L&FP, 65: So, you think you understand the double slit experiment? (HT, Q & BA77)

_{kairosfocus
February 5, 2023

Academic Freedom, Logic and Reason, Physics

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Logic and Reason
Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

So, here we go:

And, the rise of solid state laser pointers makes this sort of exercise so much easier, BUT YOU MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO GET SUCH A BRIGHT SOURCE INTO YOUR EYE AS THIS MAY CAUSE RETINAL BURNS THUS BLIND SPOTS. (I recall, buying and assembling a kit He-Ne laser to have this exercise for my High School students. We had a ball, using metre sticks stuck to a screen with blu-tack, to observe and measure effects from several metres away.)

So, now, what about, electrons:

Notice, the pattern here builds up statistically, one spot at a time.

Then, HT BA77 way back, here is Dr Quantum:

Now, if you think you have it all figured out, think again, and again, and again. KF

Comments

Kairosfocus: there was a lot more in the poof, but what to say Well, the poof should be in the pudding. So I've heard.JVL_{February 8, 2023
February
02
Feb
8
08
2023
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Okay, let's try again. First, a Harvard prof gives a summary: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/waves_quantum.pdf
In quantum mechanics, particles have wavelike properties, and a particular wave equa- tion, the Schrodinger equation, governs how these waves behave. The Schrodinger equation is di?erent in a few ways from the other wave equations we’ve seen in this book. But these di?erences won’t keep us from applying all of our usual strategies for solving a wave equation and dealing with the resulting solutions. In some respect, quantum mechanics is just another example of a system governed by a wave equation. In fact, we will ?nd below that some quantum mechanical systems have exact analogies to systems we’ve already studied in this book. So the results can be carried over, with no modi?cations whatsoever needed. However, although it is fairly straightforward to deal with the actual waves, there are many things about quantum mechanics that are a combination of subtle, perplexing, and bizarre. To name a few: the measurement problem, hidden variables along with Bell’s theorem, and wave-particle duality. You’ll learn all about these in an actual course on quantum mechanics. Even though there are many things that are highly confusing about quantum mechanics, the nice thing is that it’s relatively easy to apply quantum mechanics to a physical system to ?gure out how it behaves. There is fortunately no need to understand all of the subtleties about quantum mechanics in order to use it. Of course, in most cases this isn’t the best strategy to take; it’s usually not a good idea to blindly forge ahead with something if you don’t understand what you’re actually working with. But this lack of understanding can be forgiven in the case of quantum mechanics, because no one really understands it. (Well, maybe a couple people do, but they’re few and far between.) If the world waited to use quantum mechanics until it understood it, then we’d be stuck back in the 1920’s. The bottom line is that quantum mechanics can be used to make predictions that are consistent with experiment. It hasn’t failed us yet. So it would be foolish not to use it.
Next, we try space dot com, looking at a Young double slit pattern tuned down to single photon at a time: https://www.space.com/double-slit-experiment-light-wave-or-particle
But what if you launch photons one by one, leaving enough time between them that they don't have a chance of interfering with each other, will they behave like particles or waves? At first, the photons appear on the sensor screen in a random scattered manner, but as you fire more and more of them, an interference pattern begins to emerge. Each photon by itself appears to be contributing to the overall wave-like behavior that manifests as an interference pattern on the screen — even though they were launched one at a time so that no interference between them was possible. It's almost as though each photon is "aware" that there are two slits available. How? Does it split into two and then rejoin after the slit and then hit the sensor? To investigate this, scientists set up a detector that can tell which slit the photon passes through. Again, we fire photons one at a time at the slits, as we did in the previous example. The detector finds that about 50% of the photons have passed through the top slit and about 50% through the bottom, and confirms that each photon goes through one slit or the other. Nothing too unusual there. But when we look at the sensor screen on this experiment, a different pattern emerges. This pattern matches the one we saw when we fired particles through the slits. It appears that monitoring the photons triggers them to switch from the interference pattern produced by waves to that produced by particles. If the detection of photons through the slits is apparently affecting the pattern on the sensor screen, what happens if we leave the detector in place but switch it off? (Shh, don't tell the photons we're no longer spying on them!) This is where things get really, really weird. Same slits, same photons, same detector, just turned off. Will we see the same particle-like pattern? No. The particles again make a wave-like interference pattern on the sensor screen.
Thus we see that particles are waves and waves are inherently spread out in space. Waves, of probability. What about having the detector after the slit:
Furthermore —and perhaps even more astonishingly — if you set up the double-slit experiment to detect which slit the photon went through after the photon has already hit the sensor screen, you still end up with a particle-type pattern on the sensor screen, even though the photon hadn't yet been detected when it hit the screen. This result suggests that detecting a photon in the future affects the pattern produced by the photon on the sensor screen in the past. This experiment is known as the quantum eraser experiment . . .
All of this is such that the article comments "We still don't fully understand how exactly the particle-wave duality of matter works, which is why it is regarded as one of the greatest mysteries of quantum mechanics." Hence, the point in the OP, if you imagine you have this figured out, think again. [there was a lot more in the poof, but what to say.] KFkairosfocus_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

