What's the deal with Quantum Superpostions?

>than what should be possible due to density of of shit in the way for enough photons to reach it?
I don't know either, I'm not a biologist. Photosynthesis is probably not completely understood at this point in time.
>I don't see why a photon would only have a short (time?) to reach the core. Why can't it bounce around for as long as it would like to before reaching it?
They would get dispersed, i.e. they bounce of in the wrong direction

To clarify my previous post:
I think you know what Schrödinger's cat is. Let's say you observe him alive, then the guy from the video would claim that he has been alive all along and that the act of observing him alive at the present has also made him alive when it wasn't observed. I think the Bell inequalities disprove it although I'm not entirely sure. Before the cat is observed he is in a superposition so he is both at the same time. This isn't some philosophical statement this is physical reality.

ok OP...no pro.... guy whose put a few hundred hours into understanding QM

Superposition is not a questionable or fringe idea. Its probably the most fundamental and established aspect of QM, and no modern physicist would even debate it. There is established, repeatable, experimental data that shows every time, that on the quantum level, superposition is real.
It is not fuzzy. If you really want to see how real, search "mach zender inferometer" don't let the name scare you... its just a clear system in which we can observe superposition. Superposition is the most important distinguishing factor in describing quantum physical states, as opposed to classical physical states. You incorporate superposition in solving basic quantum equations.

in summation... its friggin real... crazy, huh?

>photo synthesis and quantum superpostion

A phenomenon known as quantum walk increases the efficiency.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Efficiency

still me.... lets forget about shrodinger's cat... it was never designed as a way to understand QM and it just confuses people. It was thought of as a way to describe just how strange the reality of the quantum world is when the same effects are applied to the macro world

Yes, I know. Sci-fi reality but reality non the less.

Totally fucks up that old saying about a tree in the woods.

Hippy statement inc: When the whole observing is a key part of QSP. Is that implying that consciousness is affecting physical reality with observation? Or am I getting this completely wrong?

>Is that implying that consciousness is affecting physical reality with observation?
It seems like it but no one knows

>the singularity
Let's not get carried away.
>plants are engaged in a kind of miracle
Now he's done it.
>statement of efficiency
Photosynthesis is not actually that efficient, there's just a shit ton of energy coming out of the sun. Solar panels are way more efficient in terms of energy conversion.
>superposition
from what I've seen in only a few biophysics seminars, some photon absorption processes involve exciting a delocalized electron which can find its way to the chemical energy storing/reserve site pretty efficiently. It's not really the photons which have any superposition property or particularly interesting experience, it's the particle they excite which seems to utilize some quantum freedom to eventually store energy.

Video was already a bit overly preachy/trying to be inspiring, but got insufferable at about 4:40 or so when the music changed and the clips get reused to hell and back.

Super position is not a fuzzy subject and is empirical. I'm not sure biologists actually learn the physical process, as the chemical conversion doesn't rely on the physical mechanism for photon absorption. Physicists don't typically learn the precise mechanism enough to clarify if he's just bullshitting or not.

My guess: he read a wikipedia article or had a friend tell him and doesn't actually understand the words he's saying. The explanation about time travel or whatever is nonsense.

Please don't do this

Yea thats totally awesome.

Sometimes I wonder if I would have chosen a life of studies instead of drug addiction.

I'll check out the inferometer thing, I cannot garantuee you that I will get it though :p

your not getting it wrong... lets say, for simplicity, that a photon can be in one place (a) or another (b). before an observation is made, the position is calculated as if the photon is in both places simultaneously... after the observation, the photon is in the one place (a or b),

>Please don't do this.

Unless my demands are being met, I will. #freepalestine

And if NSA just logged that. It was a joke. Get a life nerds.

ok, I smell too much like cigarretes to get into bed with the wife right now, so i'll try to put the inferometer thing in a nutshell. Lets say you have two paths that a single photon can take. You have sensors at the end of the two paths to see which way it went, Lets also say the paths cross at least once. To determine the chances of the photon taking either path, in QM, you would calculate the odds as if the single photon took both paths at the same time. Remember that these particles act like waves in some ways, so in some situations, the waves would interfere just like waves meeting in water.
The ONLY way to predict how often one path would be taken as opposed to the other, is to use superposition, and calculate the path of the photon as if it traveled both paths at the same time. The single photon would interfere with itself in "potentia: and only after the measurement (which sensor is activated) could we say that it traveled the one path. Until then, it traveled both at the same time, even though this seems to make no sense.

the basics of qm are understandable to any reasonable person if they look into the subject. Don't be put off by the fedoras if you have an interest

and this superposition is not a "theory" this kind of experiment has been carried out and is established in science

>straight up quantum woo thread
Man it's been a while.
No OP we don't know "very little" of QM, it's a field that's been finished and closed for about 60 years. Only the interpretation of quantum mechanics is still being debated, and it's more of a philosophy field than a physics one, since most of it isn't physically testable.

Superposition isn't like "being multiplied", the total wave function amplitude is always the same.

No you don't need a consciousness to collapse wave functions, nor can you "refuse to observe" some photon scattering to prevent collapse. Collapse happens through the physical process of decoherence.

He is actually right about interpreting other paths as being "removed" in the past, it's called a consistent history. It's the simplest way to interprete things like the quantum eraser experiment.

What you have to keep in mind is there is a difference between the formalism and the "concrete" physical reality. Only observables can be measured. A quantum wavefunction isn't an observable, so you can't ever see a superposition. What that implies is you can say a lot of weird or counter-intuitive things about what happens inside the formalism, like time travelling wave function collapse or whatnot, the only thing that matters is that your predictions for observables end up matching experimental results.
There are dozens of ways to interprete quantum physics and they are all equally physically accurate.

t. PhD in solid state physics.

>He is actually right about interpreting other paths as being "removed" in the past, it's called a consistent history.
How can the present affect the past

Yea thanks buddy, that was a good explanation.

Easy there cowboy, I wasn't insulting - merely setting the bar for the discourse.

As for the rest of your post, thanks for contributing. Are you hinting that people have observed a problem and are basically maching whatever equations at it that works?

"We observed this problem, and this trippy mathematical explanation arrives at the end result. Part from doing that, it might have nothing to do with actual reality."

If some musical group stayed together instead of splitting up they would have made different music before doing so. Backward causation meme.

>"We observed this problem, and this trippy mathematical explanation arrives at the end result. Part from doing that, it might have nothing to do with actual reality."

tfw i went to a wrong field and cant be a quantum memer

youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs

OP here.

Btw, this was my first encounter with /sci

You guys are allright.

ok, despite the inclusion of "PhD" in this post, .... guy's kinda wrong

>Superposition isn't like "being multiplied", the total wave function amplitude is always the same.
its actually a function of addition. if two exclusive quantum states, A and B are possible in a system, you calculate the probable observed state as A + B. the total wave function amplitude is not always the same, as the wave functions of the two states interfere. The kinda right thing he says is that they don't multiply and magically become larger phenomena (if there are a million possible states, you won't end up with some strangely huge quantum object, because the values are fractional)
>A quantum wavefunction isn't an observable, so you can't ever see a superposition.
just wrong... double slit experiment... one of the most basic and fundamental experiments in QM shows it pretty clearly. We cant just look at an individual particle's wave aspect with some crazy kind of microscope, if thats what you mean... but the wave function is observable in many experiments.

Total energy and probability amplitude remain the same, yes I could have been more exact.

>just wrong... double slit experiment... one of the most basic and fundamental experiments in QM shows it pretty clearly. We cant just look at an individual particle's wave aspect with some crazy kind of microscope, if thats what you mean... but the wave function is observable in many experiments.
No, you literally can't measure a superposition, you can statistically infer it from a large number of experiments.
It is impossible to answer the question "is that specific photon in a superposition of states"

experiments have been done on those direction (RNG & double slit), not all convinced. need more data to scrutinize.

someone actually claimed that they were able "see" the wavefunction. not sure where I read it though, I think it's either new scientist or in nature.

wavefunction gets real
newscientist.com/article/dn26893-wave-function-gets-real-in-quantum-experiment/

That's just another experiment against hidden variable, they don't claim to see the wavefunction.

Indeed if you could do so, it would falsify quantum mechanics, not confirm them, as wavefunctions are not observables in QM.

So which is more crazy, consciousness affects the outcome of the universe, or, all possible histories and futures are true, and coexist?

Transworld causation mustn't happen

shut up and calculate, craziness is undefined.

The latter. "All possible consistent histories" isn't actually a monstruous set like it appears at first because muh decoherence.

>all possible
Determinism my friend

>It is impossible to answer the question "is that specific photon in a superposition of states"

well, I guess so because when you look, its not. But you can't just throw away the whole idea for this reason. If you do, your throwing out all of QM which would be fine if it wasn't an accurate (and the only) system in place for understanding quantum systems. In certain experiments involving complete negative interference, the outcome is one certain way 100% of the time due to superposition. It will work out that way the first, and every successive time. Yes, you cant look and see the photon interfering with itself in potentia, I get it, but there is really no debate... it is not only our best, but our only way of analyzing such systems.

>But you can't just throw away the whole idea for this reason.
Uh obviously... why are you telling me this? It doesn't change the fact that wavefunctions are not observables. Understanding the difference is pretty fundamental to QM.
If wavefunctions were observables, if you could answer the question "is that photon wavefunction collapsed", we would communicate FTL.

The description sounds vaguely like the Quantum Zeno effect, but that works in the opposite direction; interacting with a system to watch for something to happen makes it less likely to happen. There are interpretations of QM that invoke the future acting on the past, but they are experimentally indistinguishable from other interpretations that don't invoke this, and they certainly don't allow for choosing an outcome in the future forcing the past to conform to that outcome. This video seems to be peddling the classic woo-woo claim that you can affect the outcome of an observation by wanting it to turn out a certain way, and that's just not how it works. Verdict: Bullshit.

>A phenomenon known as quantum walk increases the efficiency of the energy transport of light significantly. In the photosynthetic cell of an algae, bacterium, or plant, there are light-sensitive molecules called chromophores arranged in an antenna-shaped structure named a photocomplex. When a photon is absorbed by a chromophore, it is converted into a quasiparticle referred to as an exciton, which jumps from chromophore to chromophore towards the reaction center of the photocomplex, a collection of molecules that traps its energy in a chemical form that makes it accessible for the cell's metabolism. The exciton's wave properties enable it to cover a wider area and try out several possible paths simultaneously, allowing it to instantaneously "choose" the most efficient route, where it will have the highest probability of arriving at its destination in the minimum possible time. Because that quantum walking takes place at temperatures far higher than quantum phenomena usually occur, it is only possible over very short distances, due to obstacles in the form of destructive interference that come into play. These obstacles cause the particle to lose its wave properties for an instant before it regains them once again after it is freed from its locked position through a classic "hop". The movement of the electron towards the photo center is therefore covered in a series of conventional hops and quantum walks.

Okay, this is clearly what they're referencing in the video. And certainly if there was something observing the position of the exciton, the quantum walk would turn into a less efficient classical walk. But the video's description where what is being not observed is whether or not the particle is absorbed and thus not making it to its destination is very wrong. What is not being observed is the location of the particle.

>Uh obviously... why are you telling me this?
I got the impression that you were being dismissive of superposition as a just possible interpretation of data. I felt compelled to point out that it is not only our only consistent interpretation of such data, but one that explains such data completely and to an accurate, calculatable degree .
Wave properties of quantum objects are not directly observable, but the effects of such properties can be observed crystal clear. Probably clearest and most simply observed in the double slit experiment. The wave function collapses upon observation, so you most definitely can answer that question in such cases. How the fuck would this lead to faster than light communication?

Why do you guys always waver between the two extremes? On one hand you've got complete plebs spouting outright falsehoods like "consciousness causes collapse" and other woo woo shite, and then you have strict positivists who shut up and calculate and tell others to do the same, or worse, claim that there are no peculiarities in quantum mechanics worth discussing. The simple truth is that the formalism of QM is well understood, it is constantly used to derive experimental results predicted by the theory. But the question of what the world must be like for QM to be true, what it says about nature and what an understanding of its counter intuitive properties may imply are all genuine philosophical questions that deserve serious and focused debate

>t. PhD in solid state physics
oh boy, I hope you are just trolling

the funny thing is... I got into qm a while ago and I'm rusty. I said something totally wrong in one of my responses to this guy and thought... ah fuck now he's gonna rightly slay me
.... he didn't even notice

yeah... thats the maddening thing. the crazy part is that it goes well beyond internet threads like this... goes all the way up as far as I can tell. those who make any attempt at talking about what the discoveries of QM imply are automatically ostricized. its like there is some unwritten rule that you can get into and work with qm as long as you leave it in its place and don't think about how crazy and profound it is

you are not alone

>course in solid state physics
>btw vortices lol magic
man i hate this shit

How come the only possible outcome is success?

The narrator makes it sound like if the plant refuses to "observe" the failed particles sooner or later one is bound to hit the core. I don't see how it can happen like that - it sounds one way.

can anyone explain to a simpleton?

>oh boy, I hope you are just trolling
Address a point if you disagree. I'd love to see what I said that was wrong.

What did you say in that I didn't address? That you summed up functions instead of their norm?

Understanding the formalism is the first step to understanding the interpretations.

>Wave properties of quantum objects are not directly observable
"Directly observable", what does that mean?
I'm under the impression that you think I'm using "observable" in some sort of common sense meaning. An observable is an operator, it is well defined in quantum mechanics and it is not the same thing as a wave function.

>The wave function collapses upon observation, so you most definitely can answer that question in such cases.
Duh no shit if you collapse the wavefunction you can say it has collapsed. That's not what measuring it would be.
>How the fuck would this lead to faster than light communication?
Because then you would take two intricated particles in a superposition, collapse one's wave function, which will collapse the other through EPR effect, and then by measurement on that one you could say the other has been acted upon, thus sending a meaningful signal faster than light.

So in theory if you had thousands of entangled particles could you send a binary message based on which particles have been observed and which have not?

If you could observe superposition, yes. But an integral part of quantum mechanics is that you can only observe observables, and "being in a superposition" isn't an observable.

Then how do you know it's already been observed if by observing it you collapse the superposition?

You can't, that's my point.

...

But then when people refer to quantum teleportation as being used for FTL communication, how can you communicate anything if you collapse the waveform on interaction, how do you know if it was you who collapsed it or the other end?

>collapse one's wave function, which will collapse the other through EPR effect, and then by measurement on that one you could say the other has been acted upon, thus sending a meaningful signal faster than light.

No, not really. Collapsing a wave function doesn't set off a big ringing alarm. If you have two entangled particles, seperated by some large distance, and one is measured, the person with particle two (who is not you) does not know the particle has been measured unless you send a message to the other person saying what you measured the first particle to be.

You may have information, but your partner doesn't until you send him a speed of light message of some kind.

>But then when people refer to quantum teleportation as being used for FTL communication
They are wrong, it doesn't allow you to communicate.

I think you should read the chain of answers before you write a reply, but really that's just my opinion.

Why do memes claim it can be used for FTL communication if it's completely useless for it?

Can you argument your position? Maybe you're wrong about something, you know.

Because they are communist and Chinese.

>are all genuine philosophical questions that deserve serious and focused debate

...

>What did you say in (You) that I didn't address? That you summed up functions instead of their norm?
... just this
>its actually a function of addition. if two exclusive quantum states, A and B are possible in a system, you calculate the probable observed state as A + B.
I left out the coefficients, so multiplication and addition are used describing the superimposed quantum state so the state would be cA + cB, where the squares of the coefficients equals 1. without the coefficients, you'd never get to 1
... but fuck it, it was kinda dickish for me to criticize you for not pointing out my kinda overlookable fuck up.

reading back, we aren't really all that far apart. My problem was (is) that you use strict formalism to take the profundity out of the things QM has revealed. Things that are, in fact profound.
I get it, you probably want to counter some of the crazy that pops up around QM. Yes, formally speaking wave functions are not an observable, but this by no means puts superposition on par with other "non observables" There is a huge gradient here. were not talking about many worlds theory here. Yes, QM involves "dozens" of unproven interpretations, but in the specific area of superposition, we're talking about the only way we have of describing quantum states. It is the most important of the few mathematical differences in solving quantum as opposed to classical equations, and no quantum physicist would refuse to do this part of the math

In short: superposition is a term to describe a system that can end up in many possible states. Quantum mechanics teaches us that in fact nothing exists before interaction. Even something like completely free particle is an unknown. So superposition is an idea.

So what classifies as interaction? Surely all particles are constantly interacting with each other so how can anything ever be in a superposition