Demystifying Quantum Physics

[zaybu]

We shall see. That is the purpose of this thread. I would be happy to extend the discussion of the baseball analogy, if/when it is challenged by "these people".

The former is superficially more far-fetched because it involves a larger distance. But of course according to quantum mechanics the latter is actually more far-fetched, because it involves two macroscopic systems constantly interacting with their surroundings, thereby breaking any delicate quantum entanglements (or rendering them insignificant at the level of everyday macroscopic experience). It would be impossible under natural conditions, and extremely difficult even under controlled conditions, to get even ONE electron into one brain and preserve its entanglement with a second electron in another brain. Furthermore, even if you could do this, your mind operates on the basis of neurons firing; the firing of neurons involves an incredible number of atoms traversing cell membranes to create voltages, it doesn't depend on whether a single valence electron, in a single chlorine ion, was spin up or down! So the effect of that on your mind is effectively zero. Even if we really let our imaginations run wild and imagine you could create entangled electrons, separate them, and then construct two brains completely using these entangled electrons while preserving all that entanglement (!), whatever happened to one brain STILL probably wouldn't affect the mind of the other brain. Because, again, the firing of a neuron doesn't depend on any particular electron, it's the concerted (essentially classical) motion of ions in response to voltages across cell membranes that matters. You could switch the spins of electrons or even switch electrons or entire atoms, you could do this for every atom in your brain, your computer, or your grandfather clock, and it would likely make no significant difference to its operation. (I realize there are other parameters besides spin which could be entangled in principle, but the same basic argument applies generally.)

But you agree with me here, and you meant that as a rhetorical question, right?

I can recognize that you can dispel those misperceptions. But my question was more aimed to what the general public would think as being farfetched: a spooky action acting as far away as the next galaxy, or something like ESP or some other paranormal effect, acting just a few feet away. Some people, upon reading the former, would easily conclude that the latter is not just that more farfetch. I mean even among scientists, there are those who are actively trying to prove that those paranormal effects are real. And they are in the public with their pseudo-science, often attracting sizable audience, and just because "QM is weird", they get away with their crackpot theory.

Now you're the one advocating spooky action at a distance as a plausible explanation of QM, when it is not, not to most people who have studied QFT, your position on this issue undermines what you are trying to accomplish in this thread.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can recognize that you can dispel those misperceptions. But my question was more aimed to what the general public would think as being farfetched: a spooky action acting as far away as the next galaxy, or something like ESP or some other paranormal effect, acting just a few feet away. Some people, upon reading the former, would easily conclude that the latter is not just that more farfetch. I mean even among scientists, there are those who are actively trying to prove that those paranormal effects are real. And they are in the public with their pseudo-science, often attracting sizable audience, and just because "QM is weird", they get away with their crackpot theory.

Now you're the one advocating spooky action at a distance as a plausible explanation of QM, when it is not, not to most people who have studied QFT, your position on this issue undermines what you are trying to accomplish in this thread.

Well personally I have enough integrity that I am willing to acknowledge something is technically correct, even if people will take it and run with it in a direction I do not think is correct. The proper response to the latter is not to deny the former, but to clarify it. IOW, it should be explained first and foremost that quantum nonlocality, as understood by most physicists, has nothing to do with telepathy. In addition, the fact that some people (such as yourself) object to nonlocality to begin with only bolsters the argument that QM has nothing to do with telepathy.

 

[idav]

They could try and enoke anything if it can happen a distance lime quantum tunneling. Which does happen at a local level, thats basic physics but how do electrons do that, I assume there are limitations.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have a question:

We all know that E=mc2, and that the there are the Conservation Laws of Matter and Energy always at work. The very fact that Matter and Energy are interchangeable implies some underlying principle. What might that principle be?

Perhaps the gluon field.

 

[ruffen]

Not only can you not measure it but an object cannot have a perfectly well-defined position and momentum at the same time (there's always a tradeoff between the two).

This is because God programmed the Universe in C# and used a float instead of a double data type for storing all the particle's properties.

 

[ruffen]

An interesting consequence of E=mc2 is that protons and neutrons are more massive than the sum of the mass of the quarks they consist of. If I've understood it correctly, this is due to the binding energy and interactions between the quarks, and this energy causes mass as energy and mass are equivalent.

 

[zaybu]

Perhaps the gluon field.

The gluons mediate the Strong force between quarks. It has no connection to gravity. They do interact with each other in that, unlike the photon which carries no electric charge, the gluons carry color charge. These interactions were problematic as they gave rise to infinities. But these were eliminated through the concept of confinement, meaning, that the force grows bigger with distance -- the more you try to separate two quarks the more the Strong force will grow, and so quarks are confined to composites like hadrons and mesons.

