Nobel Prize for Physics 2022 awarded to 3 scientists for work in Quantum Mechanics

[Flannel Jesus]

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/summary/

One of the most important aspects of this award was that 2 of the awardees were very important figures in developing and experimenting on Bell's Theorem, which I find to be one of the most fascinating aspects of Quantum Mechanics.

When Quantum Mechanics came on the scene, it stated that certain properties of particles - like the spin of a photon for example - were not just unkown before measurement, but the value of the property itself was not set in stone. So when you measure the spin, you're not measuring some pre-existing fact, you're in essence forcing the photon to take on a certain value for spin by measuring it, a value it didn't have before measurement.

A lot of scientists at the time didn't really like this idea, especially because it had some weird implications for entangled particles. Einstein famously opposed these ideas, and called the implications with entangled particles 'spooky action at a distance'. Einstein preferred the idea that there was something more tangible to spin, and that the QM picture of this property was wrong or incomplete in some way.

Bell's Theorem is a set of probabilities that Quantum Mechanics predicts for certain measurements that are paradoxical if you take an Einsteinian view. Bell's Theorem basically says, if the probabilities work out the way Quantum Mechanics says they should, then it's incompatible with the Einsteinian view, called "local realism", and the QM idea that the spin really is indeterminate before measuring must be true.

Unfortunately Einstein died before Bell's Theorem was proposed, and long before it was tested, so we'll never get his thoughts on these new experiments. However, the experiments are in (they have been for some time, actually, the awards are not necessarily for recent work), and the Quantum Mechanics approach looks like it's the right one now.

[socrat44]

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
Elegant experiments with entangled light have laid bare a profound mystery at the heart of reality
By Daniel Garisto on October 6, 2022
================...
Today, quantum information science is among the most vibrant and impactful subfields in all of physics.
It links Einstein’s general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics via the still-mysterious behavior of black holes.
#
The trouble with quantum mechanics was never that it made the wrong predictions—in fact,
the theory described the microscopic world splendidly well right from the start when physicists
devised it in the opening decades of the 20th century.
#
Under quantum mechanics, nature is not locally real—particles lack properties such
as spin up or spin down prior to measurement, and seemingly talk to one another no matter the distance.
#
Physicists skeptical of quantum mechanics proposed that there were “hidden variables,”
factors that existed in some imperceptible level of reality beneath the subatomic realm
that contained information about a particle’s future state. They hoped in hidden-variable theories,
nature could recover the local realism denied to it by quantum mechanics.
#
Einstein’s “attack” on quantum mechanics, however, did not catch on among physicists,
who by and large accepted quantum mechanics as is.
This was often less a thoughtful embrace of nonlocal reality, and more a desire to not think
too hard while doing physics—a head-in-the-sand sentiment later summarized by the physicist
David Mermin as a demand to “shut up and calculate.”
#
BELL’S TEST REACHES THE STARS
=============...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ZP2Xp9T5Xw#

[bobmax]

It seems to me that these discoveries are consistent with the idea of ​​Chaos as the origin of everything.

The indeterminate, which is then harnessed by us with probabilities, is actually a manifestation of the seething of Chaos in the depths of Being.

The Cosmos is a gift that is renewed every time we face the Chaos.

And this seems to me consistent with the photon for which everything happens in a single instant.

[socrat44]

It seems to me that these discoveries are consistent with the idea of ​​Chaos as the origin of everything.

The indeterminate, which is then harnessed by us with probabilities, is actually a manifestation of the seething of Chaos in the depths of Being.

The Cosmos is a gift that is renewed every time we face the Chaos.

And this seems to me consistent with the photon for which everything happens in a single instant.

Q: Why does everything happen "in a single instant" for a photon?
A: Because in Chaos everything (indefinite) is possible. . . .
Another reason is . . .?

[bobmax]

It seems to me that these discoveries are consistent with the idea of ​​Chaos as the origin of everything.

The indeterminate, which is then harnessed by us with probabilities, is actually a manifestation of the seething of Chaos in the depths of Being.

The Cosmos is a gift that is renewed every time we face the Chaos.

And this seems to me consistent with the photon for which everything happens in a single instant.

Q: Why does everything happen "in a single instant" for a photon?
A: Because in Chaos everything (indefinite) is possible. . . .
Another reason is . . .?

The main reason is the theory of special relativity. According to which our time does not exist for the photon.

We can interpret this as being the photon still at the beginning of all things, at the Big Bang, or as the simultaneous concentration of every event since the birth of the universe. As discussed with Flannel Jesus here:

In my opinion these two interpretations are not incompatible with each other.
Because there is no place where one is right and the other wrong.

There is no place!
Because the origin of everything is Chaos.

[socrat44]

The main reason is the theory of special relativity. According to which our time does not exist for the photon.

According to SRT time does not exist for the photon at constant speed (c)

We can interpret this as being the photon still at the beginning of all things, at the Big Bang,

Because the origin of everything is Chaos.

Big Bang or Chaos is the origin/beginning of everything . . . ?

[bobmax]

Because the origin of everything is Chaos.

Big Bang or Chaos is the origin/beginning of everything . . . ?

With the Big Bang, time and space are born.
I think it is really difficult to conceive this event.
Because we are faced with the limit of the conceivable.

In fact, it is natural to take for granted the existence of a "place" where the Big Bang takes place.
And a place is characterized above all by its own time.
While there is no place!
And therefore no time.

Imagining the existence of a place where the Big Bang occurs is an arbitrary invention not unlike a religious belief.

But if there is nowhere, then the Big Bang comes out of nowhere.

But it is not absolute nothingness, it is nothingness that is the source of infinite possibilities.
It is Chaos.

Chaos simmers in the depths of existence.
You can warn it at any time. It is in the same amazement of seeing that you are there now!

That our reality is the Cosmos is the impossible that becomes possible.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's just a shame that most people assume that you have to be a genius to understand quantum mechanics, with the stereotype of the mad professor with wild hair scribbling gobbledygook on a blackboard. It should be 'demystified' at school age because it gets right to the core of 'who' we are. A good maths teacher is worth their weight in gold. They can teach it to anyone. Knowledge is what gives children confidence, not patronising woke platitudes and 'dumbing down'.

[attofishpi]

It's just a shame that most people assume that you have to be a genius to understand quantum mechanics, with the stereotype of the mad professor with wild hair scribbling gobbledygook on a blackboard. It should be 'demystified' at school age because it gets right to the core of 'who' we are. A good maths teacher is worth their weight in gold. They can teach it to anyone. Knowledge is what gives children confidence, not patronising woke platitudes and 'dumbing down'.

Actually nobody understands QM as physicist Sean Carrol pointed out a couple of years ago.

[Age]

Because the origin of everything is Chaos.

Big Bang or Chaos is the origin/beginning of everything . . . ?

With the Big Bang, time and space are born.
I think it is really difficult to conceive this event.
Because we are faced with the limit of the conceivable.

YET 'you', "bobmax", are PROVING here that 'you' are NOT limited to conceive of things, which are ACTUALLY LOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY an IMPOSSIBILITY.

In fact, it is natural to take for granted the existence of a "place" where the Big Bang takes place.
And a place is characterized above all by its own time.
While there is no place!
And therefore no time.

Imagining the existence of a place where the Big Bang occurs is an arbitrary invention not unlike a religious belief.

But if there is nowhere, then the Big Bang comes out of nowhere.

But it is not absolute nothingness, it is nothingness that is the source of infinite possibilities.
It is Chaos.

Chaos simmers in the depths of existence.
You can warn it at any time. It is in the same amazement of seeing that you are there now!

That our reality is the Cosmos is the impossible that becomes possible.

