The gods must be crazy (Physics article)

U.S. News and World Report ^ | September 8, 2003 | Charles W. Petit

[-YYZ-]

The real question in quantum mechanics, and I believe it remains so, is whether quantum superpostions of objects at the macro level really do exist. We know that quantum effects at the particle scale are real enough, as can be seen in the classic two-slit experiment, but do they scale up to the macro level that we live in, or do they collapse at some particular scale?

[keats5]

"The Bible also speaks of 3 heavens in an unseen area."

Do you happen to know where? I'd love to check that out.

[keats5]

Well, I didn't understand all that. But I think they should have used a rat instead.

[keats5]

Thanks for that poem. That's priceless.

[Capitalism2003]

anyone have a physics ping list? add me!

[visualops]

Fate...do we change the path by imagining a choice?

I'm into fractals myself.
# --- L-System Parser/Mutator --- Lj Lapre
18 # recursion level
10 # basic angle
200 # starting thickness
^^^^^C # axiom
#-------------------------------------- Creature
C=LBW
#-------------------------------------- Body
B=[[''aH]|[g]]
a=Fs+;'a # upper part
g=Ft+;'g # lower part
s=[::cc!!!!&&[FFcccZ]^^^^FFcccZ] # upper spikes
t=[c!!!!&[FF]^^FF] # lower spikes
#-------------------------------------- Lungs
L=O # 8 recursions delay
O=P
P=Q
Q=R
R=U
U=X
X=Y
Y=V
V=[cc!!!&&&&&&&&&[Zp]|[Zp]]
p=h>>>>>>>>>>>>h>>>>>>>>>>>>h
h=[++++!F'''p]
#-------------------------------------- Head
H=[cccci[>>>>>dcFFF][<<<< d=Z!&Z!&:'d # left
e=Z!^Z!^:'e # right
i=-:"i
#-------------------------------------- Wing
W=[%[!!cb][<<<!!cb][>>>!!cb]]
b=Fl!+Fl+;'b # arc
l=[-cc{--z++z++z--|--z++z++z}]
#-------------------------------------- End
@

[Ichneumon]

“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”

That's what the underachievers always say to the honor students...

[Stallone]

I believe Einstein once said something to the effect that the universe is wonderful not because it is beyond our understanding, but by virtue of the fact that we can understand it.

Wow, talk about a wrong turn!

Here's what Einstein really said:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case."

Einstein sounds to me like a man who knows his limitations, unlike the arrogant twits referred to in this article.

Here's another Einstein quote:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Cheers.

[aruanan]

Pink Matter Alert II

[-YYZ-]

Interesting, I played around a bit with fractals myself in university. Interesting thing about them is that you'd never really know what beauty hides inside those simple computations without the power of computer visualization.

Is that some kind of computer language? Awfully strange looking one, but not so much stranger than a densely written Perl prog full of regular expressions and pattern matching and special variables. Or LISP - never could quite get the hang of using recursion to do everything.

[TopQuark]

simplify fundamental particles like quarks[?]

Never. Over my dead body.

[MHGinTN]

Do you suppose they'll heat up their manifolds?

[MHGinTN]

Do they scale up? ... How else to explain the sudden appearance then disappearance of Angels? Superposition

I happen to believe in Angels, so the question I ask is, "What is the where/when realm of these real beings?" Are they, by definition, existing in a realm that is extra-dimensional to our senses but able to 'condense' to appear in our sensory range?

[visualops]

That's not a computer language, but a formula. Various formulas (sets of rules really) "grow" the 3-dimensional fractals. There's alot more to it than that of course. These are Lindenmayer-Systems string rewriting techniques developed by Astrid Lindenmayer in 1968 which can be used to model the morphology of a variety of organisms. The program I use is Laurens Lapré’s LSystem, which can export the fractals as DXF files that I can texture and render in other 3D programs.

[Kyrie]

A measurement is a quantified observation of anything that can be observed.

Look up what an "operational" definition is. Your definition is not "operational" until you define "observer" which is really the crux of the matter.

Suppose, for example, that we are doing an experiment along the lines of the classic two-slit single electron diffraction experiment. When the electron emerges through the slits it has no definite position, only a "wave" function that gives the probability of "measuring" it at various locations. While this "wave" is indeed a mathematical abstraction, we find that this mathematical abstraction appears to interfere with itself in a well-recognized interference pattern in the real world. However, when a "measurement" of the position of the electron is made, there is no longer a "wave" probability function. At the instant of "measurement" the electron is in a single position with probability one.

The question then is, what constitutes a "measurement"? Or in your wording (begging the question), what constitutes an "observer"?

Could a single particle be an "observer"? In a practical sense this question would seem to be unknowable for us, since we must then observe the "observer" particle to read its "observation." I believe, however, that experiments have succeeded in demonstrating that a system consisting of more than one particle into superposed states. If I am correct on that, the experimental evidence would suggest that if a single particle attempted to "observe" an electron in a superposed position, then rather than the "observation" forcing the electron to be found in a single position, the "observation" would force the "observer" particle into a superposed state. And this is what current quantum theory would predict.

The problem is that quantum theory currently predicts this outcome for any number of particles--even the enormous number of particles in a human body. How is it that our "observations" force the electron to manifest a single position, instead of the superposition of the electron forcing our "observations" into a superposed state?

The only useful understanding from the mathematical statement-superposition of states- is, that the entity is not interacting with anything at the moment.

But the "entity" WILL be continually interacting with other particles--virtual particles a la Richard Feynman. Also, as stated above, if the "entity" interacts with one other particle, then quantum theory predicts that they will both end in superposed states.

They are not reality itself.

Judging from this statement, it seems that you do at least believe in an objective reality. So, when we set up a single electron diffraction experiment, what is "really" happening?

In otherwords, it can't be observed by anything any other entity that could observe it.

Here your grammar is such that I can't make out your intent. Did you mean "In other words, it can't be observed by any other entity that could observe it?" That would be a grammatically-correct self-contradicting sentence.

When considering the word observer in physics, consider that a window and a ball are observers.

Here your grammar is fine, but I still can't make out your intent. Sarcasm? Irony? Absurdity? Seriousness? A reference to a ball breaking a window?

[D-fendr]

An excerpt from Quantum Questions:

“I should like to stress the following:

1) Modern science, in its beginnings, was characterized by a conscious modesty; it made statements about strictly limited relations that are only valid within the framework of these limitations.

2) This modesty was largely lost during the nineteenth century.

Physical knowledge was considered to make assertions about nature as a whole. Physics wished to turn philosopher, and the demand was voiced from many quarters that all true philosophers must be scientific.

3) Today physics is undergoing a basic change, the most characteristic trait of which is a return to its original self-limitation.

4) The philosophic content of a science is only preserved if science is conscious of its limits. Great discoveries of the properties of individual phenomena are possible only if the nature of the phenomena is not generalized a priori. Only by leaving open the question of the ultimate essence of a body, of matter, of energy, etc., can physics reach an understanding of the individual properties of the phenomena that we designate by the concepts, an understanding which alone may lead us to real philosophical insight.”

Werner Heisenberg from “If Science Is Conscious of Its Limits...”

[spunkets]

"Could a single particle be an "observer"?

Yes. It is in fact a perfect observer of all things it has the capacity to observe. For instance, an election will never see an comprhend a dog pee, but it can see the electrostatic field created by the dog's stream.

"In a practical sense this question would seem to be unknowable for us, since we must then observe the "observer" particle to read its "observation."

You are just introducing a second observer here. In reality that particular second observer is composed of a multitude of varied observers all working together.

"When the electron emerges through the slits it has no definite position, only a "wave" function that gives the probability of "measuring" it at various locations. While this "wave" is indeed a mathematical abstraction, we find that this mathematical abstraction appears to interfere with itself in a well-recognized interference pattern in the real world."

