Quantum Mechanics
-
- Posts: 247
- Joined: August 29th, 2009, 7:46 am
Quantum Mechanics
I admit that I am no expert on the subject, and that I would like to learn more. I do believe that a lot of what it says goes against common sense. But, then again, why would I expect it to make 'common sense'? I have no experience of things at the quantum level; so I have no sense of how things at that level should behave.
I was thinking of the 'double-slit experiment' and how a lot of people seem to find the wave-particle duality strange. I had always thought I understood it, and, therefore have not considered it strange. Maybe I'm wrong. The way I've always thought of it is this: A photon (or other quantum 'particles') is only a particle when it is being emitted or absorbed. When it is in motion it acts as a wave. So even when only one photon is released at a time it still causes the interference pattern as a wave (or seems to be going through two slits at once). Am I correct so far? It is only a 'particle' when it is not moving, or when it is interacting with something. As an analogy, I think of an ocean wave. When it is moving, it is a wave; but when I would like to stop it, I freeze the ocean. Then the wave is no longer a wave but a block of ice. A particle. I know it's not exactly like that, but just as a visual image for me. When it is in motion it is a wave. When it interacts with something, and is no longer in motion, the wave collapses to a particle. At least that's the way I have always thought of it.
That is only one example. If someone would bring up more, I would love to think of them. I have no problems with QM or its predictions or implications. I would like to discuss and learn what others think about it. Maybe clear up some of my incorrect beliefs. Thanks
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
- Location: Here/Now
What is quantum mechanics?
An interpretation of quantum mechanics;
Consider the wavefunction formalism of quantum mechanics, where a function Phi maps tuples of the form <t, x1, x2, ..., xn> to complex numbers. t is usually interpreted as time and x1, x2, ... (which are themselves 3-tuples) as positions of particles. Suppose then, this wavefunction represents an infinite set of physical systems for every possible t, where each system is three-dimensional and have no extent in time. There is no transtemporal identity for these systems, meaning one cannot say
that one system at time t "is" another system at time t’. (Therefore no causal structure is possible.) Every system contains n particles, and the measure of the subset of systems at time t with particles at positions x1, x2, ..., xn is |Phi(t, x1, x2, ..., xn)|^2. If the wavefunction takes other parameters such as spin states, these are summed over (i.e. Sum_over_all_y |Phi(t, y, x1, x2, ..., xn)|^2).
All possible structures that can be encoded in the positions of no more than n particles, including presumably human beings if n is large enough, appear in these infinite sets of systems. But some structures appear “more often” or have larger measures than others, and from this we can understand the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics. For example, consider a wavefunction that represents an experiment in which the experimenter measures the z-spin of a particle in the state (|up>+|down>)/Sqrt(2). At t=0, all systems include an experimenter who is about to measure the z-spin of the particle. At t=2, half of the systems include an experimenter who remembers observing spin-up and half of them include an experimenter who remembers observing spin-down.
*******************************
At any depth, there can be no 'visual/mental image' of the reality that quantum presents.
-
- Posts: 247
- Joined: August 29th, 2009, 7:46 am
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
- Location: Here/Now
You might be able to glean some info from a good discussion HERE.prodygi wrote:Thanks for the links. Do you know of an easy way of explaining 'spin'? like 'spin-down' or spin-up'?
Perhaps HERE might not be too difficult. Talks of simulteneity...
Aught to keep your brain 'spinning' for awhile...
*__-
- Laughing Man
- Posts: 125
- Joined: October 1st, 2009, 5:07 pm
a circular rotation is a simplification of a spherical rotation, or field.
in this sense, particles are merely observed instances of this field.
at least, thats how i see it anyway.
-
- Posts: 247
- Joined: August 29th, 2009, 7:46 am
In QM experiments and theories, when an observer is mentioned, or that something is in all states until observed, something like that, does that mean a conscience observer? or does it just mean when something interacts with another particle?
- Laughing Man
- Posts: 125
- Joined: October 1st, 2009, 5:07 pm
by observing the universe we alter it from the way it really exists when we dont observe it.
ive said this in another thread but,
imagine that the universe exists only in potential until something intelligent is able to observe it.
- Ifoundit1
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: February 25th, 2017, 1:02 am
Re: Quantum Mechanics
---Decent Logical Theories Of How I Think The Universe Operates---
I believe our universe and everything within it is contained within a black hole and we are consistently shrinking and everything is shrinking accept the black hole container and sense the containing black hole stays the same size while we get smaller it appears to expand more and faster as we get smaller which could be a misinterpretation as the universe expanding at increasing accelerated rates
What I also think is going on is if every part of the universe is the center of the universe, when these black holes form within the containing universe there are actually tears forming in the barrier (veil) of the black hole that contains our universe and all tears possibly have the same exit.
I also think the exit is somewhat of a pedical leading to a vine like connection of other universes likes a fertile grape vine. If we are shrinking and we were to reach a singularity or what I call "critical shrink" it would form a black hole within the black hole container equal to or greater in force causing the container to collapse and we possibly explode into raw material.
Or as the container collapses the inner black hole tare would re-expand to about the same size as the old one to contain the raw material and to become a new container for our universe about the same size as the old one due to the combined forces of the old one collapsing and exposing it to immediate changes in external pressures combined with the force it would take to contain the sum of materials in our universe.
I also think if we consider that we could be shrinking and the laws and nature of the universe was set by being contained within a black hole could explain why math is incomplete or "fundamentally flawed" and why an exact number has not been placed on infinity or infinities.
Bonus Theory
Here's a real fun 1. Throw the googleplex theory and the multiverse theory together. If there is another you or you(s) in another universe doing and thinking the same or similar things as you are at the same time and you think hello. When you think hello you hear it in your head. You also accept it as the reply from the alternate you(s) because it would be happening at the same time other you(s) possibly thought hello also. if i am correct I believe I have Invented Inter-Universal Communication Via provoked simultaneous Thought.
© 9 months ago, Anthony Ladis Diaz science journals • nature journals • misc journals
René Descartes said "I think therefore I am" I say "I think to see shall it not be?"
Bonus theory requote "we think therefore we are"
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
Re: Quantum Mechanics
prodygi wrote:We all seem, or at least I do, to have a different understanding of the implications of quantum mechanics (QM). I think it may be a good idea to discuss it.
snip
...snip... The way I've always thought of it is this: A photon (or other quantum 'particles') is only a particle when it is being emitted or absorbed. When it is in motion it acts as a wave. So even when only one photon is released at a time it still causes the interference pattern as a wave (or seems to be going through two slits at once). Am I correct so far? It is only a 'particle' when it is not moving, or when it is interacting with something. As an analogy, I think of an ocean wave. When it is moving, it is a wave; but when I would like to stop it, I freeze the ocean. Then the wave is no longer a wave but a block of ice. A particle. I know it's not exactly like that, but just as a visual image for me. When it is in motion it is a wave. When it interacts with something, and is no longer in motion, the wave collapses to a particle. At least that's the way I have always thought of it.
...snip...
p: I've always thought of quantum mechanics as something separate from the wave-particle problem, but what do I know. My layman's understanding and acceptance of wave-particle behavior, as in photons, is the same as yours, not very difficult to do, given our common understanding of ocean waves. Max Planck's quanta, however, is a more mysterious phenomenon IMO. One can discern a mathematical relationship, akin to our integer numbers, in the way matter responds to changes in energy levels. The relations and fixed increments of energy increase/decrease are plain to see. However, they beg the question of why matter is this way. Our scientific brothers are of mixed opinions on that point, it seems. - CW
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023