Quantum Mechanics

All this talk of time travel and speed of light has got me going. so lets talk about Quantum Mechanics for awhile.

QM make accurate predictions that agree with experiments. The numbers that we get out of the theory are not an issue. The issue falls into relation with reality.

QM suggests or implies that a system doesn't exist unless we measure it. For an example an atom does not exist unless we observe it. Yet that is only the Micro what about the macro world that we live in. If the theory works for the Micro then it most be true for the Macro. Hence the whole matrix thing "There is no spoon." According to QM we must observe an object for it to exist in the universe.

 Throw up some of your ideas. 

QM suggests or implies that a system doesn't exist unless we measure it.SilvrDog

Almost, not quite. QM suggests that a system's state cannot be known with certainty unless we measure it. Up until then, the system