pengvado comments on So you think you understand Quantum Mechanics - Less Wrong

38 Post author: shminux 22 December 2012 09:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (63)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pengvado 02 January 2013 01:28:55PM *  3 points [-]

The intuition: For a high dimensional ball, most of the volume is near the surface, and most of the surface is near the equator (for any given choice of equator). The extremity of "most" and "near" increases with number of dimensions. The intersection of two equal-size balls is a ball minus a slice through the equator, and thus missing most of its volume even if it's a pretty thin slice.

The calculation: Let which is the volume of a n-dimensional ball of radius r.
Then the fraction of overlap between two balls displaced by x is (The integrand is a cross-section of the intersection (which is a lower-dimensional ball), and y proceeds along the axis of displacement.) Numeric result.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 02 January 2013 10:07:47PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for both the math and the intuitive explanation. Now I'm really curious what the right answer is to the physics question...

Comment author: private_messaging 08 January 2013 08:54:49PM *  -1 points [-]

The position of the apparatus has to be uncertain enough for you to be able to measure momentum (i.e. acceleration) precisely enough. It works out just fine to patterns being smeared, an interesting exercise to do mathematically though.

edit: didn't see context, thought you were speaking of the regular double slit experiment. It still applies though.

With regards to the M1 I don't quite understand the question as the spin is not an arrow that snaps from arbitrary orientation to parallel or anti-parallel. When it interacts with field, after the speed of light lag, there's recoil.