Here is a GREAT example of one with Truly ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL views.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's just a shame that most people assume that you have to be a genius to understand quantum mechanics, with the stereotype of the mad professor with wild hair scribbling gobbledygook on a blackboard. It should be 'demystified' at school age because it gets right to the core of 'who' we are. A good maths teacher is worth their weight in gold. They can teach it to anyone. Knowledge is what gives children confidence, not patronising woke platitudes and 'dumbing down'.

Actually nobody understands QM as physicist Sean Carrol pointed out a couple of years ago.

I thought it was Richard Feynman who said that. It's also a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously those people who won the Nobel prize must understand SOMETHING about how it works, or at least have the tools to enable them to try to work out how it works...

[Age]

It's just a shame that most people assume that you have to be a genius to understand quantum mechanics, with the stereotype of the mad professor with wild hair scribbling gobbledygook on a blackboard. It should be 'demystified' at school age because it gets right to the core of 'who' we are. A good maths teacher is worth their weight in gold. They can teach it to anyone. Knowledge is what gives children confidence, not patronising woke platitudes and 'dumbing down'.

you come across here as though you understand quantum mechanics. If this is true, then will you explain to us what you understand about quantum mechanics?

If no, then is this because you REALLY do NOT understand quantum mechanics, or because you are NOT a good maths teacher, or because you think or BELIEVE that we could NOT understand what you do, or is it because of something else?

But if yes, then we await your explanation.

[Age]

It's just a shame that most people assume that you have to be a genius to understand quantum mechanics, with the stereotype of the mad professor with wild hair scribbling gobbledygook on a blackboard. It should be 'demystified' at school age because it gets right to the core of 'who' we are. A good maths teacher is worth their weight in gold. They can teach it to anyone. Knowledge is what gives children confidence, not patronising woke platitudes and 'dumbing down'.

Actually nobody understands QM as physicist Sean Carrol pointed out a couple of years ago.

I thought it was Richard Feynman who said that. It's also a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously those people who won the Nobel prize must understand SOMETHING about how it works, or at least have the tools to enable them to try to work out how it works...

Or, they could have, once more, just FOOLED and TRICKED "others" into BELIEVING that they KNOW 'things', or have WORKED OUT 'things', which they are, actually, REALLY UNABLE to FULLY EXPLAIN.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's just a shame that most people assume that you have to be a genius to understand quantum mechanics, with the stereotype of the mad professor with wild hair scribbling gobbledygook on a blackboard. It should be 'demystified' at school age because it gets right to the core of 'who' we are. A good maths teacher is worth their weight in gold. They can teach it to anyone. Knowledge is what gives children confidence, not patronising woke platitudes and 'dumbing down'.

you come across here as though you understand quantum mechanics. If this is true, then will you explain to us what you understand about quantum mechanics?

If no, then is this because you REALLY do NOT understand quantum mechanics, or because you are NOT a good maths teacher, or because you think or BELIEVE that we could NOT understand what you do, or is it because of something else?

But if yes, then we await your explanation.

No, I don't, but at least I have curiosity and enough understanding to know that with the right tools I could understand it a lot better than I do.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Actually nobody understands QM as physicist Sean Carrol pointed out a couple of years ago.

I thought it was Richard Feynman who said that. It's also a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously those people who won the Nobel prize must understand SOMETHING about how it works, or at least have the tools to enable them to try to work out how it works...

Or, they could have, once more, just FOOLED and TRICKED "others" into BELIEVING that they KNOW 'things', or have WORKED OUT 'things', which they are, actually, REALLY UNABLE to FULLY EXPLAIN.

At least they are making an effort and not just relying on 'big daddy in the sky did ____ (insert anything you don't understand)'. If you need an operation don't you just have to assume that the person performing the operation has the education and skills to know what he's doing? Or when you get on a plane, you assume that the people who built it knew what they were doing and that the plane won't fall apart in the air?
And now I have to assume that you are going to drone on like the unbelievable bore that you are and 'argue' for the sake of 'argument' about anything and everything. Do you take medication for your OCD?
You do realise that I'm only expressing MY opinion don't you?