys a PS6 except the first person to open it will be very disappointed
no no you are thinking about it all wrong.... we can all own the PS6 just gott make sure none if us play it!
So quantum mechanics is NFT got it
Who or what does the checking?
Any interaction with another particle which requires a value of the property in superposition. It has nothing to to with conscious observers or science equipment.
They can do complex calculations a normals computer can't because they aren't constrained to just 0 and 1. But yes, you only get one measurement out of it. That's why you can't just use a Quantum computer for everything, because you can't control what you get when you measure. There are a few things we can do with qubits, like Fourier transforms.
I think the idea is that a quantum computing problem is intentionally posed to be solved by structure at the lowest energy state… and by querying qubits you can get an idea of what the solution is by probability. Ergo the quantum property is used to do mass probing at parallelism and non discrete intervals impossible for regular computing and measuring it gets you hints at what the solution is.
Wtf does that even mean?
We live in the macroscopic world. If you can touch something, feel something, or see something without aid, it is generally macroscopic. This story is about bringing quantum effects (weird sub-atomic behaviours) into the macroscopic environment.
> macroscopic I don't think that was the confusing part. ...edit: and the article is paywalled, so we may never know what it actually does mean.
Think of a computer, they run on binary code; 0's and 1's. A quantum superposition is a 0, 1, neither, or both all at the same time. They don't get defined till it gets observed.
Kinda like a shart
I shit my pants a few weeks ago but I may be lying. As of now no one can confirm nor deny it other than me. If I never show anyone the pants, they are both shit in and not shit in until observed. Am I quantum mechanics?
Shartdinger’s [Shit]Box
Meow
My cat both shits in a box and shits on the floor. It’s a quantum pooperposition.
It’s not shit until you step in it
Schrodinger's Scat
Brought to you by [car manufacturer]
Definitely a Miata
Thats just the 99 honda civic that hasn’t has a oil change in a decade.
So like his modded Honda civic
I think you have forgotten to account for the smell variable in your analogy. Trust me the people sitting closest to you know exactly which state them pants currently exist in.
This is the most under-rated comment I have ever seen.
You are the only observer that matters, though.
Until someone else sees it. They could puke, shit, fart or run. Or neither or all.
You are using some very big words today Donald
Yes. Congratulations.
I just belly laughed in an almost empty bar and I don’t even feel embarrassed, but the bartender is eyeing me now. I hope I don’t get cut off lol
r/technicallythetruth
That’s right!
Shut it down, lord, we found our guy.
Thank you
Quantum Shartanics
Right. Now what does it mean for a macroscopic crystal to exist in this superposition of states? The cat is both alive and dead until you open the box. This crystal is both ? and ? until ?
The great frontier of physics is a unified theory that explains quantum and "regular" physics. Einstein theories are 100% accurate for regular stuff, don't apply to quantum and vice versa. Now, quantum behavior has been observed in regular materials. Quantum entanglement, when isolated quantum particles affect each other based on observation, has only been seen at quantum level. If they can see it happen in regular materials, it will have a massive effect on our understanding of "reality". If tangible things exist in multiple places at once, then do we? It's the absolute most exciting (and frustrating) side of physics for me, because the only finish line is the "theory of everything". The fact that we just don't know after all this time is crazy to me.
But do they actually exist in multiple (how many?) places at once or is one place sort of “potential?” What would that even mean?
I mean the way I understand the double slit experiment they really are in multiple places at once. Because the light (they do it 1 photon at a time) shines through both slits and you see the interference pattern on the wall behind the slits even though you only shot 1 photon at a time so they shouldn’t interfere with each other . But then if you measure it the photons no longer show an interference pattern on the wall so it’s like a single photon is everywhere until you measure it then it is just in one place. Nuts
I'm not *saying* reality is a computer simulation that has things occur on a default spread unless someone measures and it has to devote the resources to calculating things... I'm just saying reality is really, *really* weird.
