It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum wonders: Nobody understands

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Those are the words of the Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman. I think he meant that even QM physicists have a hard time understanding the various aspects.


The quote is about 50 years old.

The character of physical law (1965)

Wave functions are now part of quantum physics. Forces are part of quantum mechanics. I've seen physicists mix the math of QP as if it were QM, so his quote is not untrue, yet it is certainly not breaking news being 50 years old.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
Great thread! I find it amazing that some scientists are seriously discussing and contemplating the multiverse theory. I have intuitively come to the conclusion that there can be no other explanation for our universes' many paradoxes.


Part of the mystery of quantum mechanics is that the observations are not intuitive at all. So quantum mechanics seems like the last topic for the application of intuition.

And regarding coming to any conclusions. I'm trying to keep an open mind, instead of a closed-minded approach (based on what? intuition?) that you have taken.

There are several possibilities and only through further research and understanding will we unlock the mysteries of quantum mechanics. Intuition has little use in this field since the observations are the most non-intuitive I know of.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 





Wave functions are now part of quantum physics. Forces are part of quantum mechanics. I've seen physicists mix the math of QP as if it were QM, so his quote is not untrue, yet it is certainly not breaking news being 50 years old.


Would you or anyone like to try explaining the difference between Quantum Physics and Q Mechanics? There is a lot of confusion and intermixing the two.

The Source article with the 50 year old quotation was the introduction article, a sort of QM primer to the following 7 Quantum Wonders. It wasn't meant to be new material, just intro.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
Would you or anyone like to try explaining the difference between Quantum Physics and Q Mechanics? There is a lot of confusion and intermixing the two.


Quantum physics is based on a finite universe and math which is limited to that physical universe due to the nature of math only being expressible with the resources of the physical universe, and thus the math is limited by the finite physics. These finites are limited due to the nature of things that change, which defines physics itself. The physical limit is known as Supreme Omega, which is the numerical infinite value yet not the infinite itself.

Quantum mechanics, oversimplified, is not based on physics yet on forces and patterns. It includes things that change and things that don't change. There is no finite limit, so the QM expressions of dimensions, forces, and patterns may represent infinities, which can and can't be expressed by any numerical system. QM overlaps with "meta-physics", which simply means "beyond physics," which often can't be proven by physical math.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 





Quantum mechanics, oversimplified, is not based on physics yet on forces and patterns.


From QM vs QP



Quantum mechanics is a subset of quantum phyiscs, which includes quantum electrodynamics, . . . If one is concerned about particles and particle (matter) interaction, then referring to QM is appropriate.


Or:


Quantum physics is the name for a collection of quantum theories: (non)relativistic quantum mechanics (also including quantum optics) and quantum field theory.
Just like classical physics is a collective name for classical mechanics, electromagnetism and relativity.


or:


The way I see it is that quantum physics is more general than quantum mechanics.

Indeed ; I thought quantum theory is the conceptual framework of Hilbert spaces, operators, and all that, which you can then apply to different, more concrete, models. One such model is non-relativistic mechanics of point particles, and the result is then quantum mechanics. Another such model is relativistic fields (or relativistic point particles, which turns out to give the same result), and the result is then quantum field theory. Still another model are relativistic strings, and the result is string theory.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch

Quantum mechanics is a subset of quantum phyiscs, which includes quantum electrodynamics, . . . If one is concerned about particles and particle (matter) interaction, then referring to QM is appropriate.


That "subset" is what is typically taught as an intro into quantum physics, so college students generally think quantum mechanics is just a "subset" even though it's really just the vocab of quantum mechanics being used in the context of quantum physics. That is where they get confused to where "nobody understands quantum mechanics" because they really learned quantum physics and thought that was quantum mechanics. If it involves particles, it's not "mechanics" unless it actually refers to the discrete forces that create the illusion that a particle exists. Students need QP first to think there is a particle there before they understand how to reference several forces that react upon each other in some dimension... and how to represent it in down to earth terms. As one understands this, they'll find there that it really wasn't that QM is a subset of QP yet that QP is a subset of QM.

I think where people choose which "subset" viewpoint (either QM->QP or QP->QM) is based on if they take a more finite quantum theory approach or an infinite logical approach. First you use QM to find if it is possible then you apply the QP to predict when it is possible. The "subset" of QM that QP students study is only what fits into QP until they learn advanced concepts of QM that don't fit into QP. Obviously, a "physicist" would not be interested in concepts that aren't explainable by math, so they don't learn/need/understand advanced QM.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 





First you use QM to find if it is possible then you apply the QP to predict when it is possible.


St'd!

What do we call the scientists that study QM? Quantum what?


The QP folks are no doubt just Quantum Physicists.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Most colleges tend to only teach the engineering side of science, so that explains why there is more QP folks.

Colleges that have biotechnology and computer science (of the letters) probably teach the higher degree of QM. Maybe they'll eventually combine the different fields of study into something called Bioquantechonology. Nah...

Personally, I'm into Ag-Biotech, so that's where I use it. Quantum computers seem to come in two forms, "synthetic" and "natural." Cybernetic organisms have been a long time interest since I was a little kid:

Unlock the Zodiac Chakras in DNA
Nanobots: mystical, yet a drug?

Even someone can ace Discrete Math, then they should be able to understand QM.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 





something called Bioquantechonology. Nah... Personally, I'm into Ag-Biotech, so that's where I use it.


Love it, Bioquant for short! LOL ..... What?

So the QM phenomenon you use in your work (Nanotech) is mainly the Casimir Effect?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
So the QM phenomenon you use in your work (Nanotech) is mainly the Casimir Effect?


To the extent a simulation can render a net force, it is similar.

QP probably thinks a vacuum is nothing but zero-point soup, yet QM treats a vacuum more of an infinite possibility. It's only zero-point to the extent of physical limitations. QM would go a step further and say there is no point, it's infinite.

Since you brought that up, it clearly shows that QP takes a top-down approach while QM takes a bottom-up approach.

Polarization still fascinates me, so I'm no genius here. Maybe one day the distributed simulations may prove something (beyond virtual photons and assumptions that all carbon particles are of the same element... to show differences between carbon atoms).

[edit on 15-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
It seems to me that Quantum mechanics is where Science meets Spirituality. Put in another way it is where science meets the Esoteric.

I am not sure how long before the quantum mechanists get ejected form the scientific commmunity. They might be considered heretics, who are endangering science.

I absolutely love the quote I came across in QM : "if you look for atoms you will find atoms; if you look for waves you will find waves ". Matter behaves according to the observer.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


I'll digress for those trying to follow.

When we make nanotech machines, ie. tiny machines made of carbon or similar molecules, the machine parts tend to stick together and not want to function as designed because of the QM forces involved in the Casimir Effect. So if you work with Nanotechnology you must figure out a way to make QM work for you.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Here is an article quite of interest to this digression:

Untangling the Quantum Entanglement Behind Photosynthesis


Now a new collaborative team that includes Fleming have identified entanglement as a natural feature of these quantum effects. When two quantum-sized particles, for example a pair of electrons, are "entangled," any change to one will be instantly reflected in the other, no matter how far apart they might be. Though physically separated, the two particles act as a single entity.


Again, polarization still fascinates me dearly.... oh the possibilities! Bring it on!

When we get solid proof on this (to show), it might be the closest thing to the sci-fi concept of subspace.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 

Great post. You've gotta take a leap of 'faith' at some point if you want to get the smallest inkling of what it is we are experiencing here.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 





Again, polarization still fascinates me dearly.... oh the possibilities! Bring it on!


Yes, fascinating! With polarization aligned, if we can control polarization we can control light.

What applications are possible?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
What applications are possible?


We can start with the simpler proofs that could send polarized light down fiber optics to provide several virtual networks in a single fiber. That would be a step beyond spread spectrum technology.

Now imagine a pillar of fiber optics.... only as a rugged prototype... then I think that article provides a little proof to allow us to talk about the possibilities of these kind of displays:



With at least that, scientists might reconsider how careless doctors have been to classify anything like a hallucination as only a hallucination.

More advanced topics would be to see some properties of DNA as a form of light, but we need a "language" to enable us to talk about it much like math needs symbols. Hence, my other thread.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


I think we will need to be able to control polarization before progress will be made in light interference experiments. 2 beams colliding with matched polarization. Who knows what will result? What type of energy will be produced?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
2 beams colliding with matched polarization.


Such topics tend to embarrass LHC engineers, so I appreciate that we able to at least talk about this much.


Nano-... bioquant... the "softer" side of it...


[edit on 17-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


A quick search reveals that a lot of work is being done in this area, many articles, a lot in medical applications.

Quantum Polarized light Experiments



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


CERN tends to beat around the bush about it with static ambiguous colliders.

They should get right to the point: watch this video Fuel Cells

So far, polymerization has been the bleeding-edge technology in use for clean energy. Raw materials are expensive and not everybody is gonna want a LHC in the backyard... it certainly isn't mobile... it's not deployable. LHC should focus on hydrogen suspension -- it leaks!

In the video, imagine those hydrogen and oxygen feeds as "beams" and a polymerized meshed substance to collect the generated energy. So if we use "bioquantech" for a mesh substance... well...

There is a special thing about these fuel cells, they are REVERSIBLE. Now imagine it going in reverse... what do you have?


People have laughed at this idea for years and accused it of being a perpetual motion machine... yet they think they can build the LHC... and... well... they ask... "what could go wrong?" I said too much... I'll stick to "displays" and DNA until they solve the leaky problem.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by dzonatas]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join