How shaky is too shaky?
Nov. 22nd, 2003 07:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7So i've been thinking a lot, lately, about quanta, and trying to figure out how the hell people can justify the asserstions they make, within their works. Words like "Infer," and "Measure," used together, onthe same topics... It's more than slightly bothersome, until i start to get what "it" Is. Like many things scientific, it started to fall into place after a conversation with my dad. I was talking with him about the states of quantum computers, and wondering how the hell they were ever expected to be useful for more than one equation, when he brought up a wonderful point.
He says to me, he says, "You think that they're locked in that state? That when your back is turned, they remain the same? That's kind of megalomaniacal, if you believe in quantum mechanics." And that's something to remember. The quanta are only in those states so long as they are observed. Whent he observation equipment-- the silicon field, or whatever it is that you want to use, here-- is turned off, then it's back to an undecided state, again. Everything is both, again, instead of either/or. But that's not a position that will be readily accepted, or pronounced, in the scientific community, as i've seen it, so far. There's much more reading i have to do, of course (much more reading), but so far as i've read, seen, and heard, everyone will do everything But state outright that quanta will pull a "Whateva," and do what they want, as soon as they are unobserved by something that cares in which state they rest.
We are left, then, with an assumption, and an inference of the nature of quanta, never explicitly stated. We act as if they return to an unobserved state-- forcing ourselves, i might add, to forget or ignore the formerly determined state of the quanta, in question-- and we achieve multiple results. Multiple uses of pairs of interlocked and entagled particles.... That is, assuming we can keep them from DEtangling, in the process of measuring them, in the first place. If, however, we have somthing, inherent in the machinery, which entangles the pairs, the whole point is moot. We simply need a large bank of single molecules, for entanglement. But something still seems off about that... Terribly fucking inefficient, for one thing... But it could work...
My main gripe, on this score, is that we get to see, in a realm of science, that belief, perception, measurement, and observation Shape the Fucking World, and yet people still won't believe it. We are always in need of the explanation that creeps in through our side doors. The statements on wild theories that say enough to mesh, but not enough to offend, and not enough to Say that other ways of thinking are Equal to ours, only that they can be used by ours, to further our aims. As long as they never cross that line from interesting to scary, and as long as they never state anything which threatens our ways of the world (whatsoever those happen to be), we are willing to welcome them.
Granted the realm of science which puts us through this door is one which is, itself, slightly on that frightening edge. Quantum mechanics has been vilified by some of the best. Albert Einstein said, famously, that "God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein. One of the Fathers of the quantum school. He felt that it was too uncertain. Everyone wants enough determinism to make the univese a safe place to live, but not enough to recind free will.
Speaking of one of The Big Questions, something else in the quantum realm: Teleportation. We've got the transfer of single particles' states, instantaneously, over time and distance. But it's never as simple as all of that, is it? No. We have to complicate things, cause that makes them fun. We have not simply moved one thing, immediately, from place A to Place B, rather, we have Particles "A|" and "B--", in points A and B. We have-- over distnace, and time-- entangled these pairs, so that something that happens to one, can be infered to have happened to another, while only having to measure one, and leaving the other free and untouched, in that precious Both state. {Kind of.} Again, due to having to refresh a lot of shit in my head, i'm shaky on how, but they switch the particle states. Particle "A|" is not in point B, rather Particle "A|" is now Particle "A--", and Particle "B--" is Particle B|. Do you get what i mean? If not, don't worry, i started to confuse myself, there....
Ok. We don't change places, we change states of being. Simple. A's state of being is now B's state of being, and vice versa. They are still different, and distinct particles. This, however brings up problems of identity because, if we were ever able to get this to work, on a large scale-- which would first require not fucking up large-scale particle bonds, and making the Atomic level act like the Quantum level-- people cry fould because, after the teleportation, it's "Not Their Particles." Which is just silly if you think about how cells grow, transfer memory, from one cell to the next-- imperfectly, i might add, hence, aging-- and die. "Your" cells, now, are completely physically different from the cells you had why you were born. What makes them the same is the memory of who and what you were, are, and what you're grooming yourself to be. Growing up. Nature/Nurture. Completely... entertwined concerns, but not ones we're focusing on, right now. Moving on. My point is that your cells do this, already. What you're doing is making the process immediate, over distance. And there's no need to worry about identity, in the sense of the other particles: you can't switch the states without switching both of them. Not yet, anyway. So there will, ever and always, only be one of You.
Innat reassuring? Omnia mutantur, nihil interit.
Off to read more quantum mechanics. Back later.
{23.11.03:12.35am. OhGr - [Water]--- Ok, so a little more, ont he entanglement, thing... i was... slightly mistaken, there. (Pain - [Suckerpunch]). The entangled pairs are... mirrors... What happens to one happens to the other... and states can be switched... God damn quantum mechanics... They can be switched, but it takes a special array of mirrors. So twisted. Everything i said, is cvalid, it simply takes extra steps. And the fact that they, originally, mirror each other, is what brings up the issue of identity. But if we're worrying about vertical V. horizontal alignment, then there are several mirrored/entangled "pairs," out there... *sigh*
Here: http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp
Enjoy.}
He says to me, he says, "You think that they're locked in that state? That when your back is turned, they remain the same? That's kind of megalomaniacal, if you believe in quantum mechanics." And that's something to remember. The quanta are only in those states so long as they are observed. Whent he observation equipment-- the silicon field, or whatever it is that you want to use, here-- is turned off, then it's back to an undecided state, again. Everything is both, again, instead of either/or. But that's not a position that will be readily accepted, or pronounced, in the scientific community, as i've seen it, so far. There's much more reading i have to do, of course (much more reading), but so far as i've read, seen, and heard, everyone will do everything But state outright that quanta will pull a "Whateva," and do what they want, as soon as they are unobserved by something that cares in which state they rest.
We are left, then, with an assumption, and an inference of the nature of quanta, never explicitly stated. We act as if they return to an unobserved state-- forcing ourselves, i might add, to forget or ignore the formerly determined state of the quanta, in question-- and we achieve multiple results. Multiple uses of pairs of interlocked and entagled particles.... That is, assuming we can keep them from DEtangling, in the process of measuring them, in the first place. If, however, we have somthing, inherent in the machinery, which entangles the pairs, the whole point is moot. We simply need a large bank of single molecules, for entanglement. But something still seems off about that... Terribly fucking inefficient, for one thing... But it could work...
My main gripe, on this score, is that we get to see, in a realm of science, that belief, perception, measurement, and observation Shape the Fucking World, and yet people still won't believe it. We are always in need of the explanation that creeps in through our side doors. The statements on wild theories that say enough to mesh, but not enough to offend, and not enough to Say that other ways of thinking are Equal to ours, only that they can be used by ours, to further our aims. As long as they never cross that line from interesting to scary, and as long as they never state anything which threatens our ways of the world (whatsoever those happen to be), we are willing to welcome them.
Granted the realm of science which puts us through this door is one which is, itself, slightly on that frightening edge. Quantum mechanics has been vilified by some of the best. Albert Einstein said, famously, that "God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein. One of the Fathers of the quantum school. He felt that it was too uncertain. Everyone wants enough determinism to make the univese a safe place to live, but not enough to recind free will.
Speaking of one of The Big Questions, something else in the quantum realm: Teleportation. We've got the transfer of single particles' states, instantaneously, over time and distance. But it's never as simple as all of that, is it? No. We have to complicate things, cause that makes them fun. We have not simply moved one thing, immediately, from place A to Place B, rather, we have Particles "A|" and "B--", in points A and B. We have-- over distnace, and time-- entangled these pairs, so that something that happens to one, can be infered to have happened to another, while only having to measure one, and leaving the other free and untouched, in that precious Both state. {Kind of.} Again, due to having to refresh a lot of shit in my head, i'm shaky on how, but they switch the particle states. Particle "A|" is not in point B, rather Particle "A|" is now Particle "A--", and Particle "B--" is Particle B|. Do you get what i mean? If not, don't worry, i started to confuse myself, there....
Ok. We don't change places, we change states of being. Simple. A's state of being is now B's state of being, and vice versa. They are still different, and distinct particles. This, however brings up problems of identity because, if we were ever able to get this to work, on a large scale-- which would first require not fucking up large-scale particle bonds, and making the Atomic level act like the Quantum level-- people cry fould because, after the teleportation, it's "Not Their Particles." Which is just silly if you think about how cells grow, transfer memory, from one cell to the next-- imperfectly, i might add, hence, aging-- and die. "Your" cells, now, are completely physically different from the cells you had why you were born. What makes them the same is the memory of who and what you were, are, and what you're grooming yourself to be. Growing up. Nature/Nurture. Completely... entertwined concerns, but not ones we're focusing on, right now. Moving on. My point is that your cells do this, already. What you're doing is making the process immediate, over distance. And there's no need to worry about identity, in the sense of the other particles: you can't switch the states without switching both of them. Not yet, anyway. So there will, ever and always, only be one of You.
Innat reassuring? Omnia mutantur, nihil interit.
Off to read more quantum mechanics. Back later.
{23.11.03:12.35am. OhGr - [Water]--- Ok, so a little more, ont he entanglement, thing... i was... slightly mistaken, there. (Pain - [Suckerpunch]). The entangled pairs are... mirrors... What happens to one happens to the other... and states can be switched... God damn quantum mechanics... They can be switched, but it takes a special array of mirrors. So twisted. Everything i said, is cvalid, it simply takes extra steps. And the fact that they, originally, mirror each other, is what brings up the issue of identity. But if we're worrying about vertical V. horizontal alignment, then there are several mirrored/entangled "pairs," out there... *sigh*
Here: http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp
Enjoy.}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-24 06:05 am (UTC)*tying off vein for fix of wave mechanics*
no subject
no subject
Date: 2003-11-24 11:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-24 11:50 am (UTC)no subject