poof, vanished commentkairosfocus_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

William J Murray: I'm curious . . . what do think will happen to 'you' when your 'body' dies?JVL_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Origenes Warning you cannot believe anything coming from WJM according to his own words he puts out arguments for the fun of it, it’s strictly entertainment. So let’s have some fun ourself! “And is the sun part of your experiential world? “ You write of a “sun” what is a sun, what is this “sun” you are referring to?vividbleau_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Origenes said:
If there are no things external to me, then we are not talking about an ‘error’, that would be a massive understatement.
It's nothing more than an error. The models of our existence and the universe have gone through several large upheavals with new understandings over time. It's not like idealism is a new perspective - it's been around for over 2000 years. Also, there are many spiritual perspectives that have been around for centuries that consider the external world to be an "illusion" (maya) generated by the reality within.William J Murray_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Origenes asked:
I assumed that the existence of other people presupposes an external world for them and you to be in. We cannot all live in your mind, right?
That's the only place I'm aware of anyone existing, myself included. Are you aware of someone's existence outside of your mind? How is that external-of-mind awareness achieved? Isn't awareness a quality of mind?
I don’t understand the last part of the sentence. The existence of an external world is irrelevant because
I have no way to verify any interaction with it.
Sure, but clearly, that is not their only location, right?
It's the only location I can possibly be aware of.
We do not only exist in your experience because that would be solipsism.
No, it's not. Other people exist in exactly the same way I exist - in my experience. That doesn't make them "not other people."William J Murray_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Origenes asks:
And is the sun part of your experiential world?
Yes.
And do you experience the sun as something external to you?
Of course not. All my experiences of the sun are internal experiences. Do you have any experiences external of yourself? If so, in what way are they "your" experiences? How is it that you have those experiences if they are not internal? I've never heard of anyone having an external experience..
Does it not seem to you that the sun is ‘out there’, pretty far away from you?
I don't think we have the same concept of experiential distance. Your questions are all apparently rooted in a non-idealist ontological premise. They really aren't very good questions from the idealist perspective. They're rather nonsensical.William J Murray_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

WJM @67
Ori: If my mind produces an illusionary external world,
I don’t know about your mind, but my mind doesn’t produce an “illusionary external world.” It produces an experiential world.
And is the sun part of your experiential world? And do you experience the sun as something external to you? Does it not seem to you that the sun is ‘out there’, pretty far away from you?
Ori: if my mind tricks me into the illusion of an external world, then I do not have a coherent mind,
The capacity for error doesn’t mean we do not have a coherent mind. Saying that your mind has “tricked” you is a bizarre way of saying that you’re wrong about something.
If there are no things external to me, then we are not talking about an ‘error’, that would be a massive understatement.
I didn’t say anything about solipsism. Solipsism is how some formulations of idealism are characterized from a non-idealist perspective. Idealism does not mean that other people do not exist.
I assumed that the existence of other people presupposes an external world for them and you to be in. We cannot all live in your mind, right?
Whether or not other people exist in some external, objective world is irrelevant since I don’t have any way to validate that I have any meaningful access to them.
I don’t understand the last part of the sentence. The existence of an external world is irrelevant because … ?
Other people exist in my experience.
Sure, but clearly, that is not their only location, right? We do not only exist in your experience because that would be solipsism.Origenes_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

FP, There is a reason why Feynman suggested no one understands and why it was a common saying, shut up and calculate. The whimsical term, wavicle, goes to the heart, we haven't a clue what such is or what it would look like, never mind that we map orbitals; as a visual species, that alone is enough to ensure a lingering sense of not understanding. BTW, Feynman was the youngest of the Manhattan Physicists and a Nobel Prize winner, his diagram is a very useful tool. Further, electronics sits on a quantum foundation, e.g. it is the heart of semiconductor and especially of transistor action, with the Fermi level a crucial concept. However, again, the gap between mathematical models and comfortable understanding leading to the famed physicist's intuition, remains. Given that backdrop, your sneering simply exposes the superficiality of your scientism and unwillingness to recognise that people on the other side are not one dimensional cartoon caricatures. Personally, for example, I remain a Copenhagenist [never mind the popularity in some quarters of many worlds], and simply recognise with Lifschitz et al, that this is a theory where the observer and act of observation are inextricably intertwined with the structure of the theory. But never forget the force of both the uncertainty principle and the correspondence principle. I recall, too, my double paradigm shift as a student, recognising that relativistic and quantum frames simply were empirically superior, strange as they were and are. I can understand the struggles of the young Physicist in the OP. KFkairosfocus_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Origenes said:
If my mind produces an illusionary external world,
I don't know about your mind, but my mind doesn't produce an "illusionary external world." It produces an experiential world.
if my mind tricks me into the illusion of an external world, then I do not have a coherent mind,
The capacity for error doesn't mean we do not have a coherent mind. Saying that your mind has "tricked" you is a bizarre way of saying that you're wrong about something.
the belief in solipsism included.
I didn't say anything about solipsism. Solipsism is how some formulations of idealism are characterized from a non-idealist perspective. Idealism does not mean that other people do not exist. Whether or not other people exist in some external, objective world is irrelevant since I don't have any way to validate that I have any meaningful access to them. Other people exist in my experience.William J Murray_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus writes:
My wider point is, if you think you understand quantum physics, think again. KF
The operative term is “physics”. Not supernatural. Again, quantum physics is studied by physicists, not mysticists, philosophers, IDists or theists. I wonder why that is.Ford Prefect_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

And, we started with the double slit experiment . . .kairosfocus_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

WJM: There is literally no way, even in principle, I can ever know or gather evidence about whether or not there is a world external to my mental experience.
If the "external world" is in fact only my mental experience. If my mind produces an illusionary external world, without my conscious involvement, if my mind tricks me into the illusion of an external world, then I do not have a coherent mind, then I cannot trust my mind and every belief it produces, the belief in solipsism included. Solipsism is self-defeating.Origenes_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

@WJM You cannot tell whether or not you are Joe Biden?Origenes_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Origenes @61, Your inference is incorrect. There is literally no way, even in principle, I can ever know or gather evidence about whether or not there is a world external of my mental experience. How would I ever support a claim that there is, factually, no external world?William J Murray_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

WJM @ Which experiments in quantum mechanics support the following:
The evidence is clear: materialism/physicalism has been as scientifically disproved as a theory can be. Realism has also been scientifically disproved. They have tried for 100 years to come up with tests that would salvage some form of materialism / physicalism / realism, and those experiments all demonstrated that all we have left, ontologically speaking, is idealism.
Your larger claim seems to be that there is no external world. Which experiment specifically makes that case?Origenes_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Origenes @59, 30 years of personal, first-hand experimentation on daily basis using techniques such as meditation, visualization, affirmation, subconscious deprogramming and deliberate reprogramming supported my view, but what proved idealism to me was simple logic, similar to how Mr. Arrington, in another recent thread, demonstrated logically how materialism, even if it were true, cannot be asserted as true without putting yourself in a self-defeating position. Simply put, there is no logically available avenue, even in principle, to demonstrate or gain one iota of evidence that any such external world exists. An external world might exist; there's just no way to know or even evidence - ever - that you're actually accessing that world in any meaningful way. It is a completely imagined world. Meaning, it can literally only ever exist - to us - in our mind. We have no verifiable way to access it. We are all, as far as I know, locked tight in our own perspectives/minds with no way out. That's the existential fact of first person, subjective experience. I cannot experience anything outside of my mind when mind = all my personal experience.William J Murray_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

WJM @ Which experiments specifically have convinced you that there is “no such thing as an external, objective world, no such thing as matter other than as an internal, mental experience”?Origenes_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

I would suggest that the reason the results from ongoing quantum physics experimental research "don't make sense" is the same reason that the results of evolutionary research "don't make sense" (meaning, they keep making discoveries that are counter-intuitive and mind-boggling.) It is because the research is conducted under the wrong assumptive paradigm. From the perspective of intelligent design, what we find in biology is not surprising (precise nano-technology building from code in a highly controlled, complex, organized and regulated environment.) From a non-ID perspective, it's totally baffling and unexpected. Similarly, from a the perspective of ontological realism/materialism, the quantum research results are baffling and unexpected. We're conducting experiments to find out the "true nature" (collective and individual definitive characteristics) of what we assume is an external, objective world. Ask yourself what one would expect to find, or how one would conduct an experiment, if instead one assumed ontological idealism? Meaning, there was no such thing as an external, objective world, no such thing as matter other than as an internal, mental experience?William J Murray_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

Querius @51 said:
Maybe you could argue that my learning things by experimentation and observation is an illusion.
Depends on what you think you're learning, and what you think that learning is about. There is an enormous difference in those ideas if your premise is (1) I am experiencing an external, independent, objective world, or (2) I am experiencing an internal, subjective world that is entirely rooted in and generated by my own thoughts, psychology, and subconscious programming.
I suppose you’d also assert that there’s no such thing as an original thought. Is that right?
Kinda depends on what you mean by that. Every possible thought has always existed in the infinite potential, and time is ultimately a non-linear dimension, so how "original" any thought is really is just a matter of how you look at it. Every thought I have at any particular multi-dimensional nexus is unique to me in that place, so I think it's fairly accurate to say that's a unique thought, even if it is the same string of English words from prior experiences or in other people's experiences. The string of English words is just one aspect of the whole of that thought. One might say every single whole thought by every conscious entity is an original thought that only occurs in a single nexus point of that being's existence. Thanks for asking that question. That's a very interesting line of thought. :)William J Murray_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Origenes, when one observes Liquid He II or a superconductor, one is observing lab scale macro phenomena, that trace to molecular scale events, which are where the interactions are happening. Similarly, a Geisler spectral discharge tube or neon tube or laser etc are showing quantum phenomena, or even a flame -- all of which are mass phenomena based on molecular scale events. I suggest, you look again at how the electron double slit pattern videotaped and shown above builds up. My wider point is, if you think you understand quantum physics, think again. KFkairosfocus_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Origenes @54, Good points. Theories abound, which is why I like to stick with the experimental results along with any challenges and additional tests. As a learning experience in how hypotheses work and the relative difficulty of guessing rules from behaviors, I did the following. I placed a pawn in the middle of the chess board and told them that they had to guess the rule. I first moved the pawn to adjacent diagonals and they made their first hypothesis. The I moved the pawn two squares in vertical and horizontal directions. They made a second hypothesis. Then the pawn made some crazy moves that didn't seem to make any sense and made things very complicated. What was the rule? It was simply that the pawn moved a knight's move twice in succession to reach its destination. Surprisingly simple. Understanding the "rules" in quantum effects are much more challenging! And many more experiments com to mind. That's why I thought Mithuna Yoganathan's impromptu experiments with her finger to trace disruptions of the interference pattern was brilliant. And why does measuring information such as with conjugate variables have any effect on a different measurement? This is so intriguing! -QQuerius_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Querius:
Arvin Ash might talk about how cooling an object to near absolute zero significantly reduces information being transmitted to the universe.
The superconductivity was presented at 'Tedtalk', millions of viewers, but still it acted as if it was unobserved/informationally isolated. I have to say that the concept of informational isolation does not make sense to me. Ash says that the interaction with one single photon destroys informational isolation. "The universe says: hey, I already know the path. Now it's a particle. You can't have your wave back, The path has to be taken in absolute secrecy." With such extreme demands, one wonders what in the universe could be in a state of informational isolation. What has never interacted with anything else? Does it make sense to you? Something acts like a wave only if it has managed to avoid all collisions with photons and everything else. Really? If Ash is right then every wavicle has already collapsed into a particle. Quantum mechanics would have nothing to work with.Origenes_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Origenes @52, Sorry I missed that. Arvin Ash might talk about how cooling an object to near absolute zero significantly reduces information being transmitted to the universe. But, here's a great video explaining how superconducting materials work, involves quantum locking at a "critical temperature": https://youtu.be/h6FYs_AUCsQ?t=32 However, his classical description of electron flow through a conductor is false and has been known to be false for well over 100 years! Here's how electrical energy really works: https://youtu.be/bHIhgxav9LY?t=180 So why in your opinion are Darwinism, deterministic materialism, and much of physics still being taught as these subjects were conceived over 100 years ago? -QQuerius_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Querius @50
Ori: In the video, it is claimed that large objects are not informationally isolated and therefore are in a collapsed state and do not exhibit quantum effects. (...) However, no doubt you are aware, there are larger objects that show quantum effects and are not informationally isolated, so how does that fit in?
Querius: I’m not sure what specific cases you’re referring to, ...
In #46 I gave 3 examples: Superconductivity, superfluidity , Bose Einstein Condensates. My question is: why can we observe something like superfluid helium? Isn’t it supposed to collapse in a classical state because we are looking at it?Origenes_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @40,
If the nature of reality is that it reflects back at you that which is the structure of your own mind, then it cannot teach you anything.
Quite frankly, that's not been my experience. Maybe you could argue that my learning things by experimentation and observation is an illusion. If it is, then it's a very convincing illusion. I suppose you'd also assert that there's no such thing as an original thought. Is that right? -QQuerius_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Origenes @36,
However, no doubt you are aware, there are larger objects that show quantum effects and are not informationally isolated, so how does that fit in?
I’m not sure what specific cases you’re referring to, but let me take a shot at one of them. The sun converts hydrogen into helium by one of four pathways, three of them fuse nuclei, the fourth involves fusion plus a decay series. All of them end up as helium nuclei releasing high-energy gamma photons that we observe as sunlight. But, how do the positively charged nuclei come close enough together to fuse? Remember positive charges repel and the repulsion force increases with proximity squared (the repulsive force at ¼ the distance is 16x). The answer is quantum tunneling, where a particle probabilistically crosses any barrier simply by chance . . . it disappears from one location and (ta-da!) appears at another, in this case on top of another nucleus. Are these reactions informationally isolated? I’d say yes, because the high-energy photons are released randomly (not deterministically). An interesting question then is whether information (the location and momentum of the nuclei) is destroyed in this process. You might also consider the operation of conjugate variables such as location and momentum. Under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, your CHOOSING to measure one of these two variables in a particle to some degree of precision limits the information that you can extract about the other variable. Why this should be the case, I have no idea. Isn’t this absolutely fascinating? -QQuerius_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

WJM @ 47 You are correct about Baird’s classical inclination. Elsewhere he writes about "Schrodinger's Cat":
Since that time, there has been ample evidence that wavefunction collapse is not driven by conscious observers alone. In fact, every interaction a quantum particle makes can collapse its state. Careful analysis reveals that the Schrodinger Cat "experiment" would play out in the real world as follows: as soon as the radioactive atom interacts with the Geiger counter, it collapses from its non-decayed/decayed state into one definite state. The Geiger counter gets definitely triggered and the Cat gets definitely killed. Or the Geiger counter gets definitely not triggered and the cat is definitely alive. But both don't happen. In summary, quantum state collapse is not driven just by conscious observers, and "Schrodinger's Cat" was just a teaching tool invented to try to make this fact more obvious by reducing the observer-driven notion to absurdity. Unfortunately, many popular science writers in our day continue to propagate the misconception that a quantum state (and therefore reality itself) is determined by conscious observers. They use this erroneous claim as a springboard into unsubstantial and non-scientific discussions about the nature of reality, consciousness, and even Eastern mysticism. To them, "Schrodinger's Cat" is not an embarrassing indication that their claims are wrong, but proof that the world is as absurd as they claim. Such authors either misunderstand Schrodinger's Cat, or purposely twist it to sell books.
Nonetheless, his explanation of the relationship between quantum events and macroscopic objects made sense to me (#29, #46). The role of the observer is not clear to me. There are two camps. One of my questions for the ‘observer/information only’ camp is: why can we observe something like superfluid helium? Isn’t it supposed to collapse in a classical state because we are looking at it?Origenes_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

corrected link:
Living In A Quantum World – Vlatko Vedral – 2011 Excerpt: experiments now leave very little room for such processes to operate. The division between the quantum and classical worlds appears not to be fundamental. It is just a question of experimental ingenuity, and few physicists now think that classical physics will ever really make a comeback at any scale.,,, Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. https://www.hohschools.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=3850&dataid=2295&FileName=Living%20in%20a%20Quantum%20World.pdf Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Quantum Information Theory at the University of Oxford.
bornagain77_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply