# Trying to understand quantum physics questions



## Space Lynx (Oct 10, 2021)

So I am rather bored tonight, and I was thinking... if photons from a light source hit a particle - that particle moves because of the light correct? So why does quantum physics make it more complicated than it really is? It's still deterministic in the sense object A hit Object B and now its at an unknown location because its so tiny we don't have the toolset to measure it precisely yet.

but the way quantum physicists explain it is that, "particle A vanishes then randomly reappears somewhere else, and you have to think differently to understand it" or they will use the Schrodinger Cat example... which I also don't agree with. It doesn't matter if I can observe the cat or not, it doesn't change the laws of physics that when an organism is determined to be dead, it will therefore be dead at the time. So if the cat is brain dead and truly dead, it does not matter if I can observe the cat or not to know the answer, the Cosmos still holds the answer even if I do not, because the Cosmos follows laws of physics.

So why the mystery and magic of confusing people with quantum physics talk? Our act of observing a particle, causes the particle to move somewhere else due its tiny nature being effected by the observation pre-requisite (in this example it would be light photons hitting the particle), just because it is so tiny and we lack the precision to study its movement in real time, does not make it some magical object that randomly reappears somewhere else, its probably not random at all, we just lack the toolset to measure photons of light at precise angles when it hits particle a or particle b.

I don't get the whole mystery nonsense behind all of it, and I don't get Schrodinger's Cat either.  Any takers on helping me understand?

@lexluthermiester @Drone

If Einstein said God does not play dice in relation to quantum physics, well that may still hold true for even quantum physics, as he is referencing the solid predictability of physics at its core base. Just because we lack the toolset needed does not make it untrue...


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Oct 10, 2021)

Many of us  are in the same boat as you. 






So have you looked up quantum computing?

I found this:





						Quantum information science - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




just started reading  it


----------



## Shrek (Oct 10, 2021)

Quantum physics, as we know it, is not deterministic and a particle is not always local (the wave function).

Heisenberg didn't get the interpretation right when arguing it was the act of observation that disturbs the particle, but the Heisenberg principle still holds.

If quantum physics was deterministic then one has no free will (all is determined); despite the quote, Einstein was not as stuck on this idea as people sometimes make out.

Schrodinger's cat was Schrodinger's way of saying quantum superposition is ridiculous for large objects; the Diosi-Penrose model is a possible solution.
Diósi–Penrose model - Wikipedia

Quantum superposition has been seen for small objects as has quantum entanglement and the resultant 'faster than light' connection; i.e. quantum physics does not make things more complicated than they need to be, they are seen to be that way.


----------



## claes (Oct 10, 2021)

You’re looking for quantum superposition. It’s not that the cat is either dead or alive, it’s that we don’t know when reality produces one situation or the other.

Edit: Andy beat me to it!


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 10, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Quantum physics, as we know it, is not deterministic and a particle is not always local (the wave function).
> 
> Heisenberg didn't get the interpretation right when arguing it was the act of observation that disturbs the particle, but the Heisenberg principle still holds.
> 
> ...



particle once it moves does not have to be local? that's precisely my point. we simply may just not have the toolset to measure it cause its too small, but just because you can't measure it or explain why it is no longer local does not mean you can automatically rule out it was deterministic - unless there is some hard evidence I am not understanding.

I disagree with the notion of quantum physics if it was deterministic then free will would not exist. I mean technically speaking we can't even agree on a definition of free will in academia without even bringing quantum physics into it, (tabula rasa theory, etc etc)... if you want to go there though, I would argue once you put a lot of straight forward deterministic things in action they can still create a complex non-deterministic whole (aka the brain) perhaps this is what it truly means when Carl Sagan said We exist so the Cosmos can know itself - in the sense survival has led to bigger and bigger brains, capable of more and more self-awareness and thought over time. The process would be deterministic in the sense it was inevitable, but also once fully formed, even though the individual processes of the brain may be run by deterministic principles, when working together in unison in the trillions, they ascend to something else that is not defined by determinism.

I don't know. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Shrek (Oct 10, 2021)

Two slit interference cannot be explained by keeping particles local (Bohm aside)

Determined means just that, your next choice only seems a choice, it is actually pre-determined (free will becomes an illusion).


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 10, 2021)

One thing you need to keep in mind, one important idea while pondering Quantum physics: It all about probabilities. Few(very) things are certain in Quantum Math.



lynx29 said:


> if photons from a light source hit a particle - that particle moves because of the light correct?


Correct. One baryonic particle, regardless of type, will always interact with another baryonic particle upon contact. Only non-baryonic particles(such as neutrinos) will not interact with baryonic particles.



lynx29 said:


> So why does quantum physics make it more complicated than it really is?


Because Quantum Physics is trying to find explanations for observations about the Universe that General & Special Relativity(G&SR) fail to predict or even contradict.


lynx29 said:


> but the way quantum physicists explain it is that, "particle A vanishes then randomly reappears somewhere else, and you have to think differently to understand it" or they will use the Schrodinger Cat example...


That is not a theory and has not been proven and is very unlikely to be.


lynx29 said:


> which I also don't agree with.


Good, because it is just a thought experiment.


lynx29 said:


> It doesn't matter if I can observe the cat or not, it doesn't change the laws of physics that when an organism is determined to be dead, it will therefore be dead at the time.


True. But that is not the thought experiment. The thought experiment is meant to make you think about the uncertainty principle. It's not actually referring to a real cat because anyone knows that if you put a live cat in a box, that cat will stay alive as long as we don't seal it in and leave it there.


lynx29 said:


> So why the mystery and magic of confusing people with quantum physics talk?


Again, Quantum Physics exists in an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Quantum Theory is just *theory*. Nothing more, but also nothing less. Even Quantum Computers only work because super-positioning is a real atomic state at near absolute zero temps. But no one actually understands why matter does this, even though they can make it work. But they only arrived at those results through trial & error.



Andy Shiekh said:


> Schrodinger's cat was Schrodinger's way of saying quantum superposition can't happen for large objects; the Diosi-Penrose model is a possible solution.
> Diósi–Penrose model - Wikipedia


While that looks impressive. It's actually just silliness. The reason particles "pop" out of existence and back again is actually very simple. Particles that appear to "super-position" are actually just dropping out of one energy state and into another that does not interact with baryonic matter. It then absorbs enough energy to transition back into a baryonic state. But this transition only applies to a single particle. Groups of particles have too much mass and thus have enough static energy to prevent energy state drop-out.

For the same reason, Hawking's theory about black-holes loosing mass by radiating subatomic particles is wrong, which is one reason why he could never finish that theory and provide proofs. Any work based on G&SR will fail to accurately predict certain aspects of certain physics principles as it fails to predict where our Universe came from, why the big bang happened, how the big bang happened, why the Universe seems FAR more massive than we can account for in observable "stuff" and why the Universe continues to expand, and accelerate in that expansion.


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 10, 2021)

If anyone is on the Patreon for any famous youtube astronomers, share this thread with them. I want to see what they have to say in regards to some of the common mistakes I may have made in my thought process, etc lol

It seems to me, that some of the logical traps I fell into with photons, etc is widely accepted, but not explained further. Though I suppose if they shared everything on youtube we would all be eligible for PhD's... so... LOL


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 10, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> If anyone is on the Patreon for any famous youtube astronomers, share this thread with them. I want to see what they have to say in regards to some of the common mistakes I may have made in my thought process, etc lol
> 
> It seems to me, that some of the logical traps I fell into with photons, etc is widely accepted, but not explained further. Though I suppose if they shared everything on youtube we would all be eligible for PhD's... so... LOL


I would LOVE for John Michael Godier to hop in here. We have been debating the "Roasting Earth" theory for the better part of two years in the comment section of his channel. He keeps throwing it out in his videos and I keep telling him the Earth will not roast but will instead freeze.


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 10, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> I would LOVE for John Michael Godier to hop in here. We have been debating the "Roasting Earth" theory for the better part of two years in the comment section of his channel. He keeps throwing it out in his videos and I keep telling him the Earth will not roast but will instead freeze.



Are you talking about the theory that as the sun gets bigger eventually it will boil Earth? He mentions that one a lot I noticed.  What is your logic on the freeze one? I know Venus is hotter than Mercury cause of the greenhouse runaway effect even though Mercury is closer to sun, and I imagine that is the same path the Earth is on, regardless, so its a double whammy.  Why would it freeze?


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 10, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> we simply may just not have the toolset to measure it cause its too small


Look up "hidden variables"


----------



## Shrek (Oct 10, 2021)

Even hidden variable theories must be non-local, which means influences travel at faster-than-light.

But one still doesn't have the 'toolset to measure', that is why they are called 'hidden'.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 10, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> What is your logic on the freeze one? I know Venus is hotter than Mercury cause of the greenhouse runaway effect even though Mercury is closer to sun, and I imagine that is the same path the Earth is on, regardless, so its a double whammy. Why would it freeze?


The idea is very simple in concept but often perplexes people. The Sun is always radiating waste EMR(from the fusion reactions in it's core) in massive amounts, but there are also CMEs, frequent and powerful which eject mass that never returns to the Sun. The Sun is brighter than it once was, but it's also smaller and less massive. As the Sun continues to eject mass, it's total mass is reduced. And what happens when the mass of any given object is reduced? It's gravity well also is reduced. So as the Sun ages and continues to expel mass, it's gravity reduces also. So what happens to the objects in orbit around the Sun as a result? They move further away from the Sun, gradually, but at a the same rate as the reduction of solar mass. The theory that suggests the Earth will "roast" in the next 750millionish years does not take into account the fact that the Sun is loosing mass at a greater rate than it is increasing in luminosity.

