The Secrets of Quantum Physics BBC4
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View PostI was so busy trying to work that out that I missed why the totals needed to less than 2 to prove Einstein was right and Bohr wrong- or was it the other way round - and why 2? .
Originally posted by aeolium View PostYes, RT, I struggled with those analogies too! And the four totals that JaK said came to >2 included one that was a negative figure I thought, so should have resulted in a total <2, i.e. Einstein and not Bohr was right!
Comment
-
-
as i recall [a risky statement these days] the minus number was subtracted not added so that it was in fact added not subtracted so the total was >2 .... i'll get me gloves...
very much enjoyed the programme ... more please!According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Comment
-
-
In the cards analogy, I didn't understand the possibility of both cards being the same colour. Was it significant? I understand that 'gloves' have two possible properties - left or right; and the coins are either heads or tails. So was that just to show that, in the case of a real pack of cards, anything can happen if there has been some 'rigging' of the test? And that was what Einstein thought?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostIn the cards analogy, I didn't understand the possibility of both cards being the same colour. Was it significant? I understand that 'gloves' have two possible properties - left or right; and the coins are either heads or tails. So was that just to show that, in the case of a real pack of cards, anything can happen if there has been some 'rigging' of the test? And that was what Einstein thought?
It would seem that the the physicists have either decided that observation does alter outcomes, or that they cannot prove that it doesn't.
Or have I missed all the points here completely?!I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by teamsaint View PostI think that the card game was to prove that, unless you conduct tests under very special circumstances, in this case deciding the rule after the event, you cannot be sure that the rule/situation/observation hasn't altered the outcome.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostBut wasn't the rule decided after the event - and there was still no random result, so it did seem to be supporting Boehr's theory (even though the colours were the same - so I assume that was not really relevant?).
( the thrust of the programme in any case ,as per those on screen quotes, was that Boehr was "right" wasn't it?)
Incidentally, the programme seemed to make rather less of the observation effect than other things I have seen, although clearly it did cover it.
here's Jim again.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
Comment
-
-
I shall certainly watch it again. I see Dr Graham Farmelo also contributed - author of the biography of Paul Dirac (The Strangest Man) which I must read again. At least the biographical bits were easy to understand :-)It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
It would seem that the the physicists have either decided that observation does alter outcomes, or that they cannot prove that it doesn't.
Or have I missed all the points here completely?!
It's interesting that NASA relies entirely on good old fashioned Newtonian physics to get a satellite into an exact orbit around a tiny comet squillions of miles away...and it works.
I think I'm missing the point too.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ardcarp View PostThat seems to be about it. Strange that if you're driving along the M5 you and all your fellow motorists are perceiving 3 lanes, tarmac, crash barriers, etc, but that they might all not be there during a quiet moment.
:
Comment
-
-
Let me add something that is not strictly to do with quantum physics, but I think there's a connexion.
Everything we see, hear, feel, taste or touch is actually an illusion. Our brains receive information from all the stimuli receptors and our brains then make sense of it all (this is the 'information theory' point we talked of some months ago). So that our perception of reality is actually a model constructed by our brains making assumptions. We never (so it seems) visualise what we actually experience.
(I think the programme was great - can't wait till the next one.)
Comment
-
-
About the gloves and the coins - don't they in fact prove Einstein right, not Boehr? I can't how the card analogy works.
If you have a coin, with a heads and tails, and split it down the middle, one half has the 'head-ness' and the other has the 'tails-ness'. If you spin the bit with the heads, it's bound to fall on its heads side because it doesn't have a tails - or it does, but that's on the other bit which which has a tails but not a heads. Spin both and they will fall, respectively, heads and tails. [The gloves have a 'right-ness' and 'left-ness'.] When the coin is 'whole' it could fall on either side but once it's separated it will fall on both sides when you spin it. Doesn't that make Einstein right?
Or have I missed the point too?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Don Petter
Originally posted by french frank View PostAbout the gloves and the coins - don't they in fact prove Einstein right, not Boehr? I can't how the card analogy works.
If you have a coin, with a heads and tails, and split it down the middle, one half has the 'head-ness' and the other has the 'tails-ness'. If you spin the bit with the heads, it's bound to fall on its heads side because it doesn't have a tails - or it does, but that's on the other bit which which has a tails but not a heads. Spin both and they will fall, respectively, heads and tails. [The gloves have a 'right-ness' and 'left-ness'.] When the coin is 'whole' it could fall on either side but once it's separated it will fall on both sides when you spin it. Doesn't that make Einstein right?
Or have I missed the point too?
Comment
Comment