跟讀練習: FINALLY: A Proof that Particles Take All Paths At Once? - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

每種模式都會開啟全屏練習室。

80 句

如果句子過短或過長，請點選 Edit 進行調整。

Quantum particles can take every possible path at the same time.

This is an 80 -year -old interpretation of the mathematics, which comes from Richard Feynman.

But now a team of physicists in China say they've shown that this is more than an interpretation.

They say they've experimentally proved that this is physical reality.

So can we finally stop arguing about the interpretation of quantum physics?

That'd be huge progress.

I mean, it's only been 80 years by physics standards that's basically express delivery.

Let's have a look.

Stay around until the end for a special offer that'll bring your coding skills to an entirely new level with boot .dev.

In ordinary physics, if you throw a ball, then the ball takes one particular path, depending on its initial place and velocity.

That's if you throw the ball.

If I throw the ball, I'll tear a body part I didn't know exists, and then the ball will get lost in the bushes.

Still, physicists insist it's all strictly deterministic.

In quantum physics, this isn't the case.

Rather, Feynman said, what you do for a quantum particle is that you look at every possible path,

not just the straight connection from a start to an end point, but every connection.

For each path, you calculate a quantity called the amplitude.

You sum them all up and from that you get the probability of the particle to go to a particular place.

But just where it goes isn't determined.

It's called a path integral, and Feynman showed that it gives the same result as using the wave function and the Schrödinger equation.

But the neat thing about Feynman's method is

that it gives you a visual interpretation of what's going on and also tells you exactly what's so strange about quantum physics.

The particles can go all these different paths at the same time.

Or do they?

This condenses 80 years of quantum foundations into three words.

A lot of physicists think that yes, this is really what the particles do and not just this.

Many of them even think it's evidence that we live in a multiverse.

For example, a press release from Google about their quantum computer claimed they'd done an experiment that, quote, gives credence to the notion

that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch.

The problem is that by construction of the path integral, you can never observe the paths.

You only have observed the particle at the final point.

If you were to observe the particle in between, then you'd only ever observe one path.

The authors of the new paper now say they've shown that, yes, the particles actually go all these paths.

In their own words, the paths are, quote, more than mere mathematical artifacts and reflect a physical aspect of quantum reality.

Let me be clear, the question is not whether Feynman's path integral is correct or not.

It makes, provably, the same predictions as Schrodinger's formalism.

It's been tested a million times and we know it works.

The question is whether we can experimentally settle what really happens.

So what did they actually do in their experiment?

They used single photons one at a time.

They let the photons travel from one place to another and put a grid of measurement locations in between,

basically, 17 along the direction of travel and 5 transverse to it.

They take two of these grid points and measure what the amplitude of the photon does between them.

And that, they find, fits exactly to Feynman's prediction.

So, New Scientist writes, Richard Feynman's 80 -year -old quantum postulate has now been validated.

Okay, but in this case, the New Scientist article is more reasonable than the paper itself.

Does it validate Feynman's path integral?

Yes, totally.

It's a beautifully direct confirmation that the math really adds up the way he said.

Then again, no one doubted this in the first place.

Does it prove that the particles really go all possible paths when no one looks?

No, of course not, because they didn't find out what the particles do when you don't measure them.

They put in additional measurements just to then find that the particles were at one particular path, which again, no one doubted.

So I'm sorry, but I give this paper a 9 out of 10 on the bullshit meter.

Nice experiment, all right, but crappy interpretation.

Why am I telling you about this anyway?

It's because this is a neat illustration of why the foundations of physics are stuck.

The problem that these guys tried to answer is the exact same problem

that Albert Einstein tried to answer already and failed and which John Belvin tried to answer.

Namely, does a quantum particle really do all the things at the same time

when we don't look or does it really only do one thing?

So not only did the authors of the paper misunderstand the task, they also didn't realize that this is exactly what Bell's inequality is about.

Now, as I've said many times, the conclusion from Bell only follows once you postulate that superdeterminism is ruled out, which has never been ruled out.

So actually, the current situation is still inconclusive, but experiments like the one in the new paper won't settle it.

So in summary, Richard Feynman is still right, we still don't know how to interpret quantum physics, and John Bell is still dead.

The last time I wrote code, it was Fortran.

This is why I decided I need to urgently upgrade my coding skills.

If you're in a similar situation, I have a recommendation for you.

Boot .dev, who've been sponsoring this video.

Boot .dev is focused on backend development, so Python, SQL, Go, the kind of stuff that actually runs the world behind the scenes.

And you don't just watch lessons, you build real projects.

You write code directly in the browser, you solve challenges, and you level up like it's a slightly nerdy role -playing game.

They also have what they call the training grounds, that's basically infinite practice problem.

I've been meaning for a while to set up a website for all my content, but I want to know what's going on with the data and what vulnerabilities to watch out for.

And boot .dev has been really eye -opening.

You can create an account for free, read and watch all the content, and try a demo of the interactive features.

If you decide to go for the full experience, use my code ZABINE to get 25 % off your first year.

So go and check this out.

Thanks for watching.

See you tomorrow.

下載應用

流利口語所需的一切

AI 發音評分逐句打分

音標練習掌握每個音

詞彙學習建立你的詞庫

詞彙遊戲邊玩邊學

掃碼

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同頻道

FOR YOU

本課的詞彙與口語要點

這節 C1 級別的口語課以影片“FINALLY: A Proof that Particles Take All Paths At Once?”為素材。影片中反覆出現的詞有：path, particle, quantum, physics, interpretation。這段影片共有 80 個句子、1120 個單詞可供跟讀。講話部分時長為 6:49。說話人語速自然，每分鐘約 164 個詞，接近日常對話。只有 79% 的單詞屬於英語最常用的 3,000 詞，詞彙難度較高。

影片中的重點詞彙

影片中最難的 15 個單詞，附發音和釋義：

單詞	發音	釋義
particle 名詞	/ˈpɑɹtək(ə)l/	粒子
quantum 名詞	/ˈkwɑntəm/	量
integral 形容詞	/ˈɪntəɡɹəl/	完整的
observe 動詞	/əbˈzɜːv/	遵守, 遵循
photon 名詞	/ˈfəʊtɒn/	光子
physicist 名詞	/ˈfɪzɪsɪst/	物理學家 /物理學家
prediction 名詞	/pɹɪˈdɪkʃən/	預言 /預言, 預估 /預估
amplitude 名詞	/ˈæm.plɪ.tud/	幅度
multiverse 名詞	/ˈmʌltəˌvɝs/	多元宇宙
postulate 名詞	/ˈpɑst͡ʃələt/	公設 /公設
measurement 名詞	/ˈmɛʒ.ə.mənt/	尺寸
artifact 名詞	/ˈɑɹtɪfækt/	人工製品 /人工製品
formalism 名詞	/ˈfɔɹml̩ˌɪzm̩/	形式主義 /形式主義
misunderstand 動詞	/mɪs.ʌn.də(ɹ)ˈstænd/	誤會 /誤會, 誤解 /誤解
transverse 形容詞		橫 /橫

影片中出現的短語動詞

單詞	釋義
rule out 動詞	排除
find out 動詞	找出, 查明

影片中的語法

說話人最常用的結構，並附上影片中的原話：

結構	影片中的用法
現在完成時 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去發生但與現在仍有關聯的事	they've shown · it's only been · have observed
被動語態 be + 過去分詞 — 強調發生了什麼，而不是誰做的	been tested · been validated · is ruled

需要注意的發音

說話人用了 23 次縮略和弱讀形式，例如 don't, didn't, they've。請按聽到的簡短形式來說。

“sh” 和 “zh” 音: prediction /pɹɪˈdɪkʃən/, measurement /ˈmɛʒ.ə.mənt/, computation /ˌkɑmpjʊˈteɪʃn̩/, illustration /ˌɪləsˈtɹeɪ̯ʃən/, equation /ɪˈkweɪ.ʒən/
長單詞——注意重音位置: deterministic /dɪˌtɜː.mɪˈnɪs.tɪk/, inconclusive /ˌɪnkənˈkluːsɪv/, misunderstand /mɪs.ʌn.də(ɹ)ˈstænd/, vulnerability /ˌvʌln(ə)ɹəˈbɪlɪti/, velocity /vəˈlɑsəti/

中文母語者容易讀錯的音：

/v/ — 不要讀成 /w/，上齒輕觸下唇: observe /əbˈzɜːv/, multiverse /ˈmʌltəˌvɝs/, validate /ˈvæl.ɪ.deɪt/, inconclusive /ˌɪnkənˈkluːsɪv/, vulnerability /ˌvʌln(ə)ɹəˈbɪlɪti/
詞尾子音 — 要讀清楚，後面不要加母音: observe /əbˈzɜːv/, physicist /ˈfɪzɪsɪst/, amplitude /ˈæm.plɪ.tud/, multiverse /ˈmʌltəˌvɝs/, postulate /ˈpɑst͡ʃələt/
/r/ 和 /l/ 的區別: particle /ˈpɑɹtək(ə)l/, integral /ˈɪntəɡɹəl/, formalism /ˈfɔɹml̩ˌɪzm̩/, vulnerability /ˌvʌln(ə)ɹəˈbɪlɪti/, illustration /ˌɪləsˈtɹeɪ̯ʃən/

如何用這段影片練習

先完整聽一遍影片，不要開口，記下不認識的單詞。
先用 0.75 倍速逐句跟讀，熟練之後再回到正常速度。
錄下自己的聲音並與原聲對比，特別注意 particle, quantum, integral 這類單詞。

什麼是跟讀法？

跟讀法 (Shadowing) 是一種有科學依據的語言學習技巧，最初開發用於專業口譯員的培訓，並由多語言者Alexander Arguelles博士普及。這個方法簡單而強大：您在聽英語母語原聲的同時立即大聲重複——就像是一個延遲1-2秒緊跟說話者的影子。與被動聽力或語法練習不同，跟讀法強迫您的大腦和口腔肌肉同時處理並模模擬實的講話模式。研究表明它能顯著提高發音準確性，語調，節奏，連讀，聽力理解和口語流利度——使其成為雅思口語備考和真實英語交流最有效的方法之一。

影子跟讀法: 閱讀完整分步指南 →

跟讀練習: FINALLY: A Proof that Particles Take All Paths At Once? - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

下載應用

同頻道

Make AI Believe in God to Keep Humans Safe, Scientist Argues

The Uncertainty Principle: What Does It Mean, How Does It Work?

Mathematician Collapses All Functions to One Weird Formula

AI Will End Philosophy, Physicist Claims

We Can Now Simulate a Human Brain, Scientists Show

Does God exist? Science does not have an answer.

Has quantum mechanics proved that reality does not exist?

Superfluid Dark Matter

What is time?

The End of Human Mathematics? AI's Recent Breakthrough -- And What's Next

10 things you should know about black holes

Our Solar System Lost Two Planets!

I was SO wrong about quantum computing.

推薦影片

The Professor Who Taught People How To Think (1962)

How Quantum Batteries Break Every Rule of Charging

Traceroute: You're Probably Reading the Results Wrong

This structure feels impossible to move

Black Hole Documentary 2019 - Part 1

A mind-blowing explanation of symmetry | Frank Wilczek for Big Think

Arguments for God: The Fine Tuning Argument

How Einstein changed time forever | Jim Al-Khalili for Big Think

We Let $200 GPT-Pro Think for 7 Days on Unsolved Math

Crypto Agility Explained: Protect Data from Quantum Computing Threats