Have we watched the same Sabine video? Delayed choice quantum eraser has nothing to do with interpretations of quantum mechanics, at least in so far as every interpretation (Copenhagen, de Broglie-Bohm, Many-Worlds) predicts the same outcome, which is also the one observed. The “solution” to DCQEE is a matter of simple accounting. And every single popular science DCQEE video GETS IT WRONG. The omission is so reckless it borders on malicious IMO.
For example, in that PBS video linked in this very thread, what does the host say at 7:07?
If we only look at photons whose twins end up at detectors C or D, we do see an interference pattern. It looks like the simple act of scrambling the which-way information retroactively [makes the interference pattern appear].
This is NOT WHAT THE PAPER SAYS OR SHOWS! On page 4 it is clear that figure R01 is the joint detection rate between screen and detector C-only! (Screen = D0, C = D1, D = D2, A = D3, B omitted). If you look at photons whose twins end up at detectors C inclusive-OR D, you DO NOT SEE AN INTERFERENCE PATTERN. (The paper doesn’t show that figure, you have to add figures R01 and R02 together yourself, and the peaks of one fill the troughs of the other because they are offset by phase π.) You get only 2 big peaks in total, just like in the standard which-way double slit experiment. The 2 peaks do NOT change retroactively no matter what choices you make! You NEED the information of whether detector C or D got activated to account which group (R01 or R02) to assign your detection event to! Only after you do the accounting can you see the two overlapping interference patterns within the data you already have and which itself does not change. If you consumed your twin photon at detector A or B to record which-way information, you cannot do the accounting! You only get one peak or the other (figure R03).
It’s a very tiny difference between lexical “OR” and inclusive “OR”, but in this case it makes ALL the difference. For years I was mystified by the DCQEE and how it exposes the ability of retrocausality, and turns out every single video simply lied to me.
Oh yeah for sure, I don’t mean at all to say that all questions have been answered, and even the answers that we do have get more and more vague as you move down the science purity ladder. If all questions were solved, we would be out of a job for one! But I choose to interpret OP’s question as “is there anything unknowable?”. That’s the question relevant to our world right now, and I often disagree with the world view implied by popular science - that the world is full of wonder but also mystery. The mystery is not fundamental, but rather an expression of our individual and collective ignorance. There are even plenty of questions, like the delayed-choice quantum eraser, that have already been solved, and yet they keep popping up as examples of the unknowable, one even sniped me in this very thread (hi there!). Then people say “you do not even know whether eating eggs is good for you” and therefore by implication we shouldn’t listen to scientists at all. In that sense, the proliferation of the idea of mystery has become dangerous. The answer to unanswered questions is not gnosticism, it is as you said “further research” 😄!
On the subject of Heisenberg Uncertainty - even there I blame popular science for having misled me! “You can’t know precise position and momentum at once” - sounds great! So mysterious! If you dig a little deeper, you might even get an explanation like that to measure the position of something you have to bombard it with particles (photons, electrons), and when it’s hit its velocity will change in a way you do not know. The smaller that something is, and the more you bombard it to get more precise position, the more uncertainty you will get.
All misleading! It was not until having taken an actual physics class where I learned how to calculate HU that I realized that not only is HU the result of simple mathematics, but that it also incidentally solves the thousands-years-old Zeno Paradox almost as a side lemma - a really cool fact that I was taught nowhere before!
Basically the wavefunction is the only thing that exists. The function for a single particle is a value assigned to every point in space, the values can be complex numbers, and the Schroedinger equation defines how the values change over time, depending on their nearby values in the now. That function is the particle’s position (or rather its square absolute magnitude) - if it is non-zero at more than one point we say that the particle is present in two places at once. What is the particle’s velocity? In computer games, each object has a value for a position and a value for a velocity. In quantum mechanics, there is no second value for velocity. The wavefunction is all that exists. To get a number that you can interpret as the velocity, you need to take the Fourier transform of the position function. And you don’t get one number out, you get a spectrum.
In one dimension, what is the Fourier transform of the delta function (a particle with exactly one position)? It is a constant function that is non-zero everywhere! (More precisely it is a corkscrew in the complex values, where the angle rotates around but magnitude remains the same). A particle with one position has every possible momentum at once! What is the Fourier transform of a complex-valued corkscrew? A delta function! Only a particle that is present everywhere at once can be said to have a precise momentum! The chirality of the particle’s corkscrew position function determines whether it is moving to the left or to the right. Zeno could not have known! Even if you look at an infinitesmall instant of time, the arrow’s speed and direction is already well-defined, encoded it that arrow’s instantaneous position function!
