Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Quantum Mechanics Is Not So Weird after All
Skeptical Inquirer ^ | July 2006 | Paul Quincey

Posted on 09/14/2006 10:27:24 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: snarks_when_bored

for later


41 posted on 09/15/2006 1:52:05 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
LOL!
42 posted on 09/15/2006 2:18:54 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro; snarks_when_bored
Has either of you read "Timeline" by Crichton? It has a very interesting story based on quantum mechanics and quantum theory. While it's a fascinating topic, it's still beyond most people. Crichton has a knack for explaining it in such a way that everyone can get a grasp of it. Such an excellent writer. I recommend the book, it's very enjoyable.
43 posted on 09/15/2006 2:23:03 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: onyx eyes
"But what's between the branches?"

"Nothing. It's branches, all the way down."

44 posted on 09/15/2006 2:33:18 AM PDT by Erasmus (It takes branes to make an alternate universe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch

Right On. Every time I read that little gem I love it.


45 posted on 09/15/2006 2:35:32 AM PDT by FreeRadical (Pray. Make Babies. Teach. Repeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: onyx eyes

Thenks fer the inspiration fer the new tagline.


46 posted on 09/15/2006 2:35:34 AM PDT by Erasmus (I invited Benoit Mandelbrot to the Shoreline Grill, but he never got there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Sometimes the path not taken is not taken for a reason. Like, it's scary.


47 posted on 09/15/2006 2:41:21 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
All I know about physics is Murphy's Law. All I know about Murphy's Law is two things:

Murphy has a personal grudge against me.

Murphy's First Law is "P!$$ on Hardastarboard".

48 posted on 09/15/2006 2:43:47 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (Why isn't there an "NRA" for the rest of my rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Do not try to understand something outside of its exact mathematical model.

The math works, the layman's interpretation does not.


BUMP

49 posted on 09/15/2006 2:44:53 AM PDT by capitalist229 (Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
The final point is a little vague but more fundamental. If we accept that the future is not fixed, we expect it to contain surprises. Crudely speaking, this is not very plausible in a world where particles have continuous trajectories and an infinite amount of information is freely available. It is much more plausible in a world that is in some way discontinuous, where the available information is limited.

The future is not yet set. What a hopeful thing!

Perhaps this is how God gave us "free will" and how Einstein was misguided in saying that "God does not play dice with the universe".

50 posted on 09/15/2006 5:59:38 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored; PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer
"most interesting article I've read in months" placemarker

PH: please deploy your obligatory "Path of Least Action" ping list....

51 posted on 09/15/2006 7:11:00 AM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored


Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics
52 posted on 09/15/2006 7:13:05 AM PDT by BaBaStooey (I heart Emma Caulfield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; YHAOS; Quix; MHGinTN
As we imagine moving to the quantum realm by increasing the size of Planck's constant from zero, something remarkable happens. At some point, the blinding light disappears to reveal stable atoms, capable of forming molecules. Far from making everything go weird, quantum mechanics makes it go normal.

Fascinating post, snarks_when_bored!!! Thank you so much for posting it!

As Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos point out, [in The Non-local Universe], classical physics evolved in the framework of “customary points of view and forms of perception,” which are ultimately rooted in visualizable experience.

But neither the “world” of relativity nor the quantum world are “visualizable” in the standard sense of that word. Which is likely why we think phenomena at the quantum level are so “weird.”

[Niels] Bohr often emphasizes that our descriptive apparatus is dominated by the character of our visual experience and that the breakdown in the classical description of reality observed in relativistic and quantum phenomena occurs precisely because we are in these two regions moving out of the range of visualizable experience…. [p. 90f]

…[Quoting Bohr here] “Just as relativity theory has taught us that the convenience of distinguishing sharply between space and time rests solely with the smallness of the velocities ordinarily met with compared with the speed of light, we learn from the quantum theory that the appropriateness of our visual space-time descriptions depends entirely on the small value of the quantum of action compared to the actions involved in ordinary sense perception”….

“Just as we can safely disregard the effects of the finiteness of light speed in most applications of classical dynamics on the macro level because the speed of light is so large that relativistic effects are negligible, so we can disregard the quantum of action on the micro level because its effects are so small. Yet everything we deal with on the macro level obeys the rules of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, and … unrestricted classical determinism does not universally apply even in our dealings with macro-level systems.* Classical physics is a workable approximation that seems precise only because the largeness of the speed of light and the smallness of the quantum of action give rise to negligible effects.”

* E.g., this is not a “clockwork universe!!!

Bohr always insisted, however, that the classical language of Newtonian mechanics must be used in describing quantum phenomena, in part for epistemological reasons based on the above observations. Plus he thought of quantum mechanics as a “rational generalization of classical mechanics,” and so the results of quantum mechanical experiments “must be expressed in classical terms.”

For Bohr, quantum mechanics is not an extension of classical mechanics. Instead, he viewed classical mechanics as a subset, or “approximation that has a limited domain of validity,” of a more general physical situation which is comprehensively described by QM.

This is totally amazing stuff!!! The categories of thought that arose in and were shaped by visualizable experience truly are no help here. We need a new way "to look at" the world.

Thanks again for this stimulating essay, snarks!

53 posted on 09/15/2006 7:29:29 AM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Statistics is a little unusual compared with ordinary kitchen variety calculus. There are a couple of leaps they make because of the form of the math. I suppose the leaps are okay so long as they seem to be working. They do solve that pesky calculus integral with the -e^2 in it, which most calculus books wave their chalk at and appeal to higher powers.


54 posted on 09/15/2006 7:31:58 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

Maybe you should go hardaport for a while, and then Murphy would get to like you?


55 posted on 09/15/2006 8:06:50 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey

Britney certainly knows her density of states....


56 posted on 09/15/2006 8:08:28 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Feynman was an absolute master in his ability to look at things from many different directions, many different points of view.


57 posted on 09/15/2006 8:35:16 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; cornelis; .30Carbine; Whosoever
[ This is totally amazing stuff!!! The categories of thought that arose in and were shaped by visualizable experience truly are no help here. We need a new way "to look at" the world. ]

True.. I'am here to serve d;-)~'.'.'.

There are two dimensions..
This one (length,width, depth and the illusion of time) call it the Maze of Physical Observation.. by the human brain according to time..
-AND-
Another dimension composed of spiritual things.. God, Angels(two kinds) and US.. call it the Matrix of Spiritual Observation.. by the spirit of spiritual beings according to timing not time..

Two dimensions or paradigms.. existing parallethe Matrix of Spiritual Observationl to one another like two sides of a coin, reciprocals.. Mixing them up randomly makes mud... but addressing each in its own ugh!.... realm makes colors of thought.. And ultimately a mental/ideolological painting displaying a "painting/view/vista/homogeny".. Like when a two dimensional portrait/painting/landscape appears to be three dimensional but isn't.. Its two dimensional(the drawing) but shows shadows of something deeper than two dimensions..

If we(humans) are spirits riding a human body then both realms are/can be available to us.. And our "observations" should be of "the coin" not one side or the other.. Observing from the Maze of Physical Observation then is flawed(science) or from the Matrix of Spiritual Observation is flawed(religion) just the same..

I agree we need a new way to look at things..

58 posted on 09/15/2006 8:46:12 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Fascinating.

Wonderful as usual, Betty. Thanks.


59 posted on 09/15/2006 8:51:29 AM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

Sharp as a tack, that one


60 posted on 09/15/2006 8:55:52 AM PDT by BaBaStooey (I heart Emma Caulfield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson