# Einstein’s Quantum Riddle



## Ajmassa (May 6, 2020)

Good morning 
Why not take a break from the mind-numbing pandemic news, partisan politics, and memes on your social media feeds? Here’s something not terrible for the brain.


----------



## cmason1957 (May 6, 2020)

That makes my head hurt. I'm with Einsten on this.


----------



## Ajmassa (May 6, 2020)

Sometimes just fun to sit back smoke a doober and try to wrap your head around something beyond comprehension....as long as the video dumbs it down enough at least. 
then the dog pees on the carpet and it’s back to reality 

*edit- that’s actually a lie. I do not partake. I’m the paranoid “please don’t get weird” types. Though I am not against it at all. doesnt mesh well with ADD.


----------



## cmason1957 (May 6, 2020)

I went to college in the 70's. Did plenty of that back then, it was nearly a requirement.

* The above may or may not have been said in jest. I'll allow you to be the judge of that.


----------



## Boatboy24 (May 6, 2020)

cmason1957 said:


> I went to college in the 70's. Did plenty of that back then, it was nearly a requirement.
> 
> * The above may or may not have been said in jest. I'll allow you to be the judge of that.



Peeing on the carpet, or the other thing?


----------



## cmason1957 (May 6, 2020)

Boatboy24 said:


> Peeing on the carpet, or the other thing?


I have no recollection of peeing on the carpet. Good thing the dorm rooms didn't have carpet.


----------



## sour_grapes (May 6, 2020)

[Sarcasm] I get enough of this shite at work, AJ. How about I post some episodes of "This Old House" for you, huh?! [/sarcasm]

But seriously, I'll have to take a look when I get some time. I assume it is the EPR paradox, non-locality, Bell's Theorem, etc.?


----------



## 1d10t (May 7, 2020)

It took me 3 attempts to get through Fenyem's QED. And that's considered a dumbed down version.


----------



## sour_grapes (May 7, 2020)

Well, I did watch it last night. Pretty well done, IMHO.

One thought I had was that work would be more, uhhh, entertaining if ominous background music was playing constantly (as it was on the Nova episode).


----------



## Johnd (May 7, 2020)

cmason1957 said:


> I went to college in the 70's. Did plenty of that back then, it was nearly a requirement.
> 
> * The above may or may not have been said in jest. I'll allow you to be the judge of that.



What happened in college, stays in college. Thank goodness we didn't have cell phones with video and photo capabilities back then..........................


----------



## ibglowin (May 7, 2020)

Johnd said:


> What happened in college, stays in college. Thank goodness we didn't have cell phones with video and photo capabilities back then..........................


----------



## JohnT (May 8, 2020)

FUN!

I LOVE Nova. One of my favorite programs. 

Thanks for posting!


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 8, 2020)

Oh, I can't believe you pried open the lid on that box. I try to stay away from conversations dealing with religion, politics, unified field theory (and related theories), and quantum entanglement.


----------



## G259 (May 10, 2020)

Thanks for the video, although the sound cuts out periodically near the end, so I missed a little. I was siding with Einstein on this one. I couldn't help feeling like the QM guys were kind of implying the possibility of a forth dimension, I feel like that is the only way this works.


----------



## cmason1957 (May 10, 2020)

G259 said:


> Thanks for the video, although the sound cuts out periodically near the end, so I missed a little. I was siding with Einstein on this one. I couldn't help feeling like the QM guys were kind of implying the possibility of a forth dimension, I feel like that is the only way this works.



And isn't string theory up to about 12 required for the math to work out? And don't forget, we can't test most of the string theory stuff as is.


----------



## G259 (May 10, 2020)

Quick, you go ask Sheldon, I'll knock on Penny's door!


----------



## sour_grapes (May 10, 2020)

Guys, face up to it: We live in a non-local universe. Get over it! 

It's okay, though. The non-localities do not violate _causality_. Nor do they allow energy or signals to be transmitted faster than the speed of light. So nothing you cherish is really vitiated.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 11, 2020)

Oh, you are ripe for an argument, I see ;-)


----------



## sour_grapes (May 11, 2020)

Dennis Griffith said:


> Oh, you are ripe for an argument, I see ;-)



Your argument is not with me. You will need to take up your argument with the physical universe, which has revealed itself through a multitude of incisive experiments.

