New understanding of wave/particle duality:

https://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html

Every year we get a bit closer to TOE.

What new understanding? It makes this statement:

"They found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one. "

I didn't notice any explanation that provided any new understanding of wave/particle duality. Did you?

Perhaps I overlooked something, but it looks like they didn't explain anything new and interjected meaningless jargon to hide it.

@metal-brain said

Perhaps I overlooked something,

Yes, you certainly have. You overlooked the fact that there are people much smarter than me or you and that know things about quantum mechanics much better than me or you, especially you. Thus it is no surprise you don't understand it; it's not because it is nonsense, because it isn't, but rather because it's too difficult for you to understand. I confess I only half-understand it but at least that's far better than both completely not understanding it (no shame in that) but having the delusional arrogance to think that must mean it is nonsense (shame in that).

@sonhouse said
https://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html

Not sure if this link's subject matter should be labelled as being in the category of 'science' or 'philosophy' or both. Any opinions on that?

@humy said
Yes, you certainly have. You overlooked the fact that there are people much smarter than me or you and that know things about quantum mechanics much better than me or you, especially you. Thus it is no surprise you don't understand it; it's not because it is nonsense, because it isn't, but rather because it's too difficult for you to understand. I confess I only half-understand ...[text shortened]... in that) but having the delusional arrogance to think that must mean it is nonsense (shame in that).

Yet you offer no explanation. Do you always assume people who use jargon know what they are talking about?

https://collegeinfogeek.com/feynman-technique/

@humy said
Yes, you certainly have. You overlooked the fact that there are people much smarter than me or you and that know things about quantum mechanics much better than me or you, especially you. Thus it is no surprise you don't understand it; it's not because it is nonsense, because it isn't, but rather because it's too difficult for you to understand.

And yet, in this case, because he goes the other way, Metal Brain is right. It's not nonsense because it's too hard, and MB doesn't claim that. What he said is that it's too trivial and already well-known, so it's not worth making a fuss about.
Well, it was, and it's not, and he's right about that. But trust phyzzog to make a mountain out of someone else's molehill in the secure knowledge that people who don't inderstand science as well as they think thet do confuse them for a credible source of news. I'd call them the Asylum of science publishing, but at least The Asylum does write its own sludge-level material. All Phyzzog does is copy press releases - often, as here, badly.

@shallow-blue said
What he said is that it's too trivial and already well-known,

-but it isn't "well-known" by him so he is in no position to judge if it is trivial even if we are and if it is.

@humy said
-but it isn't "well-known" by him so he is in no position to judge if it is trivial even if we are and if it is.

I know meaningless jargon when I see it. You need to as well. How will you excel if you can't distinguish meaningful contributions from meaningless jargon?

Richard Feynman knew even very educated people will hide what they don't know with jargon. Sometimes smart people will do that to hide the fact that the funding they received didn't give meaningful results. Even smart people try to hide their blunders. Scientists are human too.

@metal-brain said
I know meaningless jargon when I see it. You need to as well. How will you excel if you can't distinguish meaningful contributions from meaningless jargon?

Richard Feynman knew even very educated people will hide what they don't know with jargon. Sometimes smart people will do that to hide the fact that the funding they received didn't give meaningful results. Even smart people try to hide their blunders. Scientists are human too.

One thing for sure. You are not Feynman and never will be even CLOSE.

@sonhouse said
One thing for sure. You are not Feynman and never will be even CLOSE.

So you will not defend the article as meaningful either. I'm not surprised.

@sonhouse said
One thing for sure. You are not Feynman and never will be even CLOSE.

And you're no Jack Kennedy yourself, boyo.

@shallow-blue said
And yet, in this case, because he goes the other way, Metal Brain is right. It's not nonsense because it's too hard, and MB doesn't claim that. What he said is that it's too trivial and already well-known, so it's not worth making a fuss about.
Well, it was, and it's not, and he's right about that. But trust phyzzog to make a mountain out of someone else's molehill in t ...[text shortened]... rite its own sludge-level material. All Phyzzog does is copy press releases - often, as here, badly.

I took a look at the original paper [1], the claim is that the entropic uncertainty principle (EUP), defined in terms of information entropy rather than standard deviations as is Heisenberg's, is related to Wave Particle Duality Relations (WDPRs). So phys.org is correctly reporting the claims in the paper.

The paper itself is 25 pages long so I haven't finished it, but by coincidence the introductory paragraph finishes with a quote of Feynman. According to the introduction the equivalence of EUP and WPDR is controversial and they claim to have shown that they are equivalent. This is what I'd have guessed anyway since if there is no uncertainty relation it is difficult to see how there can be any wave particle duality.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf

@deepthought said
I took a look at the original paper [1], the claim is that the entropic uncertainty principle (EUP), defined in terms of information entropy rather than standard deviations as is Heisenberg's, is related to Wave Particle Duality Relations (WDPRs). So phys.org is correctly reporting the claims in the paper.

The paper itself is 25 pages long so I haven't finished it, bu ...[text shortened]... ficult to see how there can be any wave particle duality.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf

So like he said, just another worthless BS article😉

@humy
thanks, now I understand