The evidence of this is found in the geological record of Earth. There have been more near total coverage ice ages in the last 50million years than there were in the previous 1 billion. So the Earth is getting colder in general over time. This is known fact. Given that it is also known fact that the Sun is getting brighter and hotter means only one thing, the Earth is moving away from the Sun at a rate greater than that of the Sun increasing luminosity.

Therefore, the "Roasting Earth" theory is utter nonsense as it is not supported by evidence. The Earth, regardless of the artificial warming we have induced, will continue to get colder and another ice age is just around the corner of the geological calendar. IF it were not for human activities, the Earth would already be in the beginning stages of it's next ice age. We have only delayed it, we have not stopped it.


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 11, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> The idea is very simple in concept but often perplexes people. The Sun is always radiating waste EMR(from the fusion reactions in it's core) in massive amounts, but there are also CMEs, frequent and powerful which eject mass that never returns to the Sun. The Sun is brighter than it once was, but it's also smaller and less massive. As the Sun continues to eject mass, it's total mass is reduced. And what happens when the mass of any given object is reduced? It's gravity well also is reduced. So as the Sun ages and continues to expel mass, it's gravity reduces also. So what happens to the objects in orbit around the Sun as a result? They move further away from the Sun, gradually, but at a the same rate as the reduction of solar mass. The theory that suggests the Earth will "roast" in the next 750millionish years does not take into account the fact that the Sun is loosing mass at a greater rate than it is increasing in luminosity.
> 
> The evidence of this is found in the geological record of Earth. There have been more near total coverage ice ages in the last 50million years than there were in the previous 1 billion. So the Earth is getting colder in general over time. This is known fact. Given that it is also known fact that the Sun is getting brighter and hotter means only one thing, the Earth is moving away from the Sun at a rate greater than that of the Sun increasing luminosity.
> 
> Therefore, the "Roasting Earth" theory is utter nonsense as it is not supported by evidence. The Earth, regardless of the artificial warming we have induced, will continue to get colder and another ice age is just around the corner of the geological calendar. IF it were not for human activities, the Earth would already be in the beginning stages of it's next ice age. We have only delayed it, we have not stopped it.



I was under the impression that John Michael Godier said the sun is literally getting bigger as it heats up, and that stars tend to get bigger before they supernova, ours won't supernova but the concept is the same on smaller scale? Seems to me you are directly contradicting whatever science John Michael Godier is referencing, because I know I have heard him say several times the sun will continue to get bigger in size as it enters its death phase. 

I like your idea too, but the issue I have with both you and him, is the source for your science on whether the sun is getting bigger or smaller. I would need both sources from the two of you, then we could debate from there. Or perhaps my memory has completely failed me and he has never said the sun is getting bigger... LOL


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I was under the impression that John Michael Godier said the sun is literally getting bigger as it heats up, and that stars tend to get bigger before they supernova


What he is referring to is the end cycles of the life of a star, any star really. That's not the same as the main fusion stage that the Sun is in.


lynx29 said:


> I would need both sources from the two of you


The sources for my conclusions are known science, astrological observations and discoveries in geological history. If I were to attempt to make citations, I'd be here for days. It's not an effort I'm willing to make, so I'm not going to. It's up to the reader to research the Sun, it's history as we know it and draw a conclusion.


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 11, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> What he is referring to is the end cycles of the life of a star, any star really. That's not the same as the main fusion stage that the Sun is in.
> 
> The sources for my conclusions are known science, astrological observations and discoveries in geological history. If I were to attempt to make citations, I'd be here for days. It not an effort I'm willing to make, so I'm not going to. It's up to the reader to research the Sun, it's history as we know it and draw a conclusion.



No need for citations then. I see what you are saying.

I have always been fascinated as well with this idea of the Earth moving further away from the Sun, I know its like 1 or 2 inches every year or something like that. Combine that with your hypothesis, and one has to wonder if climate change is actually a good thing and needed to keep the Earth warm? Probably not at the current pace of it, but it does open the question of there needs to be some kind of balance, but the math is so complex and so many variables it may be impossible to ever know the exact number of actual carbon pollution we need... 

No idea either way, just think it is interesting to think about.


----------



## qubit (Oct 11, 2021)

@lynx29 you really can't argue that quantum physics / theory "overcomplicates things", because it's been experimentally proved thousands of times. It's ok not to understand it as it's pretty unintuitive. The split beam experiment is a pretty good example of the nature of quantum physics. Oh and you can't disagree with the Schrodinger's cat experiment either, as it's been proved and is at the heart of quantum physics. That describes superposition which has been proved, so to disagree with that is to deny hard evidence.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 14, 2021)

The only point at which the earth will be roasted by the Sun is when the sun enters it's death throes.  Thankfully that is very far off.  We should have answers by then if we still exist.  I don't view it as a very sensible thing to fear.


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 14, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> The only point at which the earth will be roasted by the Sun is when the sun enters it's death throes.  Thankfully that is very far off.  We should have answers by then if we still exist.  I don't view it as a very sensible thing to fear.



the challenge of thinking about it could lead to innovations though


----------



## Shrek (Oct 14, 2021)

It already is

* Quantum cryptography is already commercial


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 15, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> the challenge of thinking about it could lead to innovations though


Oh I have no doubts understanding the process is useful.  Just saying anyone losing sleep over it is being silly, that's all.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 15, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> It already is
> 
> * Quantum cryptography is already commercial


True. Keep in mind though, it is still just software running on a computer. It's not really "Quantum Cryptography"  when you get technical.



lynx29 said:


> the challenge of thinking about it could lead to innovations though


Exactly. We are motivated to find answers to problems we often have no way to test or use in any practical method. But it's the discoveries that do lead to practical knowledge & application to daily life that is the main motivation behind governments and big business offering funding.



R-T-B said:


> Oh I have no doubts understanding the process is useful.  Just saying anyone losing sleep over it is being silly, that's all.


Right. No one living will have to worry about it, nor anyone for 1000 generations. But it's something that will someday effect our world one way or the other and finding the answers & probabilities could be a key to a solution for generations of humanity far in the future.


----------



## qubit (Oct 15, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> True. Keep in mind though, it is still just software running on a computer. It's not really "Quantum Cryptography" when you get technical.


The transmission of data down the fibre optic cable does use quantum effects to keep the data stream secure. Anyone intercepts it, it's instantly spotted and the transmission stopped. Transmission between banks is a typical use for this technology.


----------



## VulkanBros (Oct 15, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I have always been fascinated as well with this idea of the Earth moving further away from the Sun, I know its like 1 or 2 inches every year or something like that. Combine that with your hypothesis, and one has to wonder if climate change is actually a good thing and needed to keep the Earth warm? Probably not at the current pace of it, but it does open the question of there needs to be some kind of balance, but the math is so complex and so many variables it may be impossible to ever know the exact number of actual carbon pollution we need...



I don't think the Earth, Sun and for that matter, the rest of the universe cares, about balance and carbon polution, regarding humans well-being -  humans are only a tiny tiny dot, in that equation.....
But ill agree, it is fascinating.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Oct 15, 2021)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Many of us  are in the same boat as you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please don't get your knowlage from Wikipedia if you like to read and really want to know more use something like https://arxiv.org/ you can find published papers on many fields there https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.13552 is a good paper on quantum computing if your interested.


----------



## bug (Oct 15, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> particle once it moves does not have to be local? that's precisely my point. we simply may just not have the toolset to measure it cause its too small, but just because you can't measure it or explain why it is no longer local does not mean you can automatically rule out it was deterministic - unless there is some hard evidence I am not understanding.


I think your understanding is that quantum physics somehow _makes_ things non-deterministic. _It does not_. Quantum physics _is just trying to explain _why measurements predicted by the classic physics to be deterministic, are not deterministic in practice.

Going back to your example, quantum physics does not postulate your particle must not be local. It simply accounts that, given an amount of measurements, the particle _does not act_ local.

Another thing quantum physics does really well, is making you feel like you're losing your mind when you start thinking about its implications


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Oct 15, 2021)

I always like the binary explanation, simple but leaves you completely confused "a qubit is duel layer binary and can be both 0 & 1 at the same time"


----------



## bug (Oct 15, 2021)

@lynx29 If you really want your head to explode, try answering this: what is observation?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 15, 2021)

qubit said:


> The transmission of data down the fibre optic cable does use quantum effects to keep the data stream secure.


In what way? As far as I know that technology uses particle physics, not quantum physics, to detect data-stream intrusions.


----------



## ThrashZone (Oct 15, 2021)

Hi,
I just watch Lucy for answers she's really easy on the eye's and ears


----------



## qubit (Oct 15, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> In what way? As far as I know that technology uses particle physics, not quantum physics, to detect data-stream intrusions.


Check this out. Note that this article is from 2004 so this isn't even new.








