|
|
Indlæser... The God Effect: Quantum Entanglement, Science's Strangest Phenomenon (2006)| 169 | 6 | 162,921 | 
(3.34) | Ingen | The phenomenon that Einstein thought too spooky and strange to be trueWhat is entanglement? It's a connection between quantum particles, the building blocks of the universe. Once two particles are entangled, a change to one of them is reflected---instantly---in the other, be they in the same lab or light-years apart. So counterintuitive is this phenomenon and its implications that Einstein himself called it "spooky" and thought that it would lead to the downfall of quantum theory. Yet scientists have since discovered that quantum entanglement, the "God Effect," was one of Einstein's few---and perhaps one of his greatest---mistakes.What does it mean? The possibilities offered by a fuller understanding of the nature of entanglement read like something out of science fiction: communications devices that could span the stars, codes that cannot be broken, computers that dwarf today's machines in speed and power, teleportation, and more.In The God Effect, veteran science writer Brian Clegg has written an exceptionally readable and fascinating (and equation-free) account of entanglement, its history, and its application. Fans of Brian Greene and Amir Aczel and those interested in the marvelous possibilities coming down the quantum road will find much to marvel, illuminate, and delight.… (mere) |
▾LibraryThing Anbefalinger ▾Vil du synes om den?
Indlæser...
 Bliv medlem af LibraryThing for at finde ud af, om du vil kunne lide denne bog. ▾Samtaler (Om links) Der er ingen diskussionstråde på Snak om denne bog. ▾Medlemmernes anmeldelser
▾Offentliggjorte anmeldelser ▾Serier og værk relationer
|
|
| Kanonisk titel |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. | |
|
| Originaltitel |
|
| Alternative titler |
|
| Oprindelig udgivelsesdato |
|
| Personer/Figurer |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. | |
|
| Vigtige steder |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. | |
|
| Vigtige begivenheder |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. | |
|
| Beslægtede film |
|
| Indskrift |
|
| Tilegnelse |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. To Gillian, Rebecca, and Chelsea  | |
|
| Første ord |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. If you thought science was a predictable, commonsense business—maybe even a little dull—you haven't encountered quantum entanglement. | |
|
| Citater |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. [Max] Born [. . .] brought into quantum theory the apparently simple concept that would cause Einstein and others so much trouble—probability. To make Schrödinger's wave equations sensibly map onto the observed world, he suggested that they did not describe how an electron (for instance) moves, or the nature of an electron as an entity, but rather provided a description of the probability that an electron would be in a particular place. The equations weren't a distinct picture of an electron but a fuzzy map of its likely locations. It was as if he had moved our image of the world from an accurate modern atlas to a medieval muddle with areas labeled "here be electrons." In the normal world, spin momentum is the momentum of a body spinning on its own axis. Carried away by the picture of something that moved like the earth going around the sun, the theorists imagined this new property that particles could have was due to the electron spinning on its axis. It isn't. They could just as easily have called the property saltiness or bounce or frangibility, but they decided to call it spin. Quantum entanglement experimenters seem to have a functional relationship with the sewage system rivaled only by utility workers and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. When we describe light or an electron as a wave or a particle, what we really mean is that we are using the model of waves (like the actual, real ripples we see on the sea) or the model of particles (like a stream of very, very tiny bits of dust). But what shouldn't be implied is that light or an electron is a wave or that it is a particle. Attractive though it is to have something that we are familiar with to hang on to, we always have to remember that we are dealing with a model, not the real thing.
What is light or an electron, then? Light is light. An electron is an electron. They happen to exhibit strong similarities to waves and particles some of the time, which can be very useful when we are trying to predict what they will do, but that isn't what they are. If you can take the step of seeing this, the whole concern about quantum theory is better put in proportion. The only reason the behavior of a photon appearing to pass through two slits at once, or entanglement working at any distance, is odd, is that we are letting the models take over, giving them more weight than they deserve. This doesn't make all speculation worthless, though. Not only can it produce new and wonderful ideas—arguably all modern physics originates from a handful of vibrant speculations that challenged traditional science at the start of the twentieth century—but it can result in a very healthy shaking up of what can otherwise be entrenched and self-satisfied thinking. | |
|
| Sidste ord |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. | |
|
| Oplysning om flertydighed |
|
| Forlagets redaktører |
|
| Bagsidecitater |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. | |
|
| Originalsprog |
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk. | |
|
| Canonical DDC/MDS |
|
| Canonical LCC |
|
▾Referencer Henvisninger til dette værk andre steder.  Wikipedia på engelsk (1)
▾Bogbeskrivelser The phenomenon that Einstein thought too spooky and strange to be trueWhat is entanglement? It's a connection between quantum particles, the building blocks of the universe. Once two particles are entangled, a change to one of them is reflected---instantly---in the other, be they in the same lab or light-years apart. So counterintuitive is this phenomenon and its implications that Einstein himself called it "spooky" and thought that it would lead to the downfall of quantum theory. Yet scientists have since discovered that quantum entanglement, the "God Effect," was one of Einstein's few---and perhaps one of his greatest---mistakes.What does it mean? The possibilities offered by a fuller understanding of the nature of entanglement read like something out of science fiction: communications devices that could span the stars, codes that cannot be broken, computers that dwarf today's machines in speed and power, teleportation, and more.In The God Effect, veteran science writer Brian Clegg has written an exceptionally readable and fascinating (and equation-free) account of entanglement, its history, and its application. Fans of Brian Greene and Amir Aczel and those interested in the marvelous possibilities coming down the quantum road will find much to marvel, illuminate, and delight. ▾Biblioteksbeskrivelser af bogens indhold Ingen biblioteksbeskrivelser fundet. ▾LibraryThingmedlemmers beskrivelse af bogens indhold |
Aktuelle diskussionerIngen Google Books — Indlæser... Byt (12 ønsker) |
)
)
3
I could have skipped some of the far more speculative and fanciful aspects as well as the cringe-worthy pop culture references. (