Quantum Mechanics will blow your mind - the peculiar features of quantum theory!

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
reply to post by CHA0S

 

Incorrect. The electron is existing in a wave-state before we pin it down under observation.

Prove it.

I think he already did in the OP. The existence of quanta or quantized amounts of energy is the basis for quantum mechanics. We know that the electron only increases or decreases it's state of quantized energy by absorbing or releasing these energy packets and this behavior can be explained with the electron existing in a wave-state. How else can you explain this behavior?

Plus, in the double-slit experiment, you can see the interference pattern resulting from wave-like behavior before you start observing which slit the photon/electron etc is passing through. So the interference pattern is evidence of wave-like behavior, which as I pointed out in an earlier post, SOMETIMES it collapses under observation, sometimes it doesn't, depending on how the observation is made.

Couldn't quantum entanglement be a possible explanation for the "ESP" type experiences reported by twins ?

After all, with the correct "hardware" the theory indicates instantaneous communication is possible with distance no object ?

Also it does seem that there is a greying of the distinction between observation and belief in the scientific world. Maybe ultimately a critical mass of belief needs to be reached before the observation can be made that will define the theory of everything !

Quantum mechanics is a very interesting field. It seems to always be under attack from those who refuse to find or acknowledge links between the physical and the, dare i say, spiritual.

I am constantly reminded of the times in history when the best science had to offer were the abhorrently incorrect theories and how new theories would be pushed into the dirt and beat up. Seems to me that type of 'science' does nothing for humanity and is instead a selfish self-serving act in itself. I think we know the real 'pseudoscience' and it is easily identifiable as being completely incompatible with other fields of science. But I guess we're talking about peoples careers here. They only spent their entire lives developing those theories and we can't expect them to just admit they're wrong, can we? Ah, the purity of science.

I really enjoy Quantum Mechanics because of its rebel flair. It seems that the more people extrapolate from the consequences of this new-found knowledge, the more we are told to keep our own indulgences to the experts - you know, the pseudoscientists. However, the more the facts keep coming out the more that mathematical equations seem to take a back seat in logic to the simple and effective extrapolations of common sense. One can conclude that because not only is everything connected, but our consciousness could very well be a manifestation of a collective reality.

I mean, if that were true, what power could the last man on earth wield? The first?

I, as many others do, believe that I am in control of my destiny. That there are many paths to choose from and that we are responsible for those actions. There are thousands of stories about people who overcome odds because they willed a reality into their lives.

It's great fun trying to understand what Quantum Mechanics means to us as humans, instead of what it means to everything but. A lot of science these days seems to be done in spite of our species. It seems they are losing their way.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Agreed Arbitrageur - but his statement implies that the particles exist only in a wave-like state before the observation.

There is no proof that these particle-waves do not collapse by some other method other than observation.

If this is true, then is observation itself one of the unifying forces??

We watch the particles do their little dance and they dance for us. We look away and they do backflips. Then we turn back around and it's as if we never looked away. They're just doing their little dance. Now say we look away and they start doing backflips. Then they decide to stop doing backflips. We're still unaware that they decided to do backflips or decided to stop. Now the particles are making out with eachother. But we are none the wiser. We turn back around and it's as if we never looked away. They're just doing their dance.

This is a real possibility and yet it seems that people have forgotten this. If all possibilities are available to these particles, then their observation cannot be the only reason why they decide to choose a particular path.

I think there is something linked to observation that we're missing and I'll do well to come up with what it could be. But I do know that no possibilities mentioned can be considered incorrect until these discrepencies have been ironed out.

" The scientists had collapsed the wave function of the electrons, simply by observing them. "

To me this make sense as the human eye sends out electromagnetic energy which would interfere with the wave function of a particle doesn't seem too complicated and im sure someone with a decent physics background would able to word this much better than i can its just something to get others thinking.

Originally posted by kiv-93
" The scientists had collapsed the wave function of the electrons, simply by observing them. "

To me this make sense as the human eye sends out electromagnetic energy which would interfere with the wave function of a particle doesn't seem too complicated and im sure someone with a decent physics background would able to word this much better than i can its just something to get others thinking.

Interesting.

How long have humans been on the planet earth? How far away are the farthest stars that we can see? How long does it take electromagnetic energy to reach the farthest star that we can see?

And yet we can see that farthest star.

An interesting thought about the role of the "observer" in Quantum Mechanics:

Observation is relative. Are you observing a process and affecting it or is the
process observing and affecting you? Is your observation of the process just an effect of the process?

Originally posted by careface
An interesting thought about the role of the "observer" in Quantum Mechanics:

Observation is relative. Are you observing a process and affecting it or is the
process observing and affecting you? Is your observation of the process just an effect of the process?

I believe the answers to these questions vary greatly based upon perception.

As you say, it is all relative - or so it seems.

Originally posted by CHA0S
...I wanted to emphasize the mysterious aspects of quantum physics...and connect those aspects with consciousness and the observer and really emphasize that magical aspect of quantum mechanics where we can each create our own reality....

i hate to be redundant in Arbitrageur's criticism, but.....


in the above quote, the OP, himself, has made the critical mistake.


THERE is NO magical ASPECT of QUANTUM mechanics. NONE.
__________

but, as a counter criticism, i offer this:

although Arbitrageur says otherwise, there is plenty of room for letigimate speculation for consciousness as the basic framework of reality, using QM as a focal point of discussion.

but in such a discussion, as always, it is very important to not wander into "magical" pretenses.


better, OP, to just leave quantum mechanics to the (as you put it) mundane.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I think he already did in the OP. The existence of quanta or quantized amounts of energy is the basis for quantum mechanics. We know that the electron only increases or decreases it's state of quantized energy by absorbing or releasing these energy packets and this behavior can be explained with the electron existing in a wave-state.

Yes, thank you for little explanation, I meant to discuss the quanta when I was talking about the photon, but it slipped my mind. I think they discuss it in that video series I linked on the first page anyway.

reply to post by tgidkp

THERE is NO magical ASPECT of QUANTUM mechanics. NONE.

Yes there is, Quantum Mechanics explains with better clarity the structure of reality and deep connection we each have with each other and the universe as a whole. That is something magical to me, and I don't use the word magical in a way which implies it defies logic and understanding. I don't believe anything defies logic and understanding, we just haven't figured out exactly how it works yet.

[edit on 15/5/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by TarzanBeta

There is no proof that these particle-waves do not collapse by some other method other than observation.

You may not reply to this, since it's been a few days since I checked this thread. But how can you deny that there must be a direct connection between the observer and the observed. One explanation I heard, involved photons or something coming from the observer. I really just didn't get it at all. Your eyes don't shoot photons, and even if they did photons are whizzing around everywhere all the time...your eyes/camera's detect photons which have bounced off other objects...and when the scientists put the camera next to the slit, they weren't even directly observing the particles.

EDIT: ok, I was a little off, but close, the bunkers try to argue this:

to "see" the electrons you have to shine light on them, or, fire photons at them. it´s not the very act of observing that change the result so much as the impact of the photons on the electrons

But as I said, photons are bouncing around everywhere all the time...and putting a camera or any other type of detector next to the slit doesn't somehow turn the particle being observed into a photon magnet does it? You can collapse the wave-function without exposing a particle to any more photons than it would normally be exposed to. That explanation is absolute crap.

[edit on 15/5/10 by CHA0S]

I don't understand why quantum entanglement doesn't violate faster than speed of light communication. Take two entangled pairs, have one on earth the other on mars and use morse code. Voila, instant communication ... ???

reply to post by AllIsOne

Take two entangled pairs, have one on earth the other on mars and use morse code. Voila, instant communication ... ???

Yes. Instant communication. The scientific implications are great. A lot of technology which utilizes this phenomenon is already being developed and some is in use.

The transfer of information is instant, although I don't think it has been adequately explained, so we don't really know how the information is relayed, but it certainly isn't by any conventional means, so it's not technically breaking the universal speed limit. I read somewhere once that information could be transferred instantly, whilst actual physical matter could not be.

The Wikipedia page on Quantum Mechanics has one line concerning the subject:

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox shows in any case that there exist experiments by which one can measure the state of one particle and instantaneously change the state of its entangled partner, although the two particles can be an arbitrary distance apart; however, this effect does not violate causality, since no transfer of information happens.

So, as you can see, it's all really confusing, and I'm pretty much confused about it myself.

[edit on 15/5/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by CHA0S

however, this effect does not violate causality, since no transfer of information happens.

That leaves me totally puzzled? Knowing the spin of the opposite entangled object is instant transfer of information.

reply to post by CHA0S

so it's not technically breaking the universal speed limit.

What would that be? Are you referring to "c"?

reply to post by AllIsOne

What would that be? Are you referring to "c"?

Yes, the speed of light.

And you are correct, if one particle changes instantly in accordance with the other, you would assume an instant transfer of information is taking place. However, lets assume for a second they are connected by some unseen force. If you tug on one, and the other will move instantly wont it? It's similar to electricity I think. When you flick on your light switch, your light will turn on instantly...because it doesn't take until one electron from the light switch reaches the light bulb; the electrical current actually pushes all the electrons in the wire, much like a plumbing system. If you have a hose full of water, and you turn on the tap, you don't need to wait until water from the tap reaches the end of the hose do you, because there is already water in the hose, so it might seem like when you turned the tap from a few meters away, you caused an instant transfer of information, because the water came out the other end instantly, but that obviously isn't the case.

I could be totally wrong in what I just said, but I think that's some what of a decent explanation.

[edit on 16/5/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by CHA0S


BTW: Einstein never said that there is a universal speed limit. FTL travel is absolutely possible if the object always stays above FTL speed. --->Tachyons.

I've just learned that we can only observe spin, but we're not able to change it. That would explain why the "entanglement morse code" wouldn't work ... I think ... LOL.

reply to post by CHA0S


In quantum entanglement could it not be that the two entangled objects are changed through gravitational interaction?

So as gravity is the effect of mass warping the spacetime continuum then since spacetime is not restricted by speed the other entangled object would be changed at an infinite speed.


Just speculating.(I'm actually very good at this kind of stuff)

reply to post by AllIsOne

BTW: Einstein never said that there is a universal speed limit. FTL travel is absolutely possible if the object always stays above FTL speed. --->Tachyons.

Where did you hear that? Einsteins theory of special relativity basically made it crystal clear.

Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon—namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.

A tachyon is a theoretical particle btw, although it could very well exist. I wont argue that c is the universal speed limit, because I don't think it is...however, for anything with mass, c is the speed limit.

I've just learned that we can only observe spin, but we're not able to change it. That would explain why the "entanglement morse code" wouldn't work ... I think ... LOL.

Yes, a lot of scientists believe quantum entanglement can't be used for information transfer, but it can be used in things like cryptography.

[edit on 16/5/10 by CHA0S]