Coming out of Source Code, I began researching the history of computer hardware, operating systems and computation in general. Furthermore, Gates’s affinity towards Feynman rekindled mine too. I decided I want to learn more about physics. So I came across this piece, or these six pieces.

I didn’t know (or had long forgotten) that the jiggly motion of atoms is heat. Nor had I been able to summarize that nuclear energy pertains to what happens within the atom, and is far more powerful than energy that pertains to the forces outside the atom.

The last piece on quantum mechanics was particularly interesting. I wish I knew of this book back when I was studying computational theory back in university. Here are some afterthoughts.

If the description of the double slit experiment led with – this is a darkened, vacuum chamber – I think the masses will feel the discrepancy between the outcome and their intuition less. After all, how many of us has been in a darkened vacuum chamber to develop any intuition? We and the atoms that make us are constantly in sight of others and other atoms.

Another point that I haven’t seen mentioned, even in Feynman’s Six Easy Pieces is that just as much as the light source is a disturbance, the screen is too. I think this means that, if there were a way to precisely map the points where light hit the electron, they too would show an interference pattern.

What I got from the experiment was that between two points of disturbance, that is, being witnessed by any other particle, the isolated inside becomes a probabilistic state from the perspective of the outsider. That means, not only would the electrons have a probabilistic state, but also the screen and everything inside the chamber. Of course, the atoms that make up the screen would be witnessing each other, but the whole segment would be isolated. So even the interference pattern itself is not finalized until the chamber is opened. One thought: I guess the screen would have to be levitating to be fully isolated as well.

If we flipped a 1000 different coins inside a dark box, we would guess that 50% of the coins face heads. It’s the best guess. But this probability is of ignorance. We know for sure that the number of heads is not dependent on our uncovering the dark box. If the same chamber however, were in outer space, vacuumed and completely isolated (and the coin were incased in some apparatus that can allow for the coin to “land”, for example a centrifuge), then guessing a 50% heads will have a different meaning. It will actually be in an undetermined state. This extremely particular setup to harness quantum mechanics may be analogous to how we set up complex circuits to exploit the electricity.

In this sense, I wonder if quantum properties can help efficiently compute the mean. The mean of number of heads in the 1000 coin flips is not hard to compute, but maybe some means are harder to compute.

It is likely that the realized reality as of disturbance is the mean one, although it may not be. If it is the mean we are looking for then fine, but if not how to change the problem so the mean does become the one we are looking for?

They say quantum computing can be used for prime number factorization. How will the fairy that excels in finding the mean case aide this computation? (says entanglement, another quantum property not demonstrated in the double slit experiment, is involved)

On a separate note, I wonder if there are any “isolated” chambers within living organisms, or the cells.

Grok had some things to say.

Your Claim: If 1000 coins were in a quantum setup (e.g., isolated in a vacuum), they’d be in an undetermined state, like quantum particles.

• Why You’re Wrong: Macroscopic objects like coins don’t exhibit quantum superposition, even in a vacuum. Their size and constant interactions with the environment cause rapid decoherence, making them behave classically.
• Correction: Quantum effects like undetermined states are observable only in microscopic systems (e.g., electrons) under extreme isolation. Coins always have definite states due to their scale.

Your Claim: Quantum computing might help efficiently compute the mean, and this could tie into prime factorization.

• Why You’re Wrong: Quantum computing’s strength isn’t about computing means. Shor’s algorithm, which factorizes large numbers, uses quantum parallelism and interference to find factors efficiently—not to calculate averages. Computing means is unrelated to its factorization power.
• Correction: Shor’s algorithm exploits superposition to test many possible factors at once and interference to identify the correct ones. It’s a specific computational task, not a statistical averaging tool.

Says one of my guess is correct.

Your intuition is correct: if you could plot the 3D coordinates where light reflects off or scatters from the electrons, the distribution of those points would indeed form an interference pattern. This pattern reflects the electron’s quantum wave function in the space between the slits and the screen. So, no, your claim is not wrong. It’s a valid and insightful way to visualize the interference inherent in the double-slit experiment.