Skip to comments.Why Quantum Mechanics Is Not So Weird after All
Posted on 09/14/2006 10:27:24 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
click here to read article
"Nothing. It's branches, all the way down."
Right On. Every time I read that little gem I love it.
Thenks fer the inspiration fer the new tagline.
Sometimes the path not taken is not taken for a reason. Like, it's scary.
Murphy has a personal grudge against me.
Murphy's First Law is "P!$$ on Hardastarboard".
The math works, the layman's interpretation does not.
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".
PH: please deploy your obligatory "Path of Least Action" ping list....
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]* E.g., this is not a clockwork universe!!!
[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.
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!
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.
Maybe you should go hardaport for a while, and then Murphy would get to like you?
Britney certainly knows her density of states....
Feynman was an absolute master in his ability to look at things from many different directions, many different points of view.
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..
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..
Wonderful as usual, Betty. Thanks.
Sharp as a tack, that one
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.