 

[zaybu]

An interesting consequence of E=mc2 is that protons and neutrons are more massive than the sum of the mass of the quarks they consist of. If I've understood it correctly, this is due to the binding energy and interactions between the quarks, and this energy causes mass as energy and mass are equivalent.

** my underlining.

Yes, indeed that's how Einstein initially discovered this law, way before quarks were even mentioned. His monumental 1905 paper showed that if you look at a decaying particle, and taking into consideration the photons emitted, he showed that the change in kinetic energy of the decaying particle, before and after emission, K1 - K2 is equal to mc^2. The only explanation is that the emission was due to the decrease in mass of the decaying particle.

 

[Ouroboros]

The gluons mediate the Strong force between quarks. It has no connection to gravity. They do interact with each other in that, unlike the photon which carries no electric charge, the gluons carry color charge. These interactions were problematic as they gave rise to infinities. But these were eliminated through the concept of confinement, meaning, that the force grows bigger with distance -- the more you try to separate two quarks the more the Strong force will grow, and so quarks are confined to composites like hadrons and mesons.

Gravity?

Godnotgod asked "We all know that E=mc2, and that the there are the Conservation Laws of Matter and Energy always at work. The very fact that Matter and Energy are interchangeable implies some underlying principle. What might that principle be?" So I was thinking that the gluon field with the high and low energy states had something to do with that. But you're probably right. I'm just not sure where the question of gravity was related in his question. Maybe that was part of the original question, and I missed it. Sorry.

edit

Doh. After a few minutes of contemplating, I realized what you're saying. LOL.

 

[PolyHedral]

But, you see, in order to even conceive of 'somewhere', there must be a reference point

Why?

That is to say, it has no 'other' to compare it to, it being 'uni-versal'.

Sure there is - hypotheticals that aren't real.

You seem to contradict general opinion that time and space came into being at the precise moment of the BB.

It doesn't make sense to say time came into being without a meta-time.

OK. So your 'four dimensions' cannot really be 'four', since that would imply a change from 'one' to 'four'.

What change? When was there only one?

Then are these four dimensions simply four aspects of the same phenomena, and if so, what is that singular phenomena? And don't give me no 'Mu!'.

No. That's not what "dimension" means in this context.

OK. So if, as you say, the universe did not come into existence at all, that means it has always existed, but in a state of non-manifestation prior to the BB, as potential, sort of like switching on a light bulb in a darkened room.

You keep using that concept of prior to the BB as though it makes any more sense than the concept of a square circle.

But even if that were the case, or because of it, how could time have always existed, since there was nothing against which to measure it? (We do agree, do we not, that time is a measurement of something?)

Contrariwise, how could time come into existence without there already being a time by which to measure it's transition?

Correct. I was quoting the equation most people are familiar with.

I was more referring to godnotgod's usage. Your post just happened to be nearest.

This is because God programmed the Universe in C# and used a float instead of a double data type for storing all the particle's properties.

Real mathematicians use arbitarary-precision fixed-point arithmetic.

Yes, indeed that's how Einstein initially discovered this law, way before quarks were even mentioned. His monumental 1905 paper showed that if you look at a decaying particle, and taking into consideration the photons emitted, he showed that the change in kinetic energy of the decaying particle, before and after emission, K1 - K2 is equal to mc^2. The only explanation is that the emission was due to the decrease in mass of the decaying particle.

Nuclear reactions hadn't been discovered when he published that paper. The equation you're talking about is a consequence of Relativity's geometry, and the experimental basis for that is interferometer experiments, not any sort of nuclear physics.

 

[zaybu]

Nuclear reactions hadn't been discovered when he published that paper.

True, Einstein wasn't aware of nuclear reactions, and Otto Hahn and Lisa Meitner did their pioneering work on nuclear reactions in the 1930's based on Einstein paper. In 1905, Einstein knew from the Curies that particles decayed and gave off radiation. So his 1905 paper was based on that knowledge.

The equation you're talking about is a consequence of Relativity's geometry, and the experimental basis for that is interferometer experiments, not any sort of nuclear physics.

If we are talking about E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m^c^2)^2, this can be derived on the basis that spacetime is a 4-d manifold and Lorentz invariance. I can show you the proof if you're interested. But I would need to put it on my blog, as the software on this forum can't handle 4-vector forms.

 

[godnotgod]

Why?

Because you don't know where 'here' is without 'there', and vice-versa. 'Somewhere', 'nowhere', 'here', and 'there' can only come about via mental conceptual thought. No such classifications/places exist in reality.

