Does anyone else think about quantum physics on a daily basis?
5 comments
You'll be better served by reading "observation" as "interaction". In my understanding, wave functions collapse when the particle/wave/whatever interacts with something else, like maybe a particle detector. It doesn't really matter whether there's a conscious scientist watching the display.
Also, what helps me wrap my head around QM is to tell myself not that quanta are waves and particles at the same time, but that what we see as waves and particles are just special cases of "the real thing" we see in QM. The way my physics professor put it is that things move like waves (interference, etc) and interact like particles (at a location).
As for atoms, yeah, what we think of as "solidity" is just electrical repulsion between atoms in your hand and atoms in the table. It doesn't really change anything. You can still sit on chairs and it takes effort to accelerate things.
I recommend examining the actual experiments used to determine the freaky properties of wave-particle duality, and maybe try to understand some of the math. Look at the photo-electric effect, the double-slit experiment, de Broglie wavelength, and the physical reasons for the uncertainly principle (that one in particular makes perfect sense). It won't all exactly make more sense, but it won't be as mysterious. It's still physics, not magic.
Disclaimer: I've read a lot of layman stuff on QM, and I'm taking a course involving it right now, but we haven't gotten to the really juicy bits yet.
Also, what helps me wrap my head around QM is to tell myself not that quanta are waves and particles at the same time, but that what we see as waves and particles are just special cases of "the real thing" we see in QM. The way my physics professor put it is that things move like waves (interference, etc) and interact like particles (at a location).
As for atoms, yeah, what we think of as "solidity" is just electrical repulsion between atoms in your hand and atoms in the table. It doesn't really change anything. You can still sit on chairs and it takes effort to accelerate things.
I recommend examining the actual experiments used to determine the freaky properties of wave-particle duality, and maybe try to understand some of the math. Look at the photo-electric effect, the double-slit experiment, de Broglie wavelength, and the physical reasons for the uncertainly principle (that one in particular makes perfect sense). It won't all exactly make more sense, but it won't be as mysterious. It's still physics, not magic.
Disclaimer: I've read a lot of layman stuff on QM, and I'm taking a course involving it right now, but we haven't gotten to the really juicy bits yet.
This is great, andrewflnr, thanks a lot. Might I ask what got you into this stuff/how you learned?
The library, and eventually wikipedia. I think I just found a book called "Particle Physics" in the local library and read it.
Nice, sounds like more or less what I've been doing. I got a few books from the lib (one on Quantum Chemistry which is kinda cool), and then on Hulu I've watched What the bleep and other such oddities. Have yet to meet someone who has a real degree in Quantum Physics/Mechanics/Chemistry (though I know Harvard has a department)
This isn't about QM per say, but may I suggest you read Richard Feynman's book: "Surely you're joking? Mr. Feynman!" It was a hugely entertaining read. Be warned: there is some content in the book that may be a bit politically incorrect.
Does it have quantum-y jokes?
I do too. In terms of the age old deterministic vs non- deterministic dilemma. I think this observation supports that nothing can be predicted but yet we can't think of us as in control of our destiny either.
Some pretty wild implications. Exciting! Or, if you prefer, depressing!
There's that joke about Heisenberg, he's stopped by a cop for speeding and asked "Do you know how fast you were going?"
I do, yes. Despite not knowing that much about it.
+ Scientists have found that sub-atomic particulars flicker in and out of existence/our "awareness" all the time (sometimes like a wave, sometimes like a particle, even the densest parts of atoms aren't "dense")
+ The phenomena of something "snapping into place" only after the scientist ("observer") observes it. Like things mainly exists as "probability clouds" and then those probabilities start narrowing as the observer narrows their focus.
Now I'm sure I'm butchering all of the scientific details (and I do apologize for that), but my question is two-fold:
a) Does anyone have a better, first-hand, understanding and/or experience with this that they can share (in layman's terms)?
b) And, if these principles are "true" — why aren't most people talking about this/freaking out?
Wouldn't this be something that's like....I dunno....kind of a big deal? Like "oh shit, the jedi knights were right"?
I'm sure there's some quantum genius on here who can just drop the mike on this one...