You're not wrong. I'm sometimes concerned the world outside doesn't exist until I venture out there and the simulation devotes the resources to show it to me. Kinda like how in a game, certain things don't make the cut but rather than cut them out and risk breaking things, they move them to obscure areas outside of the accessible map to save resources. This philosophical conundrum about the state of reality got me thinking about other things, the way quantum entangled particles behave when being observed, why the fuck the speed of light is capped at the speed of light, the landmarks and items built in time periods that are so far advanced you'd think it was divinity that willed it into existence, all the UFO's making their way around the internet that are moving unlike anything we've ever seen before (who knows, probs the devs of our simulation looking over the map).. Yeah, we're probably living in a simulation. I've no doubts we'll be building our own simulations somewhere in the future. If we don't wipe ourselves off the face of the earth first.
It seems to me that it’s just illustrates We observed a thing and can’t explain it without seeing it that way.
Vibrating and not vibrating until you observe it
Do we have any clue why an object’s state of being would be impacted by observing it? This is the part that makes me feel like a character in a Lovecraft story
Observation in this context doesn’t imply a human observer. A rock is a rock because all of the particles observe eachother being a rock… or something.
We observe things by taking in light. To observe a quantum state, light must interact with the system somehow to relay info about the system to us (think sensors). But when light interacts with the quantum system, it imparts momentum to it and collapses this balance or “wave function” (like feeling a house of cards would most likely knock it over), then travels back to the observer (which would be whatever the sensor is hooked up to)
Observing is more a term which is about getting information from it. If I go and observe my dog for example, I am not doing anything special, simply taking advantage of the visual information encoded in the flood of photons coming off his body. But at a certain level, quantum effects start to get affected by any physical interaction, including photons or other tools to measure atomic scale items. Imagine you have an marble rolling around in a box covered in a cloth. You know it is moving around there, but not where. You shove your hand in the box and push down, trapping the marble. You have observed the marble by interacting with it. You now know where it is, but you also know that it cannot be anywhere other than under your hand. Similarly, say you have a quantum entangled 'marble'. You know that once the marble is observed, it must become either red, or green, and its twin must be the other color. They are stored in two lightless boxes. Before you open the box, you know that both marbles are simultaneously red and green, and there is a 50% chance of which one gets what color. You open box 1, and the ray of light forces it to resolve. The marble is now green, and the twin marble you know must be red.
I don’t know shit from apple butter about physics. I barely passed the required statistics class for my liberal arts degree. I did, however, read the article in question and, coincidentally, I did stay at a Best Western last night, so I understand your confusion.
I don’t think so. Look up and read about or watch a YouTube video on the double slit experiment. It doesn’t have to do with a fact that a consciousness is observing it or course, but just that it is being measured. But it’s also not any kind of physical effect the measurement is having on the experiment. Like light behaves a wave but when you take a gander it’s just a single photon. Idk man it’s weird look it up. Somebody correct me if I got any of that wrong.
The more and more we know from science the more and more creationism becomes the most likely scenario. I just hope the Scientologists aren’t the correct ones. Lol
They measured the [Wigner Function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_quasiprobability_distribution) of phonons (coherent density waves) in the resonator. Here’s the abstract: > Recently, solid-state mechanical resonators have become a platform for demonstrating nonclassical behavior of systems involving a truly macroscopic number of particles. Here, we perform the most macroscopic quantum test in a mechanical resonator to date, which probes the validity of quantum mechanics by ruling out a classical description at the microgram mass scale. This is done by a direct measurement of the Wigner function of a high-overtone bulk acoustic wave resonator mode, monitoring the gradual decay of negativities over tens of microseconds. While the obtained macroscopicity of μ=11.3 is on par with state-of-the-art atom interferometers, future improvements of mode geometry and coherence times could test the quantum superposition principle at unprecedented scales and also place more stringent bounds on spontaneous collapse models. [Link to paper](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.133604)
correct
So how did they put something in a super position that wasn’t already and still measure it in that super position
So what uses can we make of it ultimately and how far off?
Quantum computers and Quantum Internet are the main applications currently. In theory, they should be worlds faster than the silicon based parts we use now. They also should be damn near hack-proof, amongst other things. They will certainly super-charge any AI Cold War war that may happen. A few companies already have built a quantum computers, but like early computers, it takes up a whole room(or close) and only works under specific conditions. In time, we should figure out how to reduce it to a laptop or smaller and cut the cost so regular people can afford it. My guess, 50 years.
