It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That quote looks like a variant of this quote from Richard Feynman, who won a Nobel prize for his understanding and advancement of quantum mechanics:
originally posted by: coomba98
Question for the physicists of ATS.
I heard on a documentary a few months ago from physicists the following:
'Anyone who says they understand Quantum Mechanics,
doesnt understand Quantum Mechanics.'
Is this correct?
Please read the opening post and watch the OP video since this is the topic, but no that is misstated because I wouldn't say there are a lot of theoretical models. The theoretical model is generally agreed on and works well at making predictions, so it's not a proliferation of models so much as a proliferation of interpretations of that model, such as the textbook Copenhagen interpretation which is probably wrong according to the OP video, the Debroglie-Bohm interpretation, The Everett interpretation, and others discussed in the OP video.
Although we understand some aspects of QM, we dont know diddly sqat about about QM. But there are alot of theoretical models to describe QM.
Is the saying above correct?
In the context of quantum mechanics I see the experimental results like the shadows on the wall, and our model is so good we can predict what those shadows will look like, but like the people in the cave who can only see the shadows we aren't sure what is causing them.
Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in front of a fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality.
I would say if one uses the definition of "observer" that new-agers use, meaning it needs to be a human observer, none of the above is true. "Observe" as used by physicists means something different than how new-agers interpret the term. The observation doesn't require any human, nor any consciousness, merely an interaction with something else. An observation can be made by an inanimate object like a scientific measuring instrument in a room that is completely empty of any conscious beings.
originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Cheers for your response.
With regards to the observer creating micro and macro reality, would you say:
1. This is exactly what is happening; or
2. This is what appears to be happening but we dont understand anywhere near enough of QM to say this is what is happening.
Would number 1 be akin to saying the ancient Greeks concluding that lightning came from Zeus? Given the knowledge available at the time.
Q:There's a lot of confusion between the uncertainty principle and the observer effect, leading to the new age, nonsensical claim that we can willfully create the world around us by altering our thoughts. So, to be clear (because there's a lot of conflicting info out there), when we talk about "observing" an electron and thereby changing its state, we're talking about using equipment to measure it, not simply observing with the naked eye, right?
A: Right, we have no indication at all that interaction with conscious beings (e.g. us) does something different than interaction with any other large object in which some record is left of the results...
Obliquity to the ecliptic of Earth: 23.45 deg, sun: 7.25 deg
originally posted by: tikbalang
Earth is oblique, is the Sun Spherical?
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. While Earth's axis is a straight line, the straight line wobbles like a spinning top does in an effect called "precession", but because Earth is so much larger than a top, the precession cycles are much slower.
Is the axis of earth and the equator a straight line?
At present, the star known as Polaris is the North Star. However, Polaris has not always been the North Star and will not always be the North Star. To understand that, we need to look at how the Earth spins on its axis.
I pass your kudos on to the other contributors to this thread who have given some great answers, and I'm glad you like the thread.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
Arbitrageur, a really great thread! You are awesome!
Electric charge is "fundamental" meaning we don't have a deeper understanding of charge, but we do observe that electrons tend to accelerate in an electric field as a result of this fundamental property. Electrons inside the atom don't "move" as we understand the word "move", rather their behavior is unlike any common object we understand, but meshes more with our understanding of waves as discussed here: www.youtube.com...
I have a few questions. Answer whatever you are interested in talking about:
1. Why do electrons move at all?
I agree with how John Baez has responded to this difficult question:
2. Is time real? In other words, does the Universe execute the laws of physics in discrete steps or is all the energy in the Universe part of one single continuous wave of energy?
"The brief answer to this question is, 'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit. On the other hand, there is no evidence against it, except that we have not yet found it. There are no well-worked-out physics theories incorporating a fundamental unit of time, and there are substantial obstacles to doing so in a way that is compatible with the principles of General Relativity. Recent work on a theory of quantum gravity in which gravity is represented using loops in space suggests that there might be a way to do something roughly along these lines--not involving a minimum unit of time but rather a minimum amount of area for any two-dimensional surface, a minimum volume for any three-dimensional region in space and perhaps also a minimum 'hypervolume' for any four-dimensional region of space-time."
Nobody knows what came "before" the big bang, or if that question even makes any sense if time didn't even exist prior to the big bang.
3. Is our Big Bang the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in another space-time dimension?
It's not much energy, you probably create as much energy as that when you snap your fingers. What makes it amazing is the shrimp's ability to focus that energy into a volume with a diameter of maybe one millionth of a meter (which you can't do when you snap your fingers because you don't have any way to focus that sound into such a small volume). But the source of the energy is like snapping your fingers, it's just mechanical energy suddenly released creating sound and resulting cavitation, implosion of a tiny bubble, and sonoluminescence when the shrimp snaps its claw.
4. What is the source of energy causing the bright flash in this video to be as hot as the sun:
I don't think there's a definitive answer. It's conceivable that the current expansion and acceleration might be related somehow to the configuration of the universe and since we expect the configuration of the universe to change over time (eventually black hole domination and then black hole "evaporation"), the acceleration might not happen with alternate or future configurations. It's hard to see how anything will stop the acceleration in time frames which humans can begin to understand, like several times the present age of the universe.
5. If the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, will it ever stop?
The universe has the behavior it does like order and objects because of the properties of our universe (the physical constant being what they are etc). We don't know why the properties of the universe are what they are, but if they were significantly different we might not have order or objects. (Some say if they were slightly different, but I'm not so sure about that).
6. Why is there any order in the Universe at all? Why do objects exist?