6 comments

  • namanyayg7 hours ago
    We intuitively think in particles and see a world of billiard balls colliding with one another.<p>But actually everything is merely waves and fields.<p>There&#x27;s going to be a time where humans finally reconcile the quantum with the newtonian -- and I can&#x27;t wait for that day
    • canjobear5 hours ago
      There&#x27;s no problem reconciling the quantum with the Newtonian. Quantum mechanics recovers Newtonian mechanics in the appropriate limit. The problem is reconciling the quantum and the Einsteinian.
      • sosodev5 hours ago
        But there’s no quantum explanation of gravity, right?
        • tsimionescu1 hour ago
          Actually, Newtonian gravity can be added to QM and work perfectly well. It&#x27;s GR gravity that doesn&#x27;t work with QM, especially if you try to model very high curvature like you&#x27;d get near a black hole.
          • rhdunn1 hour ago
            Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED) is the application of Special Relativity (non-accelerating frames of reference, i.e. moving at a constant speed) to Electromagnetism. Thus, the issue is with applying accelerating frames of reference (the General in GR) to QM.
        • lmpdev5 hours ago
          At this point we have several<p>They’re all largely untestable though<p>String theory, LQG, half a dozen others
        • fnordpiglet2 hours ago
          There’s no explanation of gravity, quantum or no. There are merely descriptions.
          • isolli1 hour ago
            Isn&#x27;t everything descriptions, in the end, aka models? Turtles all the way down...
        • arthurcolle5 hours ago
          Classified
    • hliyan5 hours ago
      I think neither analogy is correct. We&#x27;re using macro metaphors (real world things at human time and spatial scales) to explain microscopic phenomena that may not correspond to anything that we find familiar.
      • setopt32 minutes ago
        I agree with this. As a physicist, I believe the most accurate resolution is to say that «quantum fields» and «quantum particles» describe neither waves (in the sense of e.g. water or acoustic waves) nor particles (in the sense of marbles and billiard balls), but a third thing that simply has some things in common with both classical waves and classical particles. The analogies are useful for understanding that third thing, but if you believe the analogies too literally, then you’ll make mistakes.
    • jagged-chisel6 hours ago
      That we&#x27;re just collections of wave interference is wild.
      • isolli1 hour ago
        We&#x27;re built on so many layers of emergence, it&#x27;s wild!<p>quantum particles =&gt; atoms =&gt; chemistry =&gt; biochemistry =&gt; cellular life =&gt; multi-cellular life =&gt; intelligence
    • chadcmulligan3 hours ago
      I don&#x27;t have the math, but doesn&#x27;t quantum field theory say this?
    • gethly1 hour ago
      Maybe think of it as binary(particles) vs analog(waves).
    • thaumasiotes7 hours ago
      &gt; But actually everything is merely waves and fields.<p>The two-slit experiment says otherwise.
      • farrelle252 hours ago
        Another interpretation of the double-slit posits a guiding &#x27;Pilot Wave&#x27; separate from physical particles... aka DeBroglie-Bohm Theory or Bohmian Mechanics.<p>Apparently it&#x27;s not popular among professional physicsts though John Bell investigated it a bit. Einstein had some unpublished notes in the 1920s about a &quot;Gespensterfeld&quot; (ghost field) that guided particles.<p>Born was influenced by this &#x27;Ghost field&#x27; idea when he published his famous interpretation of the &#x27;Wave Function&#x27; |Ψ|^2 as a probability rather than a physical field.<p>More info: Nonlocal and local ghost fields in quantum correlations. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;quant-ph&#x2F;9502017" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;quant-ph&#x2F;9502017</a>
        • rhdunn1 hour ago
          Veritasium did a video on this [1] with a surface of oil to replicate the effect on a petri dish.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ</a>
        • mock-possum1 hour ago
          Pilot wave is still my favorite - I don’t really believe it, but I like the image
      • jasonwatkinspdx4 hours ago
        It does not. It shows that individual photons self interfere, so they cannot be idealized particles.
      • FloorEgg7 hours ago
        The way I&#x27;ve always thought of this is there are potentials for interactions and interactions.<p>Interactions act like point particles and potentials for interactions act like waves.<p>Arguing over the distinction is a bit like debating whether people are the things they do, or the thing that does things. There is some philosophical discussion to be had, but for the most part it doesn&#x27;t really matter.
      • dcl4 hours ago
        Are you getting confused with the photoelectric effect experiment?
      • gucci-on-fleek7 hours ago
        Hmm? The double slit experiment definitely shows that particles are waves—weird quantum waves, but still waves.
        • thaumasiotes55 minutes ago
          The two-slit experiment shows that photons behave like waves if you aren&#x27;t looking at them, <i>and</i> that they fail to behave like waves if you are.
        • fragmede6 hours ago
          what happens when you only send a single photon down the line though?
          • bobbylarrybobby6 hours ago
            It still interferes with itself, and that interference affects the pattern of detections. It&#x27;s as if the photon were a wave right up until the moment of detection, at which points it&#x27;s forced to “particalize” and pick a spot to be located at — but it&#x27;s the amplitude of the wave it was just before detection that determines where on the detection screen the photon is likely to show up. If you send many photons through one at a time, the detections (each just a point on the screen) will fill out the expected double slit pattern.
          • mpyne6 hours ago
            It&#x27;s worth reading about, but it&#x27;s kind of wave-like even then: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Double-slit_experiment#Interference_from_individual_particles" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Double-slit_experiment#Interfe...</a><p>It would be going too far to say it&#x27;s only a wave though. It&#x27;s both wave and particle.
            • binary1326 hours ago
              The way I read GGP was as contradicting the assertion that everything is just waves and not at all particles.
          • ggm5 hours ago
            I&#x27;ve always wondered what degree of confidence exists amongst the cogniscenti that a single photon event happened. I tend to think the criteria of measurement here would suggest the most likely outcome was a shitload more than 1 photon, and that all the &quot;but we measured we can see one only&quot; measurements are themselvs hedged by a bunch of belief.<p>That said, I do like the single photon experiment, when it&#x27;s more than a thought experiment.
          • gucci-on-fleek4 hours ago
            As the other comments have already mentioned, it interferes with itself, so you still observe the same interference patterns [0] [1]. Which admittedly seems impossible at first, but so does the rest of quantum physics.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu&#x2F;III_01.html#Ch1-S5" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu&#x2F;III_01.html#Ch1-S5</a><p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Electrons_behaving_as_waves_and_particles" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#...</a>
          • danparsonson4 hours ago
            It&#x27;s a wave of probability, that interferes through the slits and then collapses into a probability of one somewhere along the wavefront at the point of detection. Whatever that means :-)
          • rolph6 hours ago
            do it once, it looks like one particle.<p>repeat the single photon launch many times, and you see a wavelike distribution of photon strikes
  • magphys7 hours ago
    &gt; To quantify this influence, the team applied their model to Terbium Gallium Garnet (TGG), a crystal widely used to measure the Faraday effect. They found that the magnetic field of light accounts for about 17% of the observed rotation at visible wavelengths and up to 70% in the infrared range.<p>Nearly 20% seems already significant, but 70%?! that&#x27;s massive.
    • gsf_emergency_65 hours ago
      Seems to be a minor typo . Paper:<p>&gt;<i>17.5% of the measured value for Terbium-Gallium-Garnet (TGG) at 800 nm, and up to 75% at 1.3 µm.</i><p>Here&#x27;s what the crystal looks like<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.photonchinaa.com&#x2F;tgg-terbium-gallium-garnet&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.photonchinaa.com&#x2F;tgg-terbium-gallium-garnet&#x2F;</a><p>Here&#x27;s transmission plot (UV-IR)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.samaterials.com&#x2F;terbium-gallium-garnet-crystal.html#:~:text=Terbium%20Gallium%20Garnet%20Crystal%20Transmission%20Curve" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.samaterials.com&#x2F;terbium-gallium-garnet-crystal.h...</a><p>Note there&#x27;s almost no effect on transmission<p>Relevant? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dspace.mit.edu&#x2F;handle&#x2F;1721.1&#x2F;51819" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dspace.mit.edu&#x2F;handle&#x2F;1721.1&#x2F;51819</a>
    • nrhrjrjrjtntbt6 hours ago
      Nice to see a graph of % magnetic priportion and log wavelength going from radio to gamma.
    • CamperBob26 hours ago
      How did no one notice that before, and what else have they (we) missed?
      • gsf_emergency_65 hours ago
        If I&#x27;d to guess: all that exp. characterization to-date has revealed no anomaly (See my other comment)<p>This team might have looked at bandstructure. or not (they didn&#x27;t say, &amp; I&#x27;d guess not)
  • ghostpepper5 hours ago
    Obviously hindsight is 20&#x2F;20 but this sentiment just reeks with comical levels of hubris<p>&gt; However, the new research demonstrates that the magnetic field of light, long thought irrelevant,
  • agentifysh2 hours ago
    so what exciting applications can we see from this?
    • geocar2 hours ago
      We will put a box containing a little light and a magnet into every home and people will lose their goddamned minds looking at it every day
  • dmead6 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • idiotsecant6 hours ago
      People in countries you don&#x27;t like can still do valid science.
  • plaguna5 hours ago
    But do they understand how magnets work?