						Entangled photons secure money transfer
					

In the first real-world demonstration of the technique, entangled photons are used to create an unbreakable communications code




					www.newscientist.com


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 15, 2021)

qubit said:


> Check this out. Note that this article is from 2004 so this isn't even new.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That article was so wrong I don't know where to begin. The reporter either misunderstood what he was being told about the process or misquoted whoever they were interviewing, possibly because they couldn't understand it. You can't use photons from a laser shot through a crystal to "split" a photon into two parts without changing the photon into something else entirely. Physics does NOT work that way. Whatever process they used, it was not what was described in that article.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Oct 15, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> That article was so wrong I don't know where to begin. The reporter either misunderstood what he was being told about the process or misquoted whoever they were interviewing, possibly because they couldn't understand it. You can't use photons from a laser shot through a crystal to "split" a photon into two parts without changing the photon into something else entirely. Physics does NOT work that way. Whatever process they used, it was not what was described in that article.


Yes the article was written by someone who completely miss understood what they were told entangled photons used in encrypted communications are used in two separate fibre lines, not split in one http://rdo.psu.ac.th/sjstweb/journal/261/08quantum-antangle.pdf  that is the theory used.


----------



## qubit (Oct 15, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> That article was so wrong I don't know where to begin. The reporter either misunderstood what he was being told about the process or misquoted whoever they were interviewing, possibly because they couldn't understand it. You can't use photons from a laser shot through a crystal to "split" a photon into two parts without changing the photon into something else entirely. Physics does NOT work that way. Whatever process they used, it was not what was described in that article.


Are you sure you're right? Anyway, I didn't read it, just got one that was about the right subject to show you. I'd expect NS to write reasonably accurate articles.

Have a Google and you'll see that quantum data transfer is real - it's even been discussed on TPU many times. Wikipedia is likely to have a decent article on this.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Oct 15, 2021)

qubit said:


> Are you sure you're right? Anyway, I didn't read it, just got one that was about the right subject to show you. I'd expect NS to write reasonably accurate articles.
> 
> Have a Google and you'll see that quantum data transfer is real - it's even been discussed on TPU many times. Wikipedia is likely to have a decent article on this.


I posted a published paper on it here http://rdo.psu.ac.th/sjstweb/journal/26-1/08quantum-antangle.pdf it's certainly possible and was done as the article implied but the wording and half the facts were incorrect by the reporter.


----------



## qubit (Oct 15, 2021)

ThaiTaffy said:


> I posted a published paper on it here http://rdo.psu.ac.th/sjstweb/journal/26 1/08quantum-antangle.pdf it's certainly possible and was done as the article implied but the wording and half the facts were incorrect by the reporter.


Thanks for a quality link. You'd think that NS would employ competent reporters wouldn't you? I've just learned otherwise.

Anyway, this is ultimately for @lexluthermiester


----------



## Shrek (Oct 15, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> In what way? As far as I know that technology uses particle physics, not quantum physics, to detect data-stream intrusions.



Straight quantum Physics, no quantum field theory needed.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 16, 2021)

qubit said:


> Are you sure you're right?


Yes, I'm sure.



ThaiTaffy said:


> Yes the article was written by someone who completely miss understood what they were told entangled photons used in encrypted communications are used in two separate fibre lines, not split in one http://rdo.psu.ac.th/sjstweb/journal/26 1/08quantum-antangle.pdf that is the theory used.





ThaiTaffy said:


> I posted a published paper on it here http://rdo.psu.ac.th/sjstweb/journal/261/08quantum-antangle.pdf it's certainly possible and was done as the article implied but the wording and half the facts were incorrect by the reporter.


Links give a 404 Not Found error.



Andy Shiekh said:


> Straight quantum Physics, no quantum field theory needed.


Do enlighten me.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Oct 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Yes, I'm sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry the link copied strange should be fixed now


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 16, 2021)

ThaiTaffy said:


> Sorry the link copied strange should be fixed now


Nope, still not working..


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Oct 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Nope, still not working.


not sure why try this link via Google 


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw30KhDwE91sorrcX6Xpbk2G 

Ahh I see a dash is missing

Nope adding the dash still didn't work but the Google link should work


----------



## Shrek (Oct 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Do enlighten me.



I'll do the best I can from memory

Catching an eves dropper when setting up a key

The sender sends polarized photons in either the vertical/horizonal basis or the left/right diagonal basis and the choice of basis is random.
The receiver picks the basis to measure randomly and notes the results
Now they pick up an insecure line and compare basis and throw away those results where the basis did not match.

Then they take a selection of results where the basis did match and again compare (the line for this comparison need not be secure)
If the results now match then the line is secure as the eves dropper would have messed things up and they can now use the results they did not compare as the basis of an exchanged encryption key.
Entanglement is not used in this scheme.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I'll do the best I can from memory
> 
> Catching an eves dropper when setting up a key
> 
> ...


Yeah, what you're describing is light/photon stream polarization effect and has nothing to do with Quantum effects. This is the scheme I was thinking they had been using to prevent intrusion to fiber data connections.