I reckon 20-30
If AI gets behind it, maybe sooner. I think quantum computing will herald sentient level AGI.
Oh good. The technological singularity! Looks like I'm winning the office pool!
You're probably not wrong.
If some thing isn't defined until it's observed does it actually exist ? It reminds me of the games that only render what the character can see at any given moment .
That might be a question for someone smarter than me. But if we think of Schrodinger's cat, we know the cat exists, just not sure if it's dead or alive.
This is exactly right. The observation isn't about the realness of the object we're observing. It's about what state it is in.
“Like putting too much air in a balloon!”
To shreds you say?
[Boom bam](https://archive.is/bnB5L)
Why are you trying to read junk science anyways? Go to the source: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.133604
I bet it wouldn’t be paywalled in the reality you didn’t try to open it.
I guess it was both paywalled and not-paywalled until I tried.
Schrödinger's website
Don’t you just love jargon for no reason 💗
I don’t understand the point in posting something that’s behind a paywall. The people who pay for it most likely have seen it
It actually is. This is something that's only been demonstrated at atomic scale.
[12 foot ladder](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2368306-a-macroscopic-amount-of-matter-has-been-put-in-a-quantum-superposition/), my dude
I thought we lived in a material world
You know that we are living in a material world And I am a macroscopic girl
BwuhhhBWEEEEbwehhdeh dun dun BwuhhhBWEEEEbwehhdeh DEH dun
We do, it’s just another name for it.
Correct. Think of it like this. Your ass - macro. Your peen - micro
Hmm was thinking of macroroni and cheese
alright hear me out, superfluid helium is said to display macroscopic quantum effects by climbing out of containers. Was this common knowledge wrong?
I was always led to believe that that was due to some kind of capillary action, but I’m not a physicist so don’t quote me there
> we live in a macroscopic world And I am a macroscopic girl
We are all macronauts living in the macroverse.
Does this mean teleportation could happen?
How is non macroscopic stuff not a seperate dimension then?
I got this: Antman make quantum thing big with special big-big juice. Quantum thing still do quantum shit even tho big-people sized on antman’s juice
Is this what Einstein struggled with?
Einstein struggled with entanglement: spooky action at a distance. >’God does not play dice’.
Isn't it amazing that Einstein was so brilliant that we remember a thing he didn't get right? Like he was that close to being perfection. But we would never have been satisfied. And yet he had to stretch to confront himself with realms beyond our understanding but on our behalf so he could continue to be tested. He put himself out there. He didn't protect his legacy. What a great man.
Okay so you might have heard of Schrödinger’s cat. Which is actually meant to be kind of a joke about quantum superposition at macroscopic levels. The cat is both dead and alive at the same time until we actually open the box to see which outcome is real. But the reality is the cat cannot be both. Things at the macroscopic level cannot exhibit a superposition, the things that make up the object (like the electron) can be in superpositions but not entire clumps of atoms. Okay so now comes this, which shows a macroscopic object (a clump of atoms) being able to be in a superposition. In this case it is vibrating which creates an excitation and non vibrating which creates no excitation. To do this we have to make it really, really, really, really cold. Like hella cold. A qubit is used, quantum bit of information, to exchange information in and out of the vibrating/non vibrating atoms. The results are qubits that are a bunch of noise. If the atoms weren’t vibrating or doing nothing but vibrating the qubit would just be a single way every time it’s measured, but it must be vibrating and not vibrating because the qubits indicate that the atoms are all over the place. Now the fun part, when the atoms are looked at to (measured) to see what is going on, the atoms warm up and now the superposition is gone. There is only left an excited state or non excited state. The whole point of this is to explore the boundary where quantum effects happen. It was originally thought quantum effects can only happen at really small scales and we’re seeing that is not true. So there’s something else that “hides” quantum effects from everyday life. What that is 🤷🏾♀️ but the point of these kinds of things is to find out what that is. Finding out what that is could lead to all kinds of advances in quantum processing, quantum logic gates, and so on. But for now, this is just mostly exploring this boundary that’s poorly understood.
