Quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.10058984]

Can you brief me on quantum teleportation and entanglement?
What do we know about these phenomena and what's considered so weird about them?
I'm not a physicist but I like to think about abstract concepts and I'd like some food for thought.

Further questions: Can we even "label" electrons or photons? If we teleport a photon, how do we know it's the same one? What if they just invented a system for spawning a photon and we think it teleported?

[Anonymous No.10058991]

OP here. I'd also like to understand the concept of a field.
Here's what I've been thinking about fields:

Does the electromagnetic field exist everywhere in the universe or does an em wave simply generate the field as it travels through a vacuum?
I mean if something can travel without a pre-existing field, why are physicists so hellbent on explaining gravity with a quantum field and messenger particles? I haven't studied this subject at all but my intuition doesn't understand why messenger particles are required in the first place. If those particles are restricting us from the theory of everything, just scrap them completely? Make a new standard model without them?

I understand my posts must make you cringe if you study these things for a living, but please help.

[Anonymous No.10059009]

Pray and God will answer your questions

[Anonymous No.10059012]

>>10059009

[Anonymous No.10059016]

>>10058984
Dunno much about it.
pretty random search over seeker plus gave me this. might help. But normally its oversimplified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb38jozeDOs

Hope it helps
my2cents

[Anonymous No.10059019]

>>10059012
Enjoy Hell, atheist. God was proven hundreds of years ago by Aquinas

[Anonymous No.10059020]

>>10058991
>just scrap them
done.
they are just a coarse approximation that you see when you do a measurement.
https://youtu.be/RwdY7Eqyguo?t=14m35s

[Anonymous No.10059023]

>>10059019

[Anonymous No.10059026]

>>10059023
It is impossible for random mutation to create new chromosomes

[Anonymous No.10059028]

>>10058984
meme field to soak up funding cause physics has been done to death
computer science and AI are the future

[Anonymous No.10059033]

>>10059028
AI is summoning the beast and Jesus will return when you sick fucks do it

[Anonymous No.10059035]

>>10059026
thank goodness evolution is the opposite of random then

[Anonymous No.10059042]

>>10058984
>quantum teleportation and entanglement
entanglement is a quantum phenomenon where two objects separated in space are described by the same wavefunction. in an orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, this means that a measurement performed on e.g. one of two entangled photons instantaneously collapses the wavefunction of both particles. this was considered weird by e.g. einstein because he thought of it as "spooky action at a distance". the resolution of this "EPR paradox" requires a bit of imagination and has deep implications on whether quantum mechanics is really just a model that works when we don't know the "hidden variables" at work describing the system (spoiler: it isn't, QM isn't explainable with hidden variables)

>quantum teleportation
i don't really care much for this name; really quantum teleportation is more like quantum photocopying; it just means you can take a system and fully entangle it with stuff and then use that stuff to make a copy someplace else (and in general this requires destroying the first copy entirely)

>Does the electromagnetic field exist everywhere in the universe
yes

>why messenger particles are required in the first place
they're not, in fact classical electrodynamics has no photons that mediate electromagnetic interactions. photons came into the theory because they were observed in experiment (e.g. the photoelectric effect)

>If those particles are restricting us from the theory of everything, just scrap them completely? Make a new standard model without them?
well the standard model already doesn't have gravitons. but if the standard model could be generalized to include gravity, the most obvious solution is that it's just like any other quantum field, which means it would need gravitons

there are people like Dyson and Penrose, OTOH, who have ideas about "there is no such thing as a graviton" but it's pretty wacky

[Anonymous No.10059058]

>>10059035
Mutation is random mutations

[Anonymous No.10059062]

>>10059042
>Same wavefunction
They're described by the same inseparable wave function, or rather they occupy an inseparable Hilbert space. It is not the case that entanglement merely shifts the system boundaries, it is the physical/informational inseparability of the entangled objects that's key. Hence acting on one object acts on all objects, as the degrees of freedom cannot be separated.

>hidden variables
Well, it can't be local hidden variables (Bell's inequality), could be non-local (Bohm etc.), but that invokes more questions that it answers and offers no solid ontology.

>>10058984
>Fields
A way to think of fields would be a flat, slightly elastic, drum skin, with finite sized points on it pushing up and down. In that sense a 'charge' (or whatever else) anywhere on the skin affects the topology of the whole surface, albeit in a way that diminishes as you get further away. In this sense a point source affects the entire space. If, by field, you mean the underlying structure of space and/or its quantisation, then that is an irreducible aspect of space.

>>10058991
I don't know what you mean by travel here. You can travel based on kinetic energy, which isn't a field interaction. With regards to messenger particles, for a particle to experience an action, something must interact with it. For a quantum state to experience a change (even if this is a spacially separated entanglement) there must be an interaction with some part of this state. Messenger particles are not the only way to describe such interactions, however the point remains that there must be a means through which action is conveyed.

[Anonymous No.10059315]

That feel when you have an actually intuitive explanation to the "mystical" quantum mechanics but you don't want to post it online so someone doesn't steal your oscar prize that you've been narcissistically working on for years to show girls they were wrong for not mating with you.

Lemme give you guys a hint though:
>everything is quantized. EVERYTHING.
>the physical doesn't exist
>the human consciousness is not separated from the "physical" reality: they cannot exist without one another
>everything is connected, every mind is in a universal superposition, the reality we percieve was shaped by superpositioned thoughts, and God is the operating system of reality
>quantums can be manipulated to no limit. and I mean to NO LIMIT. this explains how the universe was borned
>there is no dark energy, dark matter or "gravitons", you gotta understand that mass is a vector

[Anonymous No.10059340]

>>10058984
>If we teleport a photon, how do we know it's the same one?
You can't: quantum particles of the same species are indistinguishable.

[Anonymous No.10059346]

>>10059340
Every electron is the same electron amirite?

[Anonymous No.10059351]

>>10059315
>mass is a vector
bud, that's weight.

[Anonymous No.10059357]

>>10059351
>10059351

But it works the other way around, too:
every vector has mass.

[Anonymous No.10059842]

Hey, can someone plz help - are there negative vectors in Hilbert spaces corresponding to state?

[Anonymous No.10059871]

>>10059842
sure, multiplying a wave function or spinor state by -1 or even i is just a phase change and cancels out when you find the amplitude by taking the product with the hermitian conjugate

[Anonymous No.10059883]

>>10058984
"Quantum entanglement" and other bullshit metaphysics comes from a foundation of bullshit metaphysics. "Particles" don't exist, there is no separation, so creating false separation of the same "thing" creates a false interpretation of what is going on.

When they try to separate "energy" into separate particles, they are always forced to connect it back again, hence this supposed "entanglement".

[Anonymous No.10059885]

>>10059346
No, there are definitely moire than one, but they're all excitations of the same field.
Well, the left handed and right handed ones, separately, are.

[Anonymous No.10059889]

This thread is full of retards who don't understand what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10059896]

>>10059058
>Mutation is random mutations
retardation is miswireing of neurons in the brain

[Anonymous No.10059901]

>>10059871
Thx v.much - say, how do particles' states interact with eachother in the context of vector spaces or Dirac notation?
E.g. in Quantum computing where I believe the goal is for the relevant qubits' |1> amplitude to be 1 and the other qubits' |1> amplitude to be 0 through interference between qubits.
Also, I think I saw a(n unlabelled) figure-8 diagram in a quantum computing lab which I assume corresponded to a particle's state over time centred on the origin - why draw it like that if conjugates eliminate negatives?

[Anonymous No.10059994]

>>10059315
Quantized by gravitons, possible to be attached to just point which makes it concentrated gravitons.

You don't understand measure theory.

[Anonymous No.10060015]

>>10059901
“interactions” are hairy in QM. if you’re referring to e.g. electromagnetic interactions, say e.g. between a proton and electron in a hydrogen atom, then textbook QM says you go to the reduced mass picture and solve for a single particle in a potential well. but really we know that the real thing going on has to do with the exchange of photons, so now you’re talking QED. so when your interactions are mediated by photons (like in high energy physics) or phonons or plasmons (like in quantum computing) you can’t easily use QM intuition

however you could think about non-interacting particles, take e.g. non-interacting spinless fermions (and even if that sounds wrong, that’s only because you must already know a little QFT or particle physics—only there can you derive the spin statistics theorem)

for noninteracting spinless identical particles, we know we have to write down the wave function in a way that makes them indistinguishable:

|psi> = |a>|b> + |b>|a>
or
|psi> = |a>|b> - |b>|a>
(just ignore normalizations)

by definition a fermion is the second version

now if you calculate the inner product of that state you get
(<a|<b| - <b|<a|)(|a>|b> - |b>|a>)
= <a|a><b|b> - <b|a><a|b> - <a|b><b|a> + <b|b><a|a>
if a and b are orthogonal eigenbasis vectors of your hilbert space, your answer comes out nicely, you get a positive amplitude
however if you let them be the same basis vector, (set b=a) then you get 1-1-1+1=0. so there is 0 probability of them being in the same state

so that’s the pauli exclusion principle—the (degeneracy pressure) “interaction” of the two fermions prohibits them from being in the same state.

that’s the best QM example of how to think of “interactions” in pure QM in terms of gilbert spaces and bra-kets

[Anonymous No.10060305]

test, ignore
[math] \displaystyle
\\
\left | \psi \right \rangle \left | \Psi \right \rangle \\
\left \langle \psi \right | \left \langle \Psi \right | \\
\left | \psi \right \rangle \left \langle \Psi \right | \\
\left \langle \psi \mid \Psi \right \rangle \\
\\
[/math]

[Anonymous No.10060861]

I'm a scientist from Tampere, Finland, and I just retracted a photon that I sent into a hydrogen atom.
I basically invented time travel. Feels good man. This is the start of a worldwide time travel arms race.

[Anonymous No.10060929]

>>10060861
dude who carez??
become an dank r@pper

c u on the s0uth s1de

[Anonymous No.10061059]

>>10060929

This is what high IQ looks like.

[Anonymous No.10061067]

>>10060305
hi, i want to know more about this, i'm paying very close attention to this post

[Anonymous No.10061105]

>>10061059
Don't forget the fact that this is also what high IQ sounds like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAs9HZC9c7Y

[Anonymous No.10061106]

>>10061067
Vector vector.
Covector, Covector
vector, covector (thus bilinear form)
covector, vector (thus scalar product)

[Anonymous No.10061172]

>>10061105

>300 million views

>educational math videos often have less than 500 views (entertainment shit like Electroboom doesn't count as educational)

This is what killed our species.

[Anonymous No.10061179]

>>10061105

This guy apparently has a kid and I, a physicist, will never reproduce.

FUCK YOU. I blame women.

[Anonymous No.10061187]

>>10061067
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath638/kmath638.htm

[Anonymous No.10061342]

>>10059023
have you taken any biochem or molecular dynamics courses?
if you can't see the beautiful design of all the intricate pathways inside every organism then you really can't fathom what evolution claims.

IMO it comes down to two possibilities:
1) Life did not originate on earth (i.e. cellular life came on a comet or some shit
2) God exists

[Anonymous No.10061351]

>>10061342
>IMO it comes down to two possibilities:
>1) Life did not originate on earth (i.e. cellular life came on a comet or some shit
>2) God exists
"Either I'm right in this planet or I'm right in other planet, but there is a God for sure.... Trust me."

[Anonymous No.10061393]

>>10059889
welcome to 4chan

[Anonymous No.10061413]

>>10061351
>"Durr.. complex life with intricate mechanisms just happened one day trust me bro"
>"But 6 billion year is long time... I'm only 13"
>"God doesn't exist because mom made me go to church and I hated it"


Are you even literate, how did you find this place?

Abiogenesis is a serious unanswered question that evolution does not answer you fucking inbred.

[Anonymous No.10061420]

>>10061413
>Abiogenesis is a serious unanswered question that evolution does not answer you fucking inbred.
"I don't know how it happened, so the only possible answer is God"

[Anonymous No.10061435]

What does the use of Hilbert Space in the math seem to suggest, if anything?

[Anonymous No.10061450]

>>10061342
>beautiful design
means nothing, the real question is can those solutions build up slowly over time

the non-beautiful designs are also revealing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

[Anonymous No.10061454]

>>10061420
>"I don't know how it happened, but it's definitely not possible that God did it"

[Anonymous No.10061461]

>>10061413
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M

hydrogen bond < covalent bonding < ionic bonding

[Anonymous No.10061463]

>>10061454
"God did it" isn't a scientific theory, believe what you want but expect to get laughed at for bringing it up in a scientific discussion.

[Anonymous No.10061466]

>>10061454
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

[Anonymous No.10061519]

>>10061463

I study particle physics and believe in God, and I don't see anything irrational or laughable about it - quite the opposite actually. If someone dismisses a major philosophical hypothesis simply because they don't like it and they're afraid of it, I think it's unscientific as fuck. Keep your minds open or quit science. By God I don't mean a bearded guy sitting on a cloud and if that's what you think we believers mean by God then you're beyond my help. The mystery, to me, isn't whether God exists or not, but what God really is.

If you think I'm in no position to talk about this, Chris Langan (IQ 200) thinks it's clear that God exists. I'm quite not as intelligent as he is but I've always known the smartest people in the world aren't atheists (Einstein, Newton..). If you have a clear and objective view on reality, you always believe that God exists.

[Anonymous No.10061523]

>>10061519

[Anonymous No.10061532]

>>10061519
>if I just define God as something I don't understand but does exist, then God exists
>my idea is unfalsifiable and untestable but if you don't accept it as rational and scientific you're close minded

[Anonymous No.10061541]

>>10061519
Really intelligent people probably make their own model of what God is and what a grand plan would actually be like.
Rather than taking someone else's word for it or going lmao no

[Anonymous No.10061551]

>>10061523

I don't see how your low res picture is relevant.
Religion is a different concept than personal faith or belief. Religion is something that happens in a big group, usually has a bunch of strict rules and traditions and as such can have a delusional twist to it. Faith is something you can have living alone in a forest.

And the thing about hallucinations, I've never experienced any. I don't see or experience supernatural phenomena, even though you could say scientific insight itself is kind of supernatural. Isn't it kooky how you can come up with scientific theories without prior knowledge or experience on them? Like you just roam the depths of your mind and come up with something that's actually real. Where did the information come from? How does accurate information about the universe arise from nothing? You could think that your conscious mind is hardwired to a universal field where all information lies and everything that exists or could exists is connected, and you can name that field God. Newton himself thought that his discoveries were little secrets between him and God, and sometimes he didn't want to share them with the world because of this. He felt he had an intimate, personal connection with something great out there. And I think his reaction was appropriate. What he found, he simultaneously found in the reality around us, as well as in himself.

[Anonymous No.10061564]

>>10061551
>I've never experienced any
lol
read the pic text again, this time with your brain turned on

[Anonymous No.10061573]

>>10061551
Do you really not see how fucking stupid what you're saying is? You can call anything God and then say that you believe in God, but unless you tell people what you mean by "God" it's completely meaningless to anyone but you.

Even if you had somehow actually learned any special truths about the universe through this introspection it would still be irrational for anyone to care about them until they could see proof of them. Anyone can spew out whatever bullshit they want, but until they have a way to rationally justify what they say you'd have to be retarded to listen to them. I have no problem with people having beliefs and thoughts about whatever mystical bullshit they want, but it has no place being brought up in science until it can be judged by science.

[Anonymous No.10061579]

>>10059357

motherfucker what?

vectors are mathematical objects, what are you talking about.

mass is a physical property which is represented as a scalar.

weight is a force, forces need a coordinate base to be expressed, hence you need vectors.

>>10058984

OP the answers in this thread are fine and everything but are mere approximations (which are also partially incorrect) and you'll never understand what you are asking unless you can do the proper math.

[Anonymous No.10061582]

>>10061573
>>10061551
lucille, always right
https://youtu.be/EUeQXmYVamA?t=25m50s

[Anonymous No.10061583]

>>10061342
>>10061413
>>10061454

gtfo brainlet

[Anonymous No.10061598]

>>10061342
luckily no one cares about your dipshit opinion

[Anonymous No.10061600]

>>10061582
>posting hour long videos
why the fuck do people do this

[Anonymous No.10061610]

>>10061519
>By God I don't mean a bearded guy sitting on a cloud and if that's what you think we believers mean by God then you're beyond my help.
If you dont define specifically what god is then you dont have an argument
>... Chris Langan (IQ 200)...
Appeal to authority, a meme one at that.
>If you have a clear and objective view on reality, you always believe that God exists.
If your argument can be liquidated to a tautology you dont have an argument.

Taking the above into consideration im quite certain you are a teenage pseud. read a book and maybe you can become genuinely educated.

[Anonymous No.10061626]

>>10061600
>thinks he knows gods mind
>so fucking retarded that he can't figure out what t=25m50s means

does mommy tie your shoelaces for you?

[Anonymous No.10061658]

>>10061610

>you dont have an argument

I never argue or debate on whether God exists or not, I think it's pointless.
I never force my beliefs on others so I don't think I'm required to scientifically prove any of the things I choose to believe in.
But if people are debating the subject, sure, I'll tell people what I think.

[Anonymous No.10061668]

>>10061658
yawn

[Anonymous No.10061673]

>>10061658
Well feel free to just keep quiet next time, you've said nothing of value here.

[Anonymous No.10061679]

>>10059315
>God doesn't exist
>everything can be quantized, doesn't imply anything though
>the oscar prize is given for achievements in cinematography
>borned
Girls be aware

[Anonymous No.10061683]

>>10058991
the universe and everything in it is a electromagnetic feild

[Anonymous No.10061691]

>>10061683
>feild

you are an EM failed

[Anonymous No.10061693]

>>10058984
The human brain can perceive an infinite number of futures directly proportional to his imagination and lifetime. It's a quantum computer

[Anonymous No.10061704]

why has this thread turned to shit

god vs. science is against the rules

why did everybody ignore the actual QM discussion >>10060015 and instead sperg out when they saw a lawrence krauss picture?

[Anonymous No.10061752]

I'm a physics major and I always thought I was a genius, just took an IQ test. 110.
Fucking hell man.
I'm definitely not a normie and I don't get laid so how do I explain this?

[Anonymous No.10061774]

>>10061752
>falling for the IQ meme

[Anonymous No.10061777]

>>10059062
This nibba knows it's shit

[Anonymous No.10061783]

>>10061774
I'm not OP but please redpill me. Why is IQ a meme?

[Anonymous No.10061785]

>>10061342
Larping as intellectual, not even once...

[Anonymous No.10061808]

>>10061783
It's not based on an objective or quantifiable criteria. It's just a survey of cute tricky questions that they use just because it seems like you'd have to be smart to solve them. Really less predictive of one's intelligence than just taking an intermediate math course and seeing how you do.

[Anonymous No.10061815]

>>10061783
It's a personality test cloaked as an "intelligence" test.

[Anonymous No.10061842]

>>10061808

I have to agree. I have scientifically illiterate friends who get higher scores than me and I'm a research scientist.
When evaluating someone's "IQ" I evaluate their whole being, not just how well they recognize visual black and white patterns.
I mean you can literally just practice taking the test for 10 years and get high scores with no understanding of abstract concepts.

[Anonymous No.10061887]

>>10061658
>I never argue or debate on whether God exists or not
>>10061573
In this post you cited someone else believing in god as a defense of your own belief and a counterpoint to people who dont. This is an argument. You are mentally challenged.

[Anonymous No.10061917]

>>10061842

I took a Mensa IQ test. Retook it immediately, my score increased by 18 points. That's quite a difference.
This, at least in my mind, tells me that the only thing that matters is how quickly you solve the problems. Given a few extra minutes you get a considerably better results.
I think you should take any IQ test 5 times and only the best score counts.

[Anonymous No.10061940]

>>10061342

>IMO it comes down to two possibilities:
>1) God exists
>2) God exists

wow really made me think thank you anon

[Anonymous No.10061949]

>>10061454

why are you acting like people are dismissing the idea that god didn't do it?

we are not telling you that it's impossible that it was god but that if you don't know how something happened it doesn't mean it was god.

[Anonymous No.10061963]

>>10061949

*that god did it

sorry english hard language

[Anonymous No.10062463]

Which math courses can help getting into quantum physics?

[Anonymous No.10062469]

>>10062463
definitely matrix / linear algebra and differential equations are a prereq. then if you want to beast it, study fourier analysis (which get covered in most analysis classes) and complex analysis / PDEs.

group theory if you want to understand Clebsch-Gordon coefficients and prepare for QFT

[Anonymous No.10062722]

QM + relativity = QFT