If you try imagine a function that minimizes uncertainty in both position and momentum at once, you end up with a wavepacket - a normal(?)-distribution-shaped curve peak that is equally minimally wide in both position and momentum space. If it were any narrower in one, it would be way wider in the other. That width squared is precisely the minimum possible value of Heisenberg Uncertainty in that famous Δx*Δp >= ħ/2 equation. It wasn’t ever about bombardment at all! It was just a mathematical consequence of using Fourier transforms.
No, physics is never vague. Some problems are currently computationally intractable beyond a specific level of accuracy (like predicting the weather more than 2 weeks out), and some questions we do not know answers yet but expect to find answers to in the future (like why did the big bang happen). But there is never an element of the mysterious or spiritual or “man can never know”.
Popular science physics often gets mysterious, but that is a failure of popularization. Like the observer effect in quantum physics, which is often depicted as a literal eyeball watching the photons go through a double slit (?!). This may cause a naive viewer to mistakenly start thinking there is something special or unique about the human eyeball and the human consciousness that physics cannot explain. It gets even worse - one of the most popular double slit videos on youtube for example is “Dr. Quantum explains the double slit experiment” (not even gonna link it) which is not only laughably misleading, but upon closer examination was produced by a literal UFO cult, and they surreptitiously used the video to funnel more members.
Or the “delayed choice quantum eraser experiment” which confounded me for years (“What’s that? I personally can make a choice now that retroactively changes events that have already happened in the past? I have magical time powers?”), until I grew tired of being bamboozled by all its popular science depictions and dug up the actual original research paper on which it is based. Surprise! Having read the paper I have now understood exactly how the experiment works and why the result is sensible and not mysterious at all and that I don’t have magical powers. Sabine Hossenfelder video on youtube debunking the delayed-choice quantum eraser was the first and so far one of only two videos I have seen in the years since that have also used the actual paper. This has immediately made me respect her, regardless of all the controversy she has accumulated before or since.
The best we can achieve in this thought experiment is to see through a telescope some faraway alien set up a bomb with a countdown timer that will surely blow up at a specific time in the future and destroy the universe, but which we’ll never see count down to zero or explode. If we saw it reach zero it would of course kill us in the same instant as we see it, because by the rules of the thought experiment the explosion travels at the speed of light. But if the alien is far away and the countdown is long enough, the accelerating expansion of the universe due to dark energy will carry it outside of our cosmic event horizon before it explodes.
Using the cosmic comoving distance definition and the cosmology calculator, the last scattering surface of the Cosmic Microwave Background for example is 45.5 GLy away. Its light was emitted 13.7 GY ago (400kY after the Big Bang) at redshift 1100z. I was told that due to accelerating expansion, we will never see galaxies further than 63 GLy away (we don’t see them yet, the matter that we’ll see form them is beyond the CMB sphere for us at present), and if we hopped onto a lightspeed spaceship right now, we can never reach galaxies beyond 17 GLy comoving distance.
So for example if we looked at a galaxy at redshift 3z which is 21 GLy away, and whose light took 11.5 GY to reach us, and saw the alien set up the bomb timer to 11.49 GY, we know that the bomb must have surely exploded by now, but also know that we are safe because it’s far enough away and we’ll never see it explode, even in the infinite future.
Similarly, we can relish the tiny shred of joy in the knowledge that if we did fuck up something really major, like creating a false vacuum bubble in the LHC or whatever, we can never destroy more of the universe than the 17 GLy bubble around us.
You are right! People often say “what if the sun blew up” in the context of gravity speed vs. light speed thought experiments, but what they really mean is shorthand for what if the entire sun was somehow deleted in a single instant with no trace. But in reality, “blowing up” the sun is much different than “deleting” it and leaves its entire mass behind, just spread around more.
There is even a theorem in general relativity that proves that massenergy cannot be deleted, invalidating a whole swath of such thought experiments. Forgot what it’s called though.
This is the way! It helps me to imagine what would it look like if the atmosphere consisted of a single nitrogen molecule. You place it on the ground but the ground has temperature (is warm) so your one molecule gets launched up into the vacuum on a parabolic trajectory at 500 m/son average. If it launched at 45° it would reach 6km up and fall down, at 90° - 12km up - and that’s on average. Some would get launched faster and higher (following the long tail of the Boltzmann distribution), and hydrogen and helium even faster still because they are lighter. A few hydrogen molecules would be launched at speed above 11km/s, which is above Earth’s escape velocity, so they would escape and never fall down.
When you have many air molecules, they hit each other on the way up (and down), but because their collisions must be perfectly elastic, mathematically it works out that the overall velocities are preserved. So when your one nitrogen molecule gets launched up but on its way hits another identical molecule, you can think of them equivalently as passing through each other without colliding at all. (Yes, mathematically they can also scatter in some other random directions, but the important part is that your original molecule is equally likely to be boosted further upwards as opposed to impeded.)
The end result is that majority of the atmosphere stays below 12km, density goes down as you go up though never quite reaching zero, and hydrogen and helium continuously escape to space to the point none are left.
Your skepticism is excessively cautious 😁. You can work around precision limits perfectly fine as long as you are aware they exist there. Multiplying your epsilon and then dividing later is a legitimate strategy, since every function is linear on a small enough scale! You can even declare that ln(1+x) ~= x and skip the logarithm calculation entirely. Using some random full precision calculator I get:
<span style="color:#323232;">ln(1+x) ~= x
</span><span style="color:#323232;">6.7/74e15 = 9.0540540...e-17
</span>
You are worried about differences in the final answer of less than 1 part in a million! I try to do my example calculations in 3 significant figures, so that’s not even a blip in the intermediate roundoffs.
Good point! Freon (CFC-12, with 10800x warming potential of CO2) has thankfully been banned by Montreal Protocol of 1987, and HCFC-22 (5280x) is being phased out. We are using what now, HFC-32 at 2430x? How much refrigerant does an AC contain, about a mole? I’ve been taught that refrigerant should normally never leak throughout the lifetime of the appliance (technicians are even prohibited from “recharging” refrigerant without identifying and fixing the point of the leak first) and that all gas must be recovered after end-of-life, but we can’t be sure that’s really what happens every time.
In that case leaking 1 mole of HFC-32 would be equivalent to… running the 1kW AC for 360 hours?
Numpy won’t tell me what ln(74000000000000006.7/74000000000000000).
Ran into exactly this problem for individual calculation 😆. Which is also why I multiplied by 8 billion and divided in the end - make the calculator behave. ln is linear enough around 1±epsilon to allow this.
implies that the radiative forcing from CO2 is much greater than the energy to produce the CO2 in the first place
That’s what I wanted to find out and it does appear to look exactly that way. Makes sense in retrospect since the radiative forcing is separate from the energy content of CO2 itself, same way as a greenhouse gets hot for no energy expended on its own.
Yes, ideally all AC will be running off solar, but that’s not the case at the moment. My state has thankfully closed its last coal powerplant, but also shut down one of its nuclear plants, using gas to replace both. We are now running at 50% gas 20% nuclear 20% hydro and 10% wind/solar. Which is why I wanted to focus on methane in this specific calculation: when deciding “is it OK for me to run the AC now, or is the longterm global heating side-effect too great?” natural gas is what is relevant to me.
How “great” that is is precisely the question here, and apparently it’s 2.2x. If you are really a stickler for exact real-life electricity production piechart distribution, multiply that by 50% gas and call it 1.1x. That is, for every year that I run my 1kW AC, that’s as if I am airdropping a 1.1kW heater to a random location on Earth that will heat it up at 1.1kW forever. 10 years = 11 random heaters. 8 billion people = 88 billion random heaters. Is that “too great”? I dunno.
Winter heating is its own problem, but at least cold can always be dealt with by more insulation and clothing. Heat can literally make whole areas of Earth unsurvivable without electrical cooling. Would I rather feel more comfortable now or choose to be able to survive without mechanical aids later?
Your situation reminded me of the way IMDB sorts movies by rating, even though different movies may receive vastly different total number of votes. They use something called a credibility formula which is apparently a Bayesian statistics way of doing it, unlike the frequentist statistics with p-values and null hypotheses that you are looking for atm.