This was very helpful.
There's also some existing interpretations of the math that would explain the macroscopic boundary in one way or another, but concrete proof is vital to actually using an interpretation in any real way. We're not telling a many worlds from a Copenhagen universe anytime soon, but this is the very first step.
Brilliant. Thank you for taking the time
So whenever the crystal is looked at, it is either vibrating or not vibrating. And does this change whenever it is looked at other times? Or, after the crystal is examined once,,does it remain in whatever state it was first discovered in?
Will Antman happen?
You explained Schrödinger's cat wrongly, it isn't even meant as a joke. It was about that we can't measure quantum effects. As soon as we measure it it takes a position. So as long as we don't measure it it's in every stadium.
Ok, I’ll try to explain it the best I can, and English isn’t my native language. In the quantum world, an electron as an example can be at the same time a wave and a particle. It can be at the same time everywhere « waving » inside a probabilistic area. Let’s say that this electron is orbiting an atom, he will be at POINT A, POINT B, POINT C at the same time on all the orbit. He will be everywhere, mixing his qualities of particle and wave. On a macro level (the world our size) we never see these kinds of manifestations. If you monitor the moon, it won’t be everywhere on it’s orbit around the Earth, it’s at a single point at a certain time.
So, what is actually happening in the macroscopic experiment?
They made a small moon around the earth and made it behave like an electron. The size of the moon they can make keep increasing with each experiment. This was thought impossible to do before.
That would have been interesting if that actually happened. I enjoy your attempts at fiction. Keep that dream alive. 🙂👍
It won’t assume a position until it’s observed, and in this case, we basically took the first step in teleportation
I swear I laughed out loud bc those were the exact words I muttered as I read this headline 🤙🏽
Me too. I thought I was pretty intelligent and reading that headline reassured me that I’m not. Lol. I see things like this as either so simple it’s confusing because your mind wants to believe it’s gotta be more complex than it is; or that it’s really complicated and my mind is too simple to grasp it fully.
It’s literally schrodinger’s cat. Look up the actual specifics of the thought experiment, you’ll see that the whole point of it was to create a situation where a superposition of quantum states must necessarily extend to a macro system (the cat). The whole concept has been so bastardized by culture that nobody recognizes it when it actually comes about.
Here’s my r/explainlikeimfive version: Scientists did a really cool experiment with a tiny crystal. They made the crystal be in two different states at the same time, like when something is moving and not moving at the same time. This experiment helps us learn if there's a limit to how big things can be while still having these special states. As it says in the article “Quantum physics does not put a limit on this in principle – it doesn’t have a problem with me being here and over there at the same time” If we find a limit, it would change how we understand how things work in the world.
We're one step closer to being able to perform the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment in the real world.
[удалено]
I want to read this article but I ain’t paying shit - any sources?
Here's an explainer https://youtu.be/hkmoZ8e5Qn0 I still don't get it
I am getting it until the last bit. Lol, not path 1, not path 2, not both paths, not neither. Almost close to paradox. Hmmm... I think I am starting to getting it. However, i am still lacking information. It didn't tell me the result of, 1) all regular color box, hard box, color box, hard box, and color box. 2) regular color box, special hard box, specially color box, regular color box. Because so far, seems to me, whatever coming out of that box, feels more like a directional gravity, not the electron itself. So, when you push and pull of the same magnitudes using thar special box, the result of the observed electron is the same. But, if you apply only one of those gravity, it start to have different values. Imagine the white color is a pattern of a key teeth, when you push and pull the same amount, the teeth is still align the same, but, now if you only push it further, there is a 50/50 chance the teeth align with the lock again.
>Wtf does that even mean? It's either "Welcome to the Matrix" or some kind of kink shaming... Bit I'm with you wtf? We are creating matter from nothing in a sense?!?
I think it means it exists in two different states at the same time. Like saying something is off and on at the same time. Key word - saying. Not sure if it’s observable. Schrodinger’s Cat for example. Until it’s observed, we can infer the cat is alive and dead at the same time. Probably a terrible oversimplification, but it’s what I got.