----------



## Shrek (Oct 16, 2021)

It depends on quantum measurement and is known as Quantum Key Distribution

A great place is to look it up is

Quantum Computation and Quantum Information
Nielsen and Chuang


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 17, 2021)

Just saw this and thought everyone might enjoy it;








And that more or less summed it up! Well done Brian Cox!


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 17, 2021)

VulkanBros said:


> I don't think the Earth, Sun and for that matter, the rest of the universe cares, about balance and carbon polution, regarding humans well-being -  humans are only a tiny tiny dot, in that equation.....
> But ill agree, it is fascinating.


It's impacting the climate for sure (co2).  As for the earth caring...  it's a rock with some green stuff on it.  It has no feelings.  If we died it'd not care.  But we might.


----------



## witkazy (Oct 17, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> It's impacting the climate for sure (co2).  As for the earth caring...  it's a rock with some green stuff on it.  It has no feelings.  If we died it'd not care.  But we might.


Do not forget blue ,oceans and stuff there is a lot of it,too much to ignore it but i'm not sure if it cares.

By the way does anybody find it amusing that father of Big Bang theory was  catholic priest? It gets me every time


----------



## bug (Oct 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Just saw this and thought everyone might enjoy it;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder what it would be like if that was the first physics lesson our kids would get.


----------



## Shrek (Oct 17, 2021)

Feynman was a very clever chap


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 17, 2021)

bug said:


> I wonder what it would be like if that was the first physics lesson our kids would get.


I think it should be. It would be a good start for anyone.


----------



## Shrek (Oct 17, 2021)

Still... the particle goes through both slits at the same time and equally to the moon and back is a bit hard to grasp, even for a kid.


----------



## mtcn77 (Oct 17, 2021)

Quantum physics is simple in that there is determinism, yet we live above the quantum plane so things we can see and observe are above the 'finite scale' of interactions. What we observe contains an error, remainder, that changes our observation from the outcome we wish to examine.
Electrons for instance have both a finite and 'infinite phase' that changes according to deterministic principles, yet being unable to observe it with super quantum energy particles limit our understanding of its second orbital phase which completely limit our super quantum understanding of its behaviour. Microwave sampling gets us a better understanding since each interaction doesn't result in a jump to the invisible orbital. It behaves more predictably as we develop its probability trajectory better.


----------



## Shrek (Oct 17, 2021)

Quantum theory as currently understood is NOT deterministic.


----------



## mtcn77 (Oct 17, 2021)

It is, unless you want to live in the old high energy photon experiments scale.
-We have moved into the infra quantum observable universe!
PS: the poster above is complaining about the untraceability of the electron's dark orbital - which is very experimentable with sub-photonic experiments.


----------



## bug (Oct 17, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Still... the particle goes through both slits at the same time and equally to the moon and back is a bit hard to grasp, even for a kid.


I would think it would be more obvious kids don't understand statistics at the age they start learning about physics 

And I don't want to open a(nother) can of worms, but as the current pandemic has shown us, most grown adults have a hard time grasping basic statistics, too.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jan 28, 2022)

Not sure if this is the right thread for this news but UNSW researchers have apparently made a breakthrough with quantum computing in so much that they now have achieved a result demonstrating near error free quantum computing that will of course pave the way for large scale real world uses.


----------



## bug (Jan 28, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> Not sure if this is the right thread for this news but UNSW researchers have apparently made a breakthrough with quantum computing in so much that they now have achieved a result demonstrating near error free quantum computing that will of course pave the way for large scale real world uses.


Ha, I've come across that site a few times. never had the time to check if it's quality or just click bait.

Also, while 99% error free is a (huge?) step in the right direction, we still don't know what to do with a quantum computer when we build it. We hope it will help us crack NP complete problems, but I don't anyone has figured out how just yet. In part, probably because the solution depends on the computer we build...


----------



## Shrek (Jan 28, 2022)

It is my opinion that quantum error correction cannot be mastered.

We know how to correct one qubit, and I have no doubt we can protect 2, 3 etc; but we don't know how to protect the qubits protecting that one.

Actually, we do... the quantum Zeno effect can be used to protect any number of qubits from most any environment; but still we will fail as we cannot protect a calculation.

Quantum Bit Error Avoidance (scirp.org)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 28, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> Not sure if this is the right thread for this news but UNSW researchers have apparently made a breakthrough with quantum computing in so much that they now have achieved a result demonstrating near error free quantum computing that will of course pave the way for large scale real world uses.


Now if we can get it down to, or close too, room temps it will really be something.



bug said:


> we still don't know what to do with a quantum computer when we build it.