One might as well argue with a boulder!


----------



## Johnd (May 11, 2020)

sour_grapes said:


> One might as well argue with a boulder!


But a bolder wouldn't respond to provocation, that just wouldn't be nearly as fun...................LOL


----------



## cmason1957 (May 11, 2020)

Unless you have kept up with particle and quantum physics over the last 20-30 years and kept the math part very fresh, arguing is pointless. I used to think I cared enough to try to keep up, but they have passed me by and The Calculus is but a distant memory. I remember taking a class in college called Semiconductors and Devices (at least now it's called that, I think it was something like Physical Electronics back in the day). The math in there got to be crazy talking about holes and non-holes and a whole bunch of magic.


----------



## stickman (May 11, 2020)

Yea, I'm out of this one, I got lost just trying to figure out the concept of the experiment; using quasars as a random trigger......wtf


----------



## G259 (May 11, 2020)

I think the idea was, that the light pulse takes so long to reach us, it wouldn't be possible to alter the timing of it. I caught myself shaking my head several times watching this, and I went in with an open mind.


----------



## Johnd (May 11, 2020)

I was just looking forward to seeing a scientific battle.


----------



## ceeaton (May 11, 2020)

Johnd said:


> I was just looking forward to seeing a scientific battle.


I'll drink to that!


----------



## JohnT (May 12, 2020)

cmason1957 said:


> Unless you have kept up with particle and quantum physics over the last 20-30 years and kept the math part very fresh, arguing is pointless. I used to think I cared enough to try to keep up, but they have passed me by and The Calculus is but a distant memory. I remember taking a class in college called Semiconductors and Devices (at least now it's called that, I think it was something like Physical Electronics back in the day). The math in there got to be crazy talking about holes and non-holes and a whole bunch of magic.



So you are then well acquainted with George Boole?????


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 12, 2020)

Like I said, I try to stay out of these debates. But here I am, dancing on the toilet rim, trying to maintain footing. I have strained some relationships (my sister being one) by addressing certain inconsistencies that many dogmatic (yes I said that) physicists and mathematicians seem to ignore, or seem oblivious to. It could be the hidden flaw in Calculus that makes many take an apparent 'leap of faith'. Some think we understand all that we need to and on the other end, some think/believe we don't know squat (that would be me). I have spent a lifetime learning just so that I can feel ignorant. Hmmm, nouf said.


----------



## cmason1957 (May 12, 2020)

JohnT said:


> So you are then well acquainted with George Boole?????


George Boole and Alan Turing are very good friends of mine. Somedays, I can even pass a Turing test.


----------



## cmason1957 (May 12, 2020)

Dennis Griffith said:


> Like I said, I try to stay out of these debates. But here I am, dancing on the toilet rim, trying to maintain footing. I have strained some relationships (my sister being one) by addressing certain inconsistencies that many dogmatic (yes I said that) physicists and mathematicians seem to ignore, or seem oblivious to. It could be the hidden flaw in Calculus that makes many take an apparent 'leap of faith'. Some think we understand all that we need to and on the other end, some think/believe we don't know squat (that would be me). I have spent a lifetime learning just so that I can feel ignorant. Hmmm, nouf said.



I prefer to think that Grand Architect of the Universe looks down upon us and chuckles every time we think we understand it all. Our math does a fair job of explaining what we can see and measure, but then we get to the edge cases and all heck breaks loose.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 12, 2020)

cmason1957 said:


> George Boole and Alan Turing are very good friends of mine. Somedays, I can even pass a Turing test.



You must be VERY old to have such friends.

PS. My wife informs me that I fail the Turing test daily.


----------



## cmason1957 (May 12, 2020)

Dennis Griffith said:


> You must be VERY old to have such friends.
> 
> PS. My wife informs me that I fail the Turing test daily.



My children like to inform me that I am probably older than dirt. My knees tend to agree


----------



## sour_grapes (May 12, 2020)

Don't worry: Nothing bad below (at least not that I know of!). It is not my intention to argue against your position, but just to state more clearly my own. My earlier answer to you was breezy, because I didn't perceive that you were all that serious. I thought you were just teasing. I see now that you are quite serious and passionate. I also believe, from previous posts of yours, that you know a thing or two about splitting atoms.



Dennis Griffith said:


> Like I said, I try to stay out of these debates. But here I am, dancing on the toilet rim, trying to maintain footing. I have strained some relationships (my sister being one) by addressing certain inconsistencies that many dogmatic (yes I said that) physicists and mathematicians seem to ignore, or seem oblivious to. It could be the hidden flaw in Calculus that makes many take an apparent 'leap of faith'. Some think we understand all that we need to and on the other end, some think/believe we don't know squat (that would be me). I have spent a lifetime learning just so that I can feel ignorant. Hmmm, nouf said.



I grant you, it is true that we physicists sometimes seem to ignore inconsistencies. Well, perhaps we don't really _ignore_ them, but we get used to them. We keep them in the back of our mind for when a more complete picture (that could explain the inconsistency) starts to emerge. In the meantime, we get on about our lives, using what we can from our best current theories to learn more about the universe, learning new things that are consistent with current understanding, but all the while trying to _disprove_ the current theories! (I'm reasonably confident that Dennis understands what I mean, but if that sounds nonsensical to anyone reading this, I am using shorthand to refer to something like Popperian falsifiability.)  

Something like this: 



> There is a physics joke about the stages of learning quantum mechanics:
> 
> (1) You don’t know what it means, you don’t know how to calculate anything, and it doesn’t bother you.
> (2) You don’t know what it means, you don’t know how to calculate anything, and it bothers you.
> ...



You also wrote:


> Some think we understand all that we need to and on the other end, some think/believe we don't know squat (that would be me).



Those certainly seem to be the extremes! But I don't think I know anyone on these extremes (unless I take your self-description at face value, and I kinda doubt that fits, and I mean that as a compliment). Certainly, no physicist thinks that we understand all that we need to: Physicists work really hard, dedicate their entire lives, struggle constantly, just to try to learn a little more than we know now. Of course none of them think we understand all there is to know! (Plus, the realization that it appears that we cannot account for 96% of the universe should sure keep one humble!  ) On the other hand, just because we don't know _everything_ doesn't mean that we don't know _anything._ 

You mentioned dogma: Yes, dogmatic belief in a theory is inimical to learning. However, there is also a dogma in rejecting what observations tell us about the universe merely because the implications bother us. Would that we fall into neither dogmatic trap.


----------



## 1d10t (May 12, 2020)

Dennis Griffith said:


> PS. My wife informs me that I fail the Turing test daily.


Is it really that hard to remember the square hole goes in the round peg?


----------



## cmason1957 (May 12, 2020)

1d10t said:


> Is it really that hard to remember the square hole goes in the round peg?



Dang Nabbit, I knew I was doing something wrong there. I'll try to remember that next time.


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 13, 2020)

We are talking quantum mechanics here, so round is the same as square, but in reverse (funny). I was approaching this topic lightheartedly, but I can get drawn in and spend hours opining on topics of this nature. I typically solve nothing and just create more questions for myself. I appreciate the joke, I've made it to step 3 (I think), but don't want to proceed to step 4 as I'm comfortable being bothered (except for proton decay, it really bothers me). I should not have lumped everyone into such stark categories when in reality it is shades of gray. It is that the ones that DO fit into those categories that are the most memorable and come to mind readily (my failing). And I sometimes get stuck on the silliest of things, like does 1 really equal .99999...? I accepted the logic of this statement eons ago, but in absolute terms how can a whole number equal another number that never makes it to a whole number? See, I can't turn lose of some things that don't fit (back to round pegs in square holes, or was it the other way). And I really do like most physicists, and some even like me back (on certain days).


----------



## G259 (May 17, 2020)

> I grant you, it is true that we physicists sometimes seem to ignore inconsistencies. Well, perhaps we don't really _ignore_ them, but we get used to them.



Denial?


----------



## sour_grapes (May 17, 2020)

G259 said:


> Denial?



No, not like that. I tried to explain above, let me try again. 

We note the inconsistencies, and are thereby aware that we don't yet have a full understanding. We essentially _always_ carry the uncertainty around with us for things that have unsettled bits. We expect that the description the we presently have (which well explains a given phenomenon) will be subsumed into a better theory later. 

As an example, consider the way that Newtonian mechanics is the low-speed limit of relativistic mechanics. There were some inconsistencies (in predictions of electromagnetic phenomena) that led Lorentz and Poincaré and eventually Einstein to formulate special relativity. But you can still build a damn bridge or launch howitzer shells on target using Newton's laws, despite knowing that they are an incomplete description. (But you need special AND general relativity to use GPS, but I digress.) So you do what you can with what you do understand, all the while looking to resolve the parts that you cannot yet fully explain.


----------



## G259 (May 17, 2020)

That was supposed to be a humorous bit - I should have put the lol, lol!


----------



## sour_grapes (May 17, 2020)

G259 said:


> That was supposed to be a humorous bit - I should have put the lol, lol!



Ahh, I see!


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 17, 2020)

Hmm, you took the bait and ran with it. My mouth is sore from such endeavors.


----------



## sour_grapes (May 17, 2020)

Dennis Griffith said:


> Hmm, you took the bait and ran with it. My mouth is sore from such endeavors.



Honestly, it was kinda enjoyable for a lazy, slightly hungover Sunday morning! "Look, someone actually cares about what we do!"


----------



## Dennis Griffith (May 17, 2020)

Ok, here's a puzzle for you. If I eat the pasta first and then follow with the anti-pasta, does that make it a low calorie meal? And does the annihilation of the two cause me serious heartburn?


----------



## sour_grapes (May 17, 2020)

Have you heard of nuclear pasta? It is believed that, in neutron stars, various structures form that resemble different kinds of pasta at different pressures within the star. These structures start to invert at yet higher pressures, so, in a clever-if-confusing twist, these other phases are referred to as "anti-pasta." (Nothing to do with anti-neutrons.)

Here is a short description:



> The pasta is made of protons and neutrons, held together by the extreme pressures. These oddball nuclei arrange themselves into weird configurations that Matt Caplan of Indiana University and his colleagues call “nuclear pasta.”1 The pasta layer lies in the inner crust, a transitional zone between a neutron star’s outer crust and core. In the top of this layer, the nuclei form blobs called “gnocchi.” Deeper down, they join together into cylindrical shapes called “spaghetti.” More pressure, and the spaghetti compresses into “lasagna”: flattish sheets of nuclear matter. Then the pasta transitions into “anti-pasta”: The sheets of lasagna form cylindrical hollows where neutrons begin leaking out, which Caplan calls “anti-spaghetti.” And finally, when the pressure is high enough, those hollows break into small bubbles, the “anti-gnocchi” phase.



Or here is the Wikipedia version: Nuclear pasta - Wikipedia


----------



## 1d10t (May 17, 2020)

sour_grapes said:


> We note the inconsistencies, and are thereby aware that we don't yet have a full understanding. We essentially _always_ carry the uncertainty around with us for things that have unsettled bits. We expect that the description the we presently have (which well explains a given phenomenon) will be subsumed into a better theory later.


That's probably the best explanation of the Uncertainty Principle I've ever heard. Thank you.


----------



## sour_grapes (May 17, 2020)

1d10t said:


> That's probably the best explanation of the Uncertainty Principle I've ever heard. Thank you.



I know you are kidding. But here is MY best explanation of the actual Uncertainty Principle:

Consider a bunch of waves, like if you threw a rock into a pond. If you have a long bunch (with many crests/troughs), it is hard to say _where that wave is located._ If you have a short bunch (with only a few crests/troughs), it is hard to say _what the wavelength is._


----------



## G259 (May 17, 2020)

. . . and how do the resonant wave-lengths apply in this situation? (Ooo! lol!)


----------

