The quantum revolution, due to its eccentricity, causes great confusion, specially when the concepts are used off context. To explain the results obtained in the lab, the quantum physics pioneers created a new language, appropriate to what occurs in atomic and subatomic dimension systems. For instance, the electron is not described as a particle with a well-defined position in space, or as a wave with an indeterminate position, but as being potentially particle and wave: the physical reality of the electron (and all particles and radiation) is determined by the act of observing. Who determines whether the electron is a particle or wave is the observer, as he/she interacts with the electron. In fact, prior to being measured (prior to the interaction between the observer and the object) an electron cannot be regarded as an existing entity.

It’s easy to see how the duality particle/wave can be distorted off context. For example: “Oh! So, without observers reality does not exist. What’s more, as the reality is defined by the observer through the act of observing, and as the observer carries his/her own subjectivity, the fundamental essence of the reality is subjective, observer-dependent”.

The direct consequence of this interpretation is to put Man in the center of the cosmos: the physical reality becomes something derived from one’s existence. What’s worse: as each observer defines his/her own reality, it is impossible to have an universal reality. Everything becomes a subjective deconstruction of the world and its meanings. Science itself becomes victims of its own success: as its objective is to describe reality, and that reality is subjective, then there must be as many sciences as observers. Science turns into something sterile.

Another interesting consequence of the bad interpretation of quantum physics is that it implies some “holism”, a connection between everything that is, between our minds and the universe. And this is somewhat religious, a spiritual dimension of physics, a rediscovery of ancient teachings, particularly linked to the oriental philosophies

Even scientists, as Fritjof Capra, fall victims of this temptation. The problem with such abuses of the quantum is to use concepts applicable only to infinitesimal dimensions in daily affairs, which are completely removed from quantum reality. The rules to govern our interpretations of what is an electron, or how it behaves within an atom, are completely irrelevant to explain how we relate to the world around, how the brain obtains and records information about this world, or how we decide to act in our lives. Electrons don’t explain neurons or moral decisions we take along our lives.

To learn about the world we have to get close to it. The spirituality I see in science lies in this getting close, in the constant process of unveiling something new about nature. Is in this resonance that resides the mystery: the agony of doubt and the ecstasy of the discovery.

This aspect of qm and applying it to large scale phenomena is something i`ve came across when trying to explain to relatives what i was actually learning about during my degree. "So if that true does it mean the moon might not be there if i dont look at it?" came up.
The worst case would be would be:
"sir do you know how fast you were driving?"
"of course not officer,but i knew my position exactly!"
Seriously though this subject seems to be what science is all about. Observing or theorising about the world around us and integrating our ideas into a consistant framework of how things work. Doing this only based on the evidence presented to us and not our gut instincts of how things should be or how we might like them to be. Whilst keeping in mind where our models actually apply of course.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I had my share of hard times trying to explain to other people the little I know about qm. I think that what we should emphasize when trying to explain qm to the curious layman is that reality *is not* quantum physics. Quantum physics is only a weird instrument for understanding the real world, an asymptotic approach to the real thing. The world is real and will always be (*)

(*) the probability of all particles vanishing (decaying) at the same time (same time?? Simultaneity? Relativity?) is zero.

I'm not sure if this is the best way of saying it (or if it's strictly correct), but I think it sounds good:

When you observe the object, you do not apply a state to it. Rather, you force to tell you what state it is in, and thus it has to choose a state. When you observe the moon, it is practically impossible for it to not still say "I'm still a moon".


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xriso on 2002-07-04 16:20 ]</font>

I'm waiting for QM to sink into my brain slowly. I just go past what doesn't quite click and wait for the next time I come across it.

Being older, egad 48, the ideas were not well defined in my college days. Now there's too much other stuff in my head to try to learn QM straight and undiluted. So, I read this and listen to that whenever I can tolerate using full powers of concentration.

The end result? I get the gist of it but complete conceptualization like the 11 dimensional universe has yet to materialize. So far, it's all well and good for math on paper, like a point or line in geometry.

But I can conceptualize a point and a line and elementary particles. It really isn't a big deal to be able to measure location or speed but not both at the same time. And, even back in the 70's in chemistry, electron location probabilities vs a little object one could follow was not difficult to get.

But just where is that little guy? Is it coming and going in and out of other dimensions or in and out of existance or perhaps space is warped in that scale and we haven't detected that yet????

Not to worry, don't try to fill me in, I can't concentrate right now anyway. Little by little I am determined to have an up to date, though maybe not clear, picture one of these days. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

If QM confuses us we are in good company i think it was Richard Feynman who once said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you really don`t understand the problem"
Having read a few qm text in university im convinced i don`t truly understand either the problem or qm! (i did know just enough to pass my exams in it though, thank goodness)

My QM professor gave the macroscopic analogy of an open perfume bottle in a closed room where the perfume begins to defuse into the room. If you wait a little while and enter the room, the room will smell of perfume. Now what are the odds that all the little perfume molecules, which are playing a random game of bumper cars with the air, will bump themselves back in the bottle so that the room no longer smells of perfume? The odds are so small that it won't happen in a finite universe.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-07-04 19:19 ]</font>

Excellent Original Post, and a good response here, too!

And, yes, it's true that F. Capra went overborad on the "Ooh, it's so *ZEN*" emphasis.

When you try to describe quantum effects in ordinary language, yeah, it gets weird. But when you have the actual equations in front of you, it makes sense. The notion of particle/wave duality is "zen" or eerie or mystical -- "It's a floor wax! It's a dessert topping!" -- but when you actually work out the math, it's obvious: it's a wave-form.

Silas

Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.
Niels Bohr

You'll remember that Bohr and Einstein had a running dialogue about QM. It's what prompted Einstein's, "God does not play dice with the Universe" remark, and led to Bohr's, "Don't tell God what he can't do" response.

Any subject which can get minds of that caliber into a "shouting match" cannot be easy to understand.

Yes, QM is the Zen of science.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

That's exactly how I feel about relativity. I really try to get an intuitive grasp of the ideas in these theories. But the more I learn, the less intuitive sense they make. I begin to suspect that trying to understand either one intuitively is useless. The phenomena they attempt to explain are so far outside of our day to day experiences that there really isn't a useful "real world" model that is truely analogous.

You kind of have to just trust the equations. Which is a problem because most people just aren't wired to think of the world in terms of equations.

To me it's more trusting in the math. What I mean by that is we must trust in how the equations were derived. Confidence in methodology yields confidence in the result. As you pointed out, no one has any physical intuition of what happens when moving 0.99c or the inner workings of the atom. It beyond our natural ken, and we have to trust in the mathematics and let that guide us.

In his 1905 paper presenting special relativity, Al starts with two postulates, relativity and the constancy of the speed of light, and then derives the equations, i.e. the Lorentz transformations. Trusting in the math is not as simple as it sounds. For instance Einstein made the tacit assumptions that space is isotropic and homogeneous and that the transformation between reference frames is linear. Are these good assumptions? When I first read that paper I thought they were; however, Poincare pointed that they were not. (This is not only time Poincare has shown I was wrong 90 years before I would commit the error.[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]) It turns out those assumptions are tantamount, and they are the assumptions that are violated when we move to general relativity. Trusting in math is a tricky game, but to use a cliche, it's the only game in town.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-07-05 19:39 ]</font>