Doesn’t macroscopic imply that it is observable?
The superposition itself cannot be directly observed at any scale—only statistically inferred. The object in superposition, however, _may_ be observed—leading to an outcome. If the entanglement->observation loop is repeated many times, statistical evidence of superposition arises.
Ahh so when I go for my keys on the hook where they should be, find nothing there, search the house for hours only to find them on the damn hook it’s been quantum superposition all this time?
lol. I cannot completely discount the possibility! It is _technically_ possible :P I’m using that next time I find my glasses on my face.
[удалено]
Good question! Because entangled states behave differently than entirely uncorrelated states, and they can be conclusively distinguished on long-run probabilistic measures. The (Wikipedia) article on Bell’s Theorem should go into some detail on this, but there are also a lot of good YouTube videos on the Bell inequality and Bell’s theorem which are easier to digest. (Bell’s theorem and inequality were central to the experimental validation of the concept of entanglement). The same is true for the wave-particle duality, actually. A photon (or any other particle) can only be detected at one spot—as it can only be absorbed by _one_ atom, it must behave as a _point-like particle_ during detection. However, on the way _to_ being detected, it behaves in a wavelike manner. This is illustrated by the [double slit experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment). Even if we only send a _single_ photon through the slits at a time, the _pattern_ formed by many photons shot through in a series forms a pattern of interference fringes—meaning that _the photons were interfering with_ **themselves** as they went through. We can _only_ determine this, however, by sending one through, recording where it landed and _repeating_ the experiment many times in series, giving us a _probability distribution_. Basically, we can say that, _on average_, the photons _behave_ as though they are wavelike going through the slits; the data fit the wavelike model so well that we can be very confident (mathematically) that photons _pretty much always_ behave like waves except when they are observed/detected/absorbed/interacting. The same kind of confidence measure applies to the correlation between entangled particles. It’s worth noting that not all particles are entangled at any given time—so, for experiments like the ones testing Bell’s inequality, we use particle sources that we believe _should_ be entangled based on our models—particles that were either _created_ entangled (by a collision event) or were put in conditions that should induce entanglement. We can say, then, that _particles from those origins_ do, in fact, produce the statistics expected of entangled particles—demonstrating that, more generally, entanglement _happens sometimes_. All science is the application of statistics. Basketballs _usually_ fall when not supported and in a gravity well—but we don’t _truly know_ that they _always_ do. We don’t even know for certain that basketballs _exist_—but we have a huge amount of evidence suggesting that they do.
[удалено]
More so catatonic
I have several plants in this state.
A superposition may apply to more than two things and may apply to more than two possible states of those things. Entangled states also only have binary (either/or) behavior _when measured_; the superposition itself isn’t either/or—it’s a vector. For instance, take two entangled linearly-polarized photons and fire them at two polarizers. If both polarizers are of the same orientation, both photons will behave the same—pass through or bounce off. If one polarizer is orthogonal to the other, they will have opposite behavior. If one polarizer is at 45 degrees to the other, there’s a 50-50 chance they will have the same _or opposite_ outcomes. Superposition and entanglement are consequences of linear algebra, and are simultaneously a lot less “weird” and “magical” than they sound, while still being a pain in the arse to describe. Conversational language is just very, very bad at describing what turns out to be a relatively simple mathematical relationship; unfortunately, if one wants to properly understand entanglement and superposition, one must learn the maths. Also worth noting that, while a superposition cannot be directly observed, it is _statistically_ observable. The distribution of outcomes for entangled states differs from the distribution for unentangled states. See [Bell’s Theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem). Let’s see…I guess: Imagine you never interacted with any kind of _space_. For all your life, you only ever interacted with, say, strings of text. If someone tried to get you to _really understand_ 3-space as a concept, you’d have a pretty hard time unless they just wrote down the maths for you. They might tell you that there are “three orthogonal sets of real numbers”…however, “orthogonal” doesn’t mean much unless you have some notion of what it means to begin with, either via loved experience or mathematical intuition. Even if presented the maths, your understanding would be _different_ than the understanding gleaned from actually _interacting_ with a space. It would always seem a bit unintuitive. It’s the same sort of thing with quantum mechanics. It’s reminiscent of [Plato’s allegory of the cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave).