In the case of the universe, since it is 'All', there is no 'other' which we can call a reference point. It is Absolute.

What change? When was there only one?

There is only one space-time, consisting of four dimensions, yes?
re: 'change': there really is no change from one to four. That is just conceptual. One is always the number. But in the ordinary sense, we usually think of four (or any other number) having been originally derived from one, and so, we think of it as 'change', where there is only the changeless One. But as I mentioned previously, (and I will try to get the source for you) I read that the four dimensions came from a primal state that was one.

 

[godnotgod]

It doesn't make sense to say time came into being without a meta-time.

You keep using that concept of prior to the BB as though it makes any more sense than the concept of a square circle.

Contrariwise, how could time come into existence without there already being a time by which to measure it's transition?

I am merely using the concept that scientists use all the time as a means of communication on the same level. Scientists talk about the universe being some billions of years old, as in 'linear time' old; as in 'past, present, and future'. When the BB occurred, no such phenomena as 'time' existed, nor does it now exist. The BB occurred, as all things do, in this timeless Present Moment, a moment that has always existed. So in reality, you are correct: there is no such thing as 'prior'; that is only a point along an arbitrary grid we label as 'time'. 'Time' never came into existence; it 'exists' merely as concept.


I was merely using the convention.

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps the gluon field.

The following table shows the gluon field as part of the Standard Model, not as an underlying entity.

SOURCE: http://www.advaitayoga.org/advaitayogaarticles/advaitaquantumphysics.html

 

[Sculelos]

Quantum means: A change of something into another while working at the same time as the original.

Now physics can only have 1 set of rules or it would not by physics. Physics has 65,536 singular differences that can occur and this is the maximum number and this number can never be passed nor can it be changed.

So therefore Quantum physics must be and can be COMPLETELY explained by normal physics therefore quantum physics is paradoxical in nature and therefore cannot be correct, nor exist. Either Earth physics are wrong, or quantum physics are wrong. Both cannot be right as they contradict Each other.

 

[PolyHedral]

Physics has 65,536 singular differences that can occur and this is the maximum number and this number can never be passed nor can it be changed.

The universe does not use 16-bit words.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Quantum means: A change of something into another while working at the same time as the original.

You need a better dictionary.

Now physics can only have 1 set of rules or it would not by physics

You should let them know. They clearly missed the international committee on physics standards that defined physics in terms of a single set of rules, thereby rendering most physics research useless. Statistical mechanics describes systems in a way that quantum mechanics does not (in fact, the use of probability functions themselves, which are essential to both fields, are defined in entirely different ways), so one of the clearly has to go.

Of course, one wonders why, if physics had to have one set of rules, even before quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics alone used different rules and that's without comparing it to other branches of physics. Why, if there has to be one set of rules, do we have theoretical physics, computational physics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, classical mechanics, biophysics, astrophysics, relativistic quantum physics, and so on? Perhaps physicists didn't get the memo from you telling them how to do physics.

Physics has 65,536 singular differences that can occur

Got it. How many plural differences can occur?

So therefore Quantum physics must be and can be COMPLETELY explained by normal physics therefore quantum physics is paradoxical in nature and therefore cannot be correct, nor exist.

I was just reading the world's expert in normal physics saying the same thing in the International Journal of Normal Physics Letters Z: Applied Nonsense.

Either Earth physics are wrong

They are. Problem solved

 

[godnotgod]

The scientific approach to 'demystifying' quantum physics fails. It may be able to predict certain behaviors and characteristics via mathematics and other methods of logic and analysis, but it cannot tell us what quantum physics actually is. To do so would be to 'demystify' it. The problem with the scientific approach is the method itself. It seems to assume that the universe, which it is attempting to 'demystify', is akin to a finite mechanism which is originally constructed via of a logical system, for which a model can be theorized, and whose parts can then be analyzed for function, thereby providing an understandable picture of the whole. But science has run into major obstacles both on the micro and the macro scales. QM itself has overturned previously held classical notions of how the physical world functions, while Relativity cannot be so easily applied to the behavior of Black Holes as it can to other phenomena. The secrets of the universe are as elusive as ever. Science, while providing us with a boatload of facts, tells us virtually nothing about the nature of Reality. We seem to be studying and analyzing the mere appearances of Reality, rather than coming to a full and true understanding of Reality itself*, which I am suggesting lies behind those appearances, and for which it is impossible to arrive at via any sort of Logic, Reason, or Analysis, which are in and of themselves, obstacles to such understanding, and which must be set aside in order to provide a clear view. The true Reality that lies behind the appearance we call 'the universe' is silent, invisible, odorless, tasteless, formless, changeless, and infinite. We are being fooled into trying to understand the illusory snake that is actually a rope by assuming the snake as real. To understand that the snake is an illusion from the beginning one must first be able to see clearly that it is so, but which cannot be done when Reason stands in the way. Paradoxically, it is Reason itself which both creates the illusion and maintains it. Therefore, the suggestion here is that seeing directly into the nature of Reality rather than conceptual thought about it might be a more fruitful approach.

So are there any more suggestions as to what the underlying principle to the existence of the universe might possibly be?

*I am not suggesting that such an understanding means that we will then 'know everything', as in 'factual knowledge', but instead that we will have an understanding of what the true nature of such knowledge actually is.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The scientific approach to 'demystifying' quantum physics fails.

Right. The scientific approach to a scientific theory developed by scientists, researched using to scientific methods, improved over time by the development of technologies, research, and reviews all made possible by the sciences and scientists, has failed.

Which means we should understand quantum physics without the scientific approach. Of course, without the scientific approach, we don't have quantum physics.

It may be able to predict certain behaviors and characteristics via mathematics and other methods of logic and analysis, but it cannot tell us what quantum physics actually is.

No, because that's youtube's job, which continues a long tradition of the Western appropriation and even construction of the "mystical Orient." All this makes it possible for people who can't read Eastern texts except through scholars who make translations possible, and sensationalist sites, clips, etc., which combine useless descriptions of physics with Westernized fast-food versions of mysticism so that gullible consumers can pretend to understand reality through texts they've never read, sciences the don't understand, and the arrogance of god-like omniscience.

Or not. You've been given excellent explanations by Mr. Sprinkles why the media you have been exposed to is skewed. You have chosen to ignore this. That doesn't mean quantum physics is mystical.

 

[godnotgod]

Right. The scientific approach to a scientific theory developed by scientists, researched using to scientific methods, improved over time by the development of technologies, research, and reviews all made possible by the sciences and scientists, has failed.

Which means we should understand quantum physics without the scientific approach. Of course, without the scientific approach, we don't have quantum physics.




No, because that's youtube's job, which continues a long tradition of the Western appropriation and even construction of the "mystical Orient." All this makes it possible for people who can't read Eastern texts except through scholars who make translations possible, and sensationalist sites, clips, etc., which combine useless descriptions of physics with Westernized fast-food versions of mysticism so that gullible consumers can pretend to understand reality through texts they've never read, sciences the don't understand, and the arrogance of god-like omniscience.

Or not. You've been given excellent explanations by Mr. Sprinkles why the media you have been exposed to is skewed. You have chosen to ignore this. That doesn't mean quantum physics is mystical.

Once again, Legion, you demonstate, cloaked in intellectual 'authority', your complete lack of understanding and deliberate twisting of what I have said, and might I add, ignorance as to what mysticism is in relation to quantum physics.

Read:

A true understanding of QM cannot come via the accumulation of factual knowledge about it. However, I never said nor implied that we should not pursue the factual knowledge of QM via science.

You're still surgically attached to those people who have a superficial knowledge of both science and mysticism, as if it applies to everyone, to mean that a real understanding is not possible.. It is, but where you are wrong in the case both of science and mysticism is that one first requires formal knowledge, which, in reality, many times becomes the very obstacle it attempts to remove. That is clearly demonstrated by this thread, in which, after pages and pages of mathematical mumbo jumbo, exactly zero 'demystification' of QM has come to pass.

Your logic is what is skewed, and you demonstrate this over and over again: While what Sprinkles says is true in many cases, it is not a rule of thumb. I don't ignore the fact he points to; I make every attempt to distinguish between skewed media and that which is accurate. But even if I did ignore as you claim, I never pointed to the idea that QM is mystical as a result, nor do I make such a claim regardless. To say that 'QM is mystical' is a ridiculous statement, since mysticism is merely the pathway; it cannot be what the pathway leads to. All I am saying is that to understand what science has found can only be achieved via intuitive understanding, which puts it into the proper context, and that real understanding of the true nature of Reality, which includes the phenomena of QM, comes not via Reason, Logic, and Analysis, but via seeing directly into it, and that this direct seeing must come first before the significance of the facts can be known.

This idea is summed up by the statement that one who is in error has one eye on the path and one eye on the goal, rather than both eyes on the path. An incorrect approach will only lead to an erroneous conclusion. Just ask your Qigong instructor. He'll set you straight so both your eyes will be properly focused on the path. It's all in your breath. But you already knew that, did'nt you?

You think I'm knocking science because you have a personal attachment to it. This is not about my view vs. your view: it is about what we call 'Reality', which is impersonal by nature.