|
Astronomer Royal for Scotland | Catherine Heymans@astroroyalscot.bsky.social |
Part of me loves this analogy: it's visual & easy-to-grasp. Part of me is unhappy tho: a voice creating a travelling sound wave is v different from the wave function of an electron.
@astrokatie.com @seanmcarroll.bsky.social - thoughts? Is this a good analogy to use, or would it mislead?
4 replies 0 reposts 6 likes
|
|
@whiskymac.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This analogy is completely misleading. Although we may all be looking at the same object the photons that stimulate our retinas are unique discrete particles. Sound is propagated in compression waves and is continuous. The astronomer and ultrasonic engineer in me feel conflicted by this analogy.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Sean Carroll
@seanmcarroll.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I think it's fine. Of course it's an analogy, so it's not exact. The most dangerous part of it is that sound waves have no analogue of entanglement. And it's hard to understand *why* only one person hears the sound. But the behavior of the wave is about right.
2 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Spirit Being Material Experience
@cakmn.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I'm puzzled. A quantum wave and a water wave can split to continue through two channels, thus being in two places at once. A quantum 'sound' wave should similarly be able to split to exist in two (or more) ears (channels) at once, should it not?
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
Spirit Being Material Experience
@cakmn.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Every analogy breaks down when it is pushed too far. It really only works for exactly what it was constructed for. Beyond that it becomes unreliable, confusing, misleading. This is because that which is the analog is not that to which it is said to be analogous. It is only somewhat similar.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes