I only became aware of a YouTube channel named PBS Spacetime that is likely run yesteryear Blue Planet TV station. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 guy named Matt is talking close diverse topics unopen to key physics. Almost every video gets hundreds of thousands of views which is impressive.
When watching the firstly i inward my life, a two-week-old video on the quantum entanglement, local realism, as well as the Einstein-Bohr debates, I was amazed yesteryear the visual lineament of the figurer animations as well as some creative memes.
For example, at the rattling beginning, nosotros were told that babies are cracking quantum mechanics because they're excited that a somebody disappears when they encompass they eyes as well as reappears when the encompass is removed. They realize that yesteryear observing or non observing something, the object or its aspects may locomote made disappeared. That's a cute thought but babies seem to overstate how much this "quantum disappearance yesteryear covered eyes" applies inward the ordinary classical limit.
And I desire the babies to know the commutators of observables, anyway, before I acknowledge that they're practiced at quantum mechanics. :-)
OK, upwards to the core of the video or so, I also had the feeling that it has avoided unquestionably wrong propositions, peculiarly those that are omnipresent inward this discussion.
But inward the concluding portions of his monologue, Matt has said almost all the wrong things that are beingness said yesteryear most popularizers of these issues, too. He endorsed non-locality as a possibility as well as fifty-fifty though he had previously said, correctly, that Bell has proved that locality as well as realism can't locomote simultaneously true, he claimed that locality as well as realism may locomote simultaneously true, after all – if you lot adopt the "many worlds".
I am sad but if you lot are careful, define your notions carefully, as well as evaluate the truth values of propositions carefully, so the "impossibility of locality as well as realism at the same moment" is proven as rigorously as well as unambiguously as \(2+2=4\). So whatever shout out you lot pick out for the denial of this proven fact – whether it's "wakalixes" or "many basis interpretation", this matter is demonstrably total of šit. The demonstration is genuinely at most a 2-page-long simple proof.
Again, realism is wrong, locality is right inward Nature. It's so simple yet almost every layman – as well as almost every pop author addressing the laymen – gets it incorrectly.
The otherwise practiced video genuinely started to spit wrong statements before than that. We own got "learned" that relativity doesn't require locality, it exclusively requires causality. Rubbish. Relativity definitely does require locality because the relativistic causality as well as locality are exactly the same thing. Causality is the regulation or constabulary demanding that causes precede their effects.\[
\forall {\rm cause}, {\rm effect}:\quad t_{\rm cause} \lt t_{\rm effect}
\]Within relativity, physical laws must apply inward all inertial frames. Relativity is a meta-theory, as Einstein was describing it, that constrains the properties of all (not meta) theories inward this way: they own got to apply as inward all frames.
So the relativistic causality says that the causes precede their effects according to all inertial observers. But if they do, you lot tin easily run across that it way that the elbow grease as well as the outcome are (null or) timelike-separated (and correctly ordered inward time). It has to locomote so because the ordering of 2 spacelike-separated events depends on the chosen frame of reference. This spacelike possibility is hence forbidden yesteryear relativity: the elbow grease as well as the outcome can't locomote spacelike-separated. Equivalently, the influence propagates at most yesteryear the speed of light. In other words, locality holds.
The full general world has been so infected amongst the wrong statements close nonlocality as well as the echo sleeping room inward which the laymen parrot all these statements is so isolated from whatever sensible physics enquiry that we're guaranteed that Feynman's dominion that "nobody understands quantum mechanics" volition stay truthful for a rattling long time.
This video has gotten over 250,000 views. That's pocket-sized relatively to a two-month-old video that claims that the The delayed selection quantum eraser, similar every sufficiently complex or generic quantum experiment, exclusively makes some interpretations of the yesteryear easier to verbalise about.
In this experiment, the shape of an interference designing \(I(x)\) has some properties that depend on a "discrete slice of information" \(B\) (the alphabetic character stands for a "bit") that may locomote measured after the particle contributes to the interference designing \(I(x)\). But that doesn't hateful that the later on flake \(B\) has affected the before interference designing \(I(x)\). These 2 were exclusively correlated amongst each other. But correlation doesn't imply causation, peculiarly non inward the administration that someone could give away cooler.
The most careful description says that \(B\) as well as \(I(x)\) are correlated because of some events (which are non mysterious at all inward this experiment) that took house before the measuring of both \(B\) as well as \(I(x)\), at a 2nd when the 2 later on entangled subsystems were inward contact. But fifty-fifty if you lot need to imagine that the "measured correlation" has to arise from some "current influence", which it doesn't, the to a greater extent than right description would all the same locomote that the before measuring \(I(x)\) affected the odds for the later on measured flake \(B\).
This causal influence is the sort of an influence that many people dislike because they imagine that a discrete selection may impact a continuous flexure but non the other way around except that this suggestion written inward italics is completely wrong i time again. It's totally OK for continuous observations – e.g. of the seat of a particle on the photographic plate where it landed – to impact the odds for dissimilar outcomes of a later on measuring of a discrete observable. There is no metaphysical divergence betwixt discrete as well as continuous observables. In particular, both may locomote observed before or later, both may locomote causes or effects.
If you lot need to imagine a "mechanism of a simulation" (even though it's non right to imagine that this is how Nature works), the before measuring produces an outcome \(x\) according to the "integrated" probability distribution \(\rho(x)\) which is summed (well, traced) over all possible results of the other, independent observables.\[
\rho(x) = \sum_{i} \rho(x,B_i)
\]Once \(x\) is measured, i.e. the particle lands somewhere, the moving ridge constituent for the 2 subsystems collapses to the percentage that has the right \(x\). This also way that you lot volition acquire \(x\)-dependent predictions (conditional probabilities) \(P(B_i) = \rho(x,B_i) / \rho(x)\) for the possible outcomes of the flake \(B\) that is measured later. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 indicate is that this flake \(B\) is also random as well as the experimenter can't "dictate it yesteryear her costless will" so the supposition that the value of this flake must locomote a cause, as well as cannot locomote an effect, of this correlation is only evidently wrong.
But weblog posts similar mine are likely a pure waste matter of time. For every 2,000 people who read my weblog shipping service close whatever related quantum mechanical issue, in that place are 250,000 (the newer video) or 570,000 (the eraser video) viewers of some wrong own got on these topics. Of course, the audience I own got or had inward heed was to a greater extent than special – it should locomote 2,000 people who should know improve than an average layman – some popularizers unopen plenty to physics. And those should ideally brand their videos for PBS etc. that are correct.
The exclusively occupation amongst this optimistic computer programme of mine is that there are only no popularizers who would locomote at a higher degree than the 570,000 laymen. You either sympathise quantum mechanics or you lot don't. There's almost nix inward between. Like virtually everyone writing pop texts as well as shooting pop videos on quantum mechanics these days, Matt of PBS Spacetime doesn't sympathise quantum mechanics. After some time, I decided that George Musser only doesn't sympathise it, either, as well as I could give you lot a listing of 50 other popularizers who don't sympathise quantum mechanics although they write close it. So a TRF weblog shipping service close quantum mechanics is affecting 2,000 people of the "same kind" as the viewers of the PBS Spacetime videos (apologies to the several exceptions who know rattling good to locomote exceptions) as well as the resultant is guaranteed yesteryear a simple comparing of the numbers.
I lose because the human stupidity, delusions, as well as bombshell claims close impossible miracles are to a greater extent than aggressive as well as attractive for the laymen than the pocket-sized scientific truth as well as theories that genuinely work. The mankind's march towards idiocracy volition locomote increasingly total of non-localities, retrocausality, as well as other idiocies before people halt talking close physics altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment