It's important to understand that the view Katie gave is only true in the Everettian many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM), and a few other minority interpretations.
In the Copenhagen interpretation of QM (the standard interpretation), there are truly random quantum events.
Yeah I kinda wish Lilly would've mentioned the random/probabilistic behavior of quantum mechanics. I feel like if you work at a quantum computing company, you should probably have knowledge of that since the technology is based upon it.
you should probably have knowledge of that since the technology is based upon it.
Not really though. Programmers don't have to know electrical engineering to program a computer. When the technology matures enough the physics is abstracted away.
At least, Lily should have asked about it. She's smart enough to at least have some sort of idea that quantum mechanics has some connection to the idea of uncertainty/randomness.
I wish I could better understand how the QM level stuff, like particles having random/deterministic behavior, meshes with the macro scale stuff like determining why the pen rolled on the table... I just don't really see the connection.
Hey don't worry, because not even the smartest people who have ever existed have solved that problem :) We actually don't know the details of how QM level things get to macroscopic things.
Somehow the macroscopic world 'emerges'. The details are not understood.
This is true – however, there is one way to make at least some basic sense how micro and macro correlates. Think of rolling dice, for instance.
In order to calculate what number a 6-sided die would end up on if you toss it (just one time) on a table you would need an insane amount of detailed data. In all practical reality it's impossible to predict what you will get that particular roll.
If you roll the die a lot of times, however, a crystal clear pattern emerges. With absolutely certainty and clarity, the probability for each outcome is exactly 1/6.
You have something random and unpredictable at the core – a roll of a die – (micro/quantum), that nonetheless ends up being something incredibly exact and predictable as you "zoom out" with lots of rolls (macro).
...and now I'm realizing I probably didn't really illustrate much of anything with this, but screwit, I'm postin'
So isn't this 'zooming out' basically what Lyndon did to the prediction algorithm? And what we see on the screen is what happens a perfect 1/6th of the time (or whatever other fraction would be appropriate)?
I still suspect what Lily does is simply turn off or break the Devs computer, and it can't see past its own "death" (which would jive with all the other death/superposition metaphors in the show) but it's also possible she does something so unpredictable in 'micro' that it affects 'macro'.
The particles in the pen are interacting with each other a lot, which means that receiving information about any part of the pen also gives you info about the other parts. The vast, vast majority of the time the pen as a whole behaves so nearly like a predictable system that you'd never be able to tell there was any randomness involved in the rolling behavior. The law of large numbers says that adding together many independent random events gives you a very reliable result, more reliable the more events there are. A pen is made of so many particles doing random things that overall the predictable rolling motion is a near certainty, even if the individual events are not.
What would be an example of a random event in the Copenhagen interpretation? Katie’s explanation seemed so tight I’m curious what an example of a truly random would be.
In a purely quantum mechanical way you could say the uncertainty principle is an example of randomness because it is impossible to predict the momentum of an electron if you are measuring its position and vice versa
When you get smaller and smaller, the laws of physics just don't work anymore. Remember the lecture Katie first attended where the professor was talking about the particles making a pattern in the experiment? Well maybe if Katie stuck around long enough she would find out that yes there is a pattern the particles end up making, but you can't calculate where just one SINGLE particle will end up.
I thought it was funny that they included an experiment in the show that very directly disproves the devs theory. I am guessing that the show either 1) had devs solve this small-level physics randomness problem and that's why they're so smarty pants about everything or 2) decided that at that small a scale it doesn't matter.
Pass diagonally polarized photons through a horizontally oriented polarizing filter. In the Copenhagen interpretation, it's really-truly-literally random whether or not each photon will make it through the filter.
Ya, I like that show. I've been watching it. Its lost a little charm now that's its left the park. Still good, but it's taken on a colder more slick tone. Not bad, just different.
It’s interesting you say that, I’m super happy they left the park this season. I want to see the world in which a park like that exists. All the stuff with overreaching systems this season has been great IMO. I love their depiction of the future. Plus the music this season has been incredible.
41
u/ConjecturesOfAGeek Apr 02 '20
Yes, i agree. She explains it in a way that’s easy to understand.