[X] My Assistant

[nprev]

Overly hyped by the pop media (the story is one of CNN.com's headliners right now), but interesting nonetheless. Any real physicists have some insights/explanations to share?

Quantum phenomena give me a headache that is both painful and enjoyable at the same time...unless I try to analyze it, then it's one or the other. Anybody got some Excedrin H?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/10/04...reut/index.html

[Guest_Myran_*]

Oh yes its a 'pop hype' but also solid science, the quantum entanglement described have gotten a long article in Scientific American and they did spend a sizable part of the text and even some illustrations to explain why such entangled pairs would appear to be able to send messages faster than light - but in reality not are able to.
As far as I have understood this research its more aimed at building a device of immense coputational power, than any kind of 'teleportation device' and in some paragraphs into the text the CNN story confirm that even.

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

If you are interested in the quantum mechanics, and you can find this rare book, read Max Jammer's Philosopy of Quantum Mechanics. I've read a few other more-popular books about this, but I thought they were much less careful about getting it all straight.

[nprev]

Thanks, Don. I'll start looking; always found quantum mechanics fascinating.

My simplistic view of QM is that incredible randomness rules at subatomic levels, and the Newtonian/Einsteinian universe we perceive directly is merely an aggregate reflection of the outcome of innumerable random events at that tiny level that are collectively driven to their most probable end-states, thus yielding an (almost) deterministic and orderly world within the scope of our senses. I always find it both striking and profound when quantum principles can be applied in "real world" situations

[dvandorn]

What always gets me is that one basic assumption of QM is, to put it very simplistically, the Universe (in any of its manifestations) must be observed in order to exist. Without anything out there to observe it, the Universe's near-infinite quantum states remain indeterminate.

The implications of that are truly profound.

-the other Doug

[nprev]

Agreed...but, to take interpretation of that principle to an extreme, I steer clear of the "anthropic principle" and all of its somewhat grandiose implications.

Observation can be defined as interaction alone (e.g., a virtual photon strikes an instrument lens, or a rock, or whatever and thus becomes "real"). Intelligence may be necessary to interpret the Universe, but the most basic interactions seem to be the only precondition required for the Universe to exist in a meaningful form.

[David]

Agreed...but, to take interpretation of that principle to an extreme, I steer clear of the "anthropic principle" and all of its somewhat grandiose implications.

Observation can be defined as interaction alone (e.g., a virtual photon strikes an instrument lens, or a rock, or whatever and thus becomes "real"). Intelligence may be necessary to interpret the Universe, but the most basic interactions seem to be the only precondition required for the Universe to exist in a meaningful form.

There must be a more exact definition of the term, but it seems to me that observation is something more than interaction -- it's an interaction that reflects enough of the pattern of an event that information about that event is preserved.

In general, I think it's worth remembering that while we observe the universe, what we describe are models of the universe, and those models are made by and for humans. I sometimes wonder whether, in marvelling at the ingenious structuring of the universe, we are not merely marvelling at our own ingenuity in finding ways to describe it.

[jaredGalen]

Agreed...but, to take interpretation of that principle to an extreme, I steer clear of the "anthropic principle" and all of its somewhat grandiose implications.

Speaking of the "anthropic principle", there was an interesting article in this weeks New Scientist.
You need to be subsribed to see the full article but you can read the first paragraph

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...-a-porsche.html

[nprev]

There must be a more exact definition of the term, but it seems to me that observation is something more than interaction -- it's an interaction that reflects enough of the pattern of an event that information about that event is preserved.

In general, I think it's worth remembering that while we observe the universe, what we describe are models of the universe, and those models are made by and for humans. I sometimes wonder whether, in marvelling at the ingenious structuring of the universe, we are not merely marvelling at our own ingenuity in finding ways to describe it.

I think of "interaction" as an event that produces some change (position, velocity, chemical property, etc.) in one or both interacting entities, so I think we're not too far apart. Such changes are de facto records of the event and exist with or without intelligent interpretation, which is why I steer clear of the term 'observation'.

Yeah, our perceptions (and especially their limits) will forever set some fundamental constraints on what we can model, as well as the fact that we're an inextricable part of the Universe...seems like all study paths lead inevitably to a feedback loop of self-contemplation at some point, which can only further distort matters.

In fact, one of the central arguments for planetary exploration could also be made for cosmology: How can you draw meaningful conclusions about anything from one sample? It took Venus & Mars to open up the terrestrial study of climate change. Maybe the researchers cited in Jared's article may someday find a way to study the properties of other Universes in order to understand our own, and that would be the ticket out of this philosophical box.