Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified2. Comment #225755 by doubtingfoo on August 7, 2008 at 10:54 am
3. Comment #225762 by phil rimmer on August 7, 2008 at 11:02 am
4. Comment #225764 by morgantj on August 7, 2008 at 11:03 am
5. Comment #225767 by decius on August 7, 2008 at 11:07 am
6. Comment #225771 by phil rimmer on August 7, 2008 at 11:10 am
7. Comment #225772 by zbob on August 7, 2008 at 11:10 am
If this hypothesis can be verified, would it not have a dramatic effect on the Stockholm Interpretation and Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics? Could this hypothesis reinvigorate David Bohm's hidden variables interpretation?8. Comment #225788 by mordacious1 on August 7, 2008 at 11:30 am
9. Comment #225789 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 7, 2008 at 11:31 am
the Stockholm interpretation
10. Comment #225791 by Diacanu on August 7, 2008 at 11:32 am
11. Comment #225793 by Nathanial_BB on August 7, 2008 at 11:34 am
12. Comment #225794 by Luthien on August 7, 2008 at 11:35 am
13. Comment #225799 by zbob on August 7, 2008 at 11:41 am
9. Comment #225789 by Oystein Elgaroy14. Comment #225819 by phil rimmer on August 7, 2008 at 12:03 pm
15. Comment #225822 by phil rimmer on August 7, 2008 at 12:05 pm
How the hell does one 'unmeasure' something that has already been measured?
16. Comment #225857 by niyne on August 7, 2008 at 12:46 pm
So once you measure a quantum object (it is an object, right?), it changes to a classical state? Or is a quantum state something that overlays a classical state? Is it sortof demoted or promoted? It sounds more like, when you measure it, it loses its quantum state; does this mean it might leave this classical world? Does it go away to another world? If so, how are you sure you're bringing the same one back? Or does it stay here when you measure it?17. Comment #225868 by Nathanial_BB on August 7, 2008 at 12:57 pm
18. Comment #225871 by Donald on August 7, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I think it should be pointed out that these "macro" quantum states, such as qbit rings, phonons, other qbits proposed for quantum computers etc, are not at the same physical level as the quantum states of "fundamental" particles, such as quarks, electrons, photons etc.19. Comment #225872 by J Mac on August 7, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Does it go away to another world? If so, how are you sure you're bringing the same one back?
20. Comment #225875 by HumanisticJones on August 7, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Does this validate the Copenhaggen Interpretation and invalidate the Many Worlds Interpretation? It seems that if the Many Worlds version were true, then unmeasuring would result in the collapse of the split off universe (and raising the question of whether that universe has a quantum possibility that the unmeasuring didn't happen thus not collapsing it). This feels like it would fit better with the Copenhaggen version in that instead of collapsing a whole quantum universe, the wave form simply reverts back to the wave. Although that leaves us with seeing that the cat in the box is dead, then unseeing it and having the cat return to a state of dead&&alive.21. Comment #225882 by J Mac on August 7, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Gah... quantum theory always strains the neurons to think about (except in those quantum states where it doesn't).
22. Comment #225884 by phil rimmer on August 7, 2008 at 1:15 pm
23. Comment #225890 by J Mac on August 7, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Gah... quantum theory always strains the neurons to think about (except in those quantum states where it doesn't).
24. Comment #225892 by Spinoza on August 7, 2008 at 1:21 pm
25. Comment #225895 by J Mac on August 7, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I will be the happiest person on the planet when Bohmian mechanics is vindicated.
26. Comment #225896 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 1:28 pm
27. Comment #225930 by SomeDanGuy on August 7, 2008 at 2:03 pm
It's great having a collection of smart people around in various disciplines to further explain things like this. I'm always intrigued by quantum physics, but I don't have the background knowledge to appreciate it on my own. Thanks for the help, local physicists!28. Comment #226010 by J Mac on August 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm
It's great having a collection of smart people around in various disciplines to further explain things like this.
29. Comment #226021 by shad0w on August 7, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Thanks for the paper Links Sargeist. Very interesting read indeed!30. Comment #226063 by stephensmith on August 7, 2008 at 4:45 pm
31. Comment #226071 by J Mac on August 7, 2008 at 4:59 pm
32. Comment #226094 by Elwood Herring on August 7, 2008 at 5:32 pm
33. Comment #226101 by J Mac on August 7, 2008 at 5:44 pm
34. Comment #226108 by Ed-words on August 7, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I don't know what the h--- they're35. Comment #226111 by Elwood Herring on August 7, 2008 at 5:55 pm
36. Comment #226123 by J Mac on August 7, 2008 at 6:10 pm
37. Comment #226309 by Stu on August 8, 2008 at 12:23 am
Can you say 'Heisenberg Compensator'?38. Comment #226325 by simonchase on August 8, 2008 at 1:44 am
39. Comment #226333 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 1:56 am
Does this validate the Copenhaggen Interpretation and invalidate the Many Worlds Interpretation? It seems that if the Many Worlds version were true, then unmeasuring would result in the collapse of the split off universe
40. Comment #226339 by Quetzalcoatl on August 8, 2008 at 1:58 am
In the latest issue of Nature News, Postdoctoral Fellow Nadav Katz explains how his team put the idea to the test and found that, indeed, he is able to take a "weak" measurement of a quantum particle, which triggered a partial collapse. Katz then "undid the damage we'd done," altering certain properties of the particle and performing the same weak measurement again. The particle was returned to its original quantum state just as if no measurement had ever been taken.
41. Comment #226343 by Luthien on August 8, 2008 at 2:01 am
Annoyingly, it doesn't say precisely what a "weak" measurement is, nor spell out precisely how it differs from a "strong" one.
42. Comment #226346 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 8, 2008 at 2:09 am
43. Comment #226347 by Quetzalcoatl on August 8, 2008 at 2:09 am
44. Comment #226363 by Sargeist on August 8, 2008 at 2:34 am
45. Comment #226374 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 8, 2008 at 2:57 am
46. Comment #226375 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:00 am
47. Comment #226382 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:10 am
My point doesn't really require the in depth discussion it just asks do we say photons are equally waves and particles or on a deeper level waves (or particles)?
48. Comment #226386 by Quetzalcoatl on August 8, 2008 at 3:12 am
My point doesn't really require the in depth discussion it just asks do we say photons are equally waves and particles or on a deeper level waves (or particles)?
49. Comment #226392 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 8, 2008 at 3:22 am
50. Comment #226397 by Quetzalcoatl on August 8, 2008 at 3:31 am
Quantum theory is completely consistent with the many worlds theory. Worrying about how and when waves collapse into particles is silly. It is simple to understand experimental results in terms of the many worlds interpretation.
1. Comment #225749 by pipc on August 7, 2008 at 10:47 am
The summary certainly sounds like an extraordinary claim. I hope they have extraordinary evidence to go with it?Other Comments by pipc