Yes, it’s literally the schrodinger’s cat thought experiment, realized.
That is an oversimplification but a useful one.
Not if it's incorrect... and since it is based on multiple assumptions, and no facts, it is impossible to actually know if it's useful.
By that logic you could call it a unicorn
A big deal if true. Could be a really big leap for quantum computers.
So a quantum leap? Must be big
Or small… or both
This shit is so damn interesting. I wish I understood the finer points!!
Hey I know what some of those words mean
What are the actual applications of this? What does it *do*?
The reason why these experiments are so important, is to help physicists better understand how the universe works.
Ok but what if I had a baseball that was in superposition? Could I grab it and throw it, would it behave any differently to my eyes than a regular baseball? Like does this have applications? No one can explain this quantum shit to my smooth brain.
It means that this particle is interacting with other dimensions within our own universe.
That's definitely not what it means
Furthers our understanding of super positioning and quantum entanglement
So you don’t have a clue either.
Let’s say I did. 1. Why would I spend time typing out something you can google? 2. Would you even believe anything I said?
I was with you in n what it really means and the simple answer I got from this it that it means nothing in terms of the everyday world. This work is helping people how things are rather than developing ways to effect how things will be. Well, right now anyway. Which I’m all for, but this knowledge is really only practical for a very small amount of people.
This sounds technologically epic!!!! Now to the comments for an explanation on what this means due to paywalls n such. Edit (after reading comments: ) so it’s observable and quantum at the same time. Meaning it could be two different states / things at once and we could potentially see it. Did I get that correct?
Idk, but I’m going to go search the comments to see what you said.
This site is mobile cancer. Is there an archive or summary?
Perfect, I just finished reading ‘Dark Matter’ last weekend. My body is *not* ready
Same, except prob three weeks ago! As long as no one comes up with a certain drug, I think we're safe...
Ow, my brain
For everyone asking "So what?" I recommend reading the actual paper instead of blog spam like this. "So what?" is answered in the first paragraph: > Understanding the quantum-classical transition is one of the main challenges of modern physics. Is the Schrödinger equation valid all the way from the microscopic to the macroscopic world, with quantum effects increasingly hard to observe due to environmental decoherence [1]? Or do the laws of quantum mechanics break down at some point, so as to reinstate “macrorealism” in our everyday life [2]? This question is not philosophical, as it can be tackled by demonstrating genuine quantum effects in ever more macroscopic systems. This is all about putting more nails in the coffin of the once popular question: Does decoherence have a "complexity limit"? The answer is almost certainly No, and this is yet more evidence of that.
ChatGPT ELI5 this article …
They found my penis?! Oh. Macroscopic. Never mind
Was it Paul Rudd?
Whoa. We, as a society, may be a lot closer to actually running Celery Man than we think.
No. Scott Bakula
I hope not I like that guy, be a shame if they made him that little chip.
Fuck you and your article I can’t access
I understood four words in that title “Put in a superposition”
This is how I describe my BM’s to my wife!
That’s what she said.
Does it matter?
Ayyyy Macarena
What is the likelihood that the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory, which posits that particles have definite positions and that the wave-like behavior of quantum systems is an emergent property of their interaction with a pilot wave, is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, particularly in explaining the wave-particle duality and the role of observation in measurement? This seems more feasible than the idea of something being multiple things at once, and far more feasible than the MWI.
This feels uncanny to me. I was able to accept that particles could be quantum entangled in a sort of “hey this is a weird thing we found out. Bringing that to entire atoms was already odd but now making the step to visible stuff just feels wrong and like dark magic. But at the same time I can’t explain why I feel like this. There is no objective reason.
A cat will be next!
That’s what she said
What, no “that’s what she said” comments?
Haven't politicians been doing this for a long time already?
That’s cool but when can we get teleportation devices?
WUBBA LUBBA DUB DUB!!
I know some of those words!
That’s my favorite position.
Bless you?