Thread: People who know about Quantum Mechanics/Physics/Thoery Please come here

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is better to say that from what I understand of it, a lot of it will probably be disproven because it is apparently illogical.

It's only illogical because our brains weren't evolved to think about matter on such small scales as the picometer and the Angstrom. All matter in the universe has a wave function, even your body. But just like when you get to the quantum level gravity becomes a pathetically weak force, when you scale up to the macroscopic (or cosmic) level, the waveform of an object is just as insignificant as gravity in the quantum realm. The reason that electrons and photons can act as both particles and waves is due to their minuscule nature - they are small enough that they are of a significant portion of the size of their own wavelengths that said waveforms can affect their interaction with other matter.

To us in the macro realm, that seems completely weird and ridiculous. But the models work, predictions can and have been made that work and tests verify (most) of the theory, and there we have the Standard Model.

Other theories such as string theory are in a realm of their own. They operate on distances so small they make the Planck length look huge. String theory has a fantastic internal mathematical symmetry, but is currently (and may be for hundreds of years) beyond our technology to prove or disprove.

Concepts and principles such as wave-particle duality and Uncertainty aren't the kind of things that may be disproved in the future. And since the rest of the field sort of rests on their shoulders, you're not left with much to radically redesign the wheel.

I'm not saying it can't happen. Just that it's very unlikely. Ridiculous upsets, upheavals and turn arounds in scientific knowledge just don't happen any more because there are too many checks and balances in place against bad science making it into the books in the first place.

I dont know anything......but this guy does









and there is a shit load more on his channel website.

Wow he talks fast. But he definitely knows his physics.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

It's only illogical because our brains weren't evolved to think about matter on such small scales as the picometer and the Angstrom. All matter in the universe has a wave function, even your body. But just like when you get to the quantum level gravity becomes a pathetically weak force, when you scale up to the macroscopic (or cosmic) level, the waveform of an object is just as insignificant as gravity in the quantum realm. The reason that electrons and photons can act as both particles and waves is due to their minuscule nature - they are small enough that they are of a significant portion of the size of their own wavelengths that said waveforms can affect their interaction with other matter.

To us in the macro realm, that seems completely weird and ridiculous. But the models work, predictions can and have been made that work and tests verify (most) of the theory, and there we have the Standard Model.

Other theories such as string theory are in a realm of their own. They operate on distances so small they make the Planck length look huge. String theory has a fantastic internal mathematical symmetry, but is currently (and may be for hundreds of years) beyond our technology to prove or disprove.

Concepts and principles such as wave-particle duality and Uncertainty aren't the kind of things that may be disproved in the future. And since the rest of the field sort of rests on their shoulders, you're not left with much to radically redesign the wheel.

I'm not saying it can't happen. Just that it's very unlikely. Ridiculous upsets, upheavals and turn arounds in scientific knowledge just don't happen any more because there are too many checks and balances in place against bad science making it into the books in the first place.

That is not what seems illogical to me. What raises my skepticism are quantum physics' rejection of determinism and its emphasis on the supposedly subjective nature of physical events.

I hold pretty much exactly the same views as Alextanium, especially about our perception of what is 'logical' only being based on our brains, which are themselves only based upon local experience - which is never microscopic. There are many other instances of this happening through science, often resulting in an initial rejection of the hypothesis; but evidence will always win out in the end. The twin paradox, for example; it is totally counterintuitive that if I travelled at a large velocity for a period of time, time will pass more slowly for me than my twin, with the result that when we meet up again, I could be a year older and my twin could have lived out the entire course of his natural life. However, time dilation has been proven beyond any doubt by empirical evidence.

Although, regarding the determinism of the quantum world, things are still quite inconclusive; we really need to wait for a unified theory (if that ever happens), but I read in the New Scientist that some physicist thinks it could be achieved by a deterministic fractal... it's really too uncertain to say either way. And that's without even going into what the philosophical consequences would be.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is not what seems illogical to me. What raises my skepticism are quantum physics' rejection of determinism and its emphasis on the supposedly subjective nature of physical events.

Quick note:
The emphasis is on the subjective nature of the observation of physical events.
I haven't yet seen any mention of actual events being subjective. If you could clarify this point further, I'd be happy to discuss it.