Nonsense. Quantum computers with a sufficient number of qbits can be used to do genetic analysis, molecular & atomic modeling and much, much more. For example and what I'm excited for, is to run a model of the Big Bang. A 1024qbit quantum computer can do in hours with a small fraction of the power what would take a traditional super computer months to complete.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jan 28, 2022)

bug said:


> Ha, I've come across that site a few times. never had the time to check if it's quality or just click bait.
> 
> Also, while 99% error free is a (huge?) step in the right direction, we still don't know what to do with a quantum computer when we build it. We hope it will help us crack NP complete problems, but I don't anyone has figured out how just yet. In part, probably because the solution depends on the computer we build...


The report was listed in other media outlets as well... are they ALL click bait?? cynicism has its limits imo.
But here you go, straight from the horses mouth so to speak.


----------



## oobymach (Jan 28, 2022)

Not sure if its been mentioned we filmed a light photon hitting a prism and becoming 2 light photons.

Can't find the original this one is much cruder and blurrier but shows basically the same thing.









						At 10 trillion frames per second, this camera captures light in slow motion
					

Light is the fastest thing in the universe, so trying to catch it on the move is necessarily something of a challenge. We've had some success, but a new rig built by Caltech scientists pulls down a mind-boggling 10 trillion frames per second, meaning it can capture light as it travels along —...




					techcrunch.com
				

















__





						Physicists Just Captured The First-Ever Footage of a Molecule's Spectacular Rotation
					

Imagine trying to film an event that was over and done within a mere 125 trillionths of a second.




					www.sciencealert.com


----------



## Shrek (Jan 28, 2022)

oobymach said:


> Not sure if its been mentioned we filmed a light photon hitting a prism and becoming 2 light photons.



How can one photon become two? (without non-linear optics)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 28, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> How can one photon become two? (without non-linear optics)


It's energy state is divided in half and one part goes in one direction and the other part goes off in another direction.


----------



## oobymach (Jan 28, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> How can one photon become two? (without non-linear optics)


Not sure how the physics exactly work but the wavelength hits the prism flat and comes out at 2 different angles and the 2 look identical to the one going in which looks like a white 2d square that is flat on the front and back and the sides wiggle as it progresses forward.

I wish I bookmarked it because I can't find it now.

Found this while digging though, we can create matter with lasers.









						Collisions of Light Produce Matter/Antimatter from Pure Energy
					

Scientists studying particle collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider have produced definitive evidence for two physics phenomena predicted more than 80 years ago: that matter/antimatter can be created directly by colliding photons and that a magnetic field can bend polarized light...



					www.eurekalert.org


----------



## bug (Jan 28, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> The report was listed in other media outlets as well... are they ALL click bait?? cynicism has its limits imo.
> But here you go, straight from the horses mouth so to speak.


I didn't say it was click bait, I said I didn't have the time to look it up. And yes, I have noticed this particular piece was published in Nature.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 28, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> It's energy state is divided in half and one part goes in one direction and the other part goes off in another direction.



The wave function splits, but the photon is found in one or other of the two paths.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 28, 2022)

AlwaysHope said:


> Not sure if this is the right thread for this news but UNSW researchers have apparently made a breakthrough with quantum computing in so much that they now have achieved a result demonstrating near error free quantum computing that will of course pave the way for large scale real world uses.



Personally I think this means cryptocurrency days are numbered, once quantum computing gets more and more software over time, governments will be able to utilize that horsepower to crack and destroy SHA-256 and other security features that Crypto relies upon.


----------



## The King (Jan 28, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> Personally I think this means cryptocurrency days are numbered, once quantum computing gets more and more software over time, governments will be able to utilize that horsepower to crack and destroy SHA-256 and other security features that Crypto relies upon.


Seems that will be the end of most security encryption that is currently being used today not just Crypto which minuscule in the grand scheme of things that uses encryption.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 28, 2022)

Quantum cryptography is already in commercial use.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 29, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The wave function splits, but the photon is found in one or other of the two paths.


You're talking about a quantum theoretical principle that is unverified. Their descriptive equations have no proofs. I'm talking about a known photon physics principle. When a photon is split, like every other form of matter, it is split into a fraction of the original photon. The energy state of the resulting photons is conserved. The resulting photons are not identical to the original photon but have a fraction of the original photon energy. Photons do not always split equally either. However, the sum energy and mass of the divided photons will still equal the energy and mass of the original photon.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 29, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> The resulting photons are not identical to the original photon but have a fraction of the original photon energy. Photons do not always split equally either. However, the sum energy and mass of the divided photons will still equal the energy and mass of the original photon.



If so, then the color of the resulting photons would be different from the entering photon.
Planck relation - Wikipedia

Just discussing, not trying to annoy.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 29, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> Personally I think this means cryptocurrency days are numbered, once quantum computing gets more and more software over time, governments will be able to utilize that horsepower to crack and destroy SHA-256 and other security features that Crypto relies upon.


So they hardfork to something quantum resiliant.  That wouldn't even be hard...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 29, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> If so, then the color of the resulting photons would be different from the entering photon.
> Planck relation - Wikipedia
> 
> Just discussing, not trying to annoy.


Oh am I ever not being roped into *that* debate. No offense.


----------



## The King (Jan 29, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> So they hardfork to something quantum resiliant.  That wouldn't even be hard...


Yes, I'm sure they can switch to quantum resistant crypto which is already a thing.








						Introducing quantum-resistant cryptocurrency, the Crown Sovereign (CSOV), listing on FMFW Exchange Oct. 5, 2021
					

The Crown Sovereign (CSOV) is a cryptocurrency resistant to encryption vulnerabilities presented by quantum computing, ensuring future-proof protection of user data and token value. CSOV will be the first listing on FMFW Exchange, which is the rebranded name of Bitcoin.com Exchange, on Oct. 5




					cointelegraph.com


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jan 29, 2022)

Interesting that quantum computer research at UNSW is part funded by the US military.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> So they hardfork to something quantum resiliant.  That wouldn't even be hard...



sounds good to me, as long as they steadily keep increasing the taxes on ya I'm happy. they just increased taxes somewhat last year to help pay for the infrastructure bill, you all will find out real soon when you do your taxes


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 29, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> sounds good to me, as long as they steadily keep increasing the taxes on ya I'm happy. they just increased taxes somewhat last year to help pay for the infrastructure bill, you all will find out real soon when you do your taxes


They can't tax beyond profit earned, so fine by me.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> They can't tax beyond profit earned, so fine by me.



depends how much it crashes after you pay your initial taxes.  lol


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 29, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> depends how much it crashes after you pay your initial taxes.  lol


That's assuming I hold at tax time, which would be dumb IMO.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> That's assuming I hold at tax time, which would be dumb IMO.



pretty sure it doesn't work that way. if you use coinbase, coinbase will send you a tax form for all your tax dealings on crypto the previous year, has nothing to do with w.e the current price is to my knowledge. you will find out soon enough anyway. if it does work the way you are saying it works, then that is the reason bitcoin crashed right around tax time, and is a major loophole... and also means bitcoin will rise after tax season is over in April... I'm pretty sure capital gains tax doesn't work that way but I have no idea honestly. you all will find out soon enough like I said. lol if you are right though, then yeah that means the #antiwork movement might as well continue cause life is just a scam at that point for the rich to live well and the rest of us to be worker bees, in which case fuck it all  hope all the rich people have fun when they can't find workers to stock grocery store shelves. nom nom!

but we are way off topic at this point... so...


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 29, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> pretty sure it doesn't work that way. if you use coinbase, coinbase will send you a tax form for all your tax dealings on crypto the previous year, has nothing to do with w.e the current price is to my knowledge.


It has to do with your net gains for that year man. Calculate what each transaction gained you, and tax (rate depends on what you were doing, there is software to sort it all out).  Only gains are taxable. If you lost money, you can likewise write it off as a loss.  I've done my taxes before and read the updated guidance.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> It has to do with your net gains for that year man.



ah so Andy from The Office was right, capital gains tax won't ever be fair until its taxed as an earned income... so it is all a scam. lol  no wonder millions are giving up finally. tent life doesn't sound so bad, might just say fuck it all myself


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 29, 2022)

I mean what do you want them to do, tax money we didn't make?

It's not really capital gains exactly, because the margins with which you must start paying are MUCH lower.  I think you'd have to be living on welfare to escape crypto tax (in which case, use your money to buy food, not crypto)

EDIT:  Wait, this is a quantum physics thread...  what kinda interdimenional offtopic shit is this...


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I mean what do you want them to do, tax money we didn't make?
> 
> It's not really capital gains exactly, because the margins with which you must start paying are MUCH lower.  I think you'd have to be living on welfare to escape crypto tax (in which case, use your money to buy food, not crypto)



meh do as you please, at least my conscious is clear I am not contributing to unnecessary carbon emissions for short term greed. we were at a tipping point before crypto, and crypto is enough to send us over the edge, as well as the lack of RND into hyperloop for re-defining transportation systems.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 29, 2022)

My conscious is clear other than not reading the thread title.  All the best.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> My conscious is clear other than not reading the thread title.  All the best.



my electricity comes from a coal power plant, yours comes from hydro, so i actually am doing more harm than you by playing games or even watching tv. but none of it matters, humans had their chance, not much longer... less than ten years I expect and we will see mass famine and mass migration, possibly within the billions, depends how reliable the Himalayan mountain weather patterns stay. LOL

human hubris knows no bounds


----------