The wave function you are refering to is complex. By itself there is nothing observable given by it. If the wave function is multiplied by it's complex conjugate a probability amplitude is obtained that gives the probability of finding an electron as a function of coordinate behind the slited screen. Any single electron will be found and if you keep firing them at the slit, a pattern will be found that is the same as the probability amplitude vs distance behind the screen.

What I was saying before is that these particles are neither particles, nor waves. They are something else. Particles and waves are mathematical concepts that allow modeling of reality. In the case of massive particles like the electron, the wave function is complex. That means nothing can be observed directly about the particle. Only the product of wave function with it's complex conjugate has meaning. That product will given the probability of observing a particle like entity having certain properties.

A massive particle can never interfere with itself. It will never cancel itself, nor will it multiply itself into something bigger. Considering the features of the experiment that way leads to error. Consider the toss of a die. On any particular role the die ends up rolling a particular way that it can and ends up with a particular face pointing perpendicular to the table. The observers are the die of a particular mass and geometry, the gravitational field, the randomness of the tosser's toss and the table top and it's physical characteristics. On any particular role the die has a definite and particular motion through space and there's a particular outcome. The same with the electron. Notice no information is given about the die itself in this experiment only the outcome of one, or many rolls is given. If the number of rolls approaches infinity, the envelope of the probability distribution of outcomes is given. The same with the slit experiment. On any particular role, or shot at the slit, the projectile has a definite path and ends up in a particular way. In niether experiment is the path and the projectiles nature discerned.

"superposed states"

Consider in the die experiment that the face taken as perpendicular to the table top s obtained while the die is still in motion. THat is done with a camera as the die crosses a line on the table. It is in a superposition of states before(their are six of them) and it is in a superposition of states after. In reality the superposition of states in QM is the same. Before and after the camera shot, the particulars are not known. In physical experiments the particles never settle down, they keep going. In the slit experiment they keep going after they are detected somewhere on the other side of the slit.

"A reference to a ball breaking a window?"

In physics the idea of observer is simple. The observer is just an entity that will act according to physical laws and w/o error. Balls and windows are perfect observers, humans are not. Both the ball and window will see each other at the moment they interact and act accordingly. Before they interact, they will not know each other though.

You are thinking of single particle QM. In that conception the action of single particles is quantized. In field theory the action of fields is quantized. There if the fields are small, the number of particles arising out of that field is indeterminate. The field has more of a reality than the idea of single particle does. For the electromagnetic field the wave function is real. The fields can be observed directly. The square of the field gives the energy flux. If the field is small though the number of photons is indeterminate.

[RightWingAtheist]

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom," ... Robert Milken, Nobel Prize winner in physics, 1923

Well, in spite of his frequent stubbornness to the point of being short-sighted, and his sloppy note-taking which has caused many to (unjustly) cast doubts on his ethics, Millikan is still one of my heroes. A great scientist, a great educator, and a great conservative whose political ideas deserve to be resurrected and re-appraised.

[RightWingAtheist]

Such a negative attitude in this article. Ugly? Random? I was waiting for the subject of Einstein's search for the Grand Unification Theory to come up when I read this

I didn't read the article as being negative, just cautiously optimistic. And the search for the "grand unifaction theory" preceeds Einstein; ever since Faraday united electricity and magnetism, and especially after Maxwell united them with light, the key word in the narrative of physics has been unity We've succeeded in uniting electromagnetism with the nuclear forces, but gravity, the stubborn old goat, just won't fit in.

No reason? Denial of deliberate or intelligent design at even this level? What do these physicists want, a Book spelling it all out?

No, just evidence.

[null and void]

then the Bible writers just made a lucky guess, like Democritus did when he predicted the existence of atoms

Ummmm, no. Democritus determined that matter must come in small particles, based on amomg other things, the observed fact that a gallon of water plus a gallon of alcohol does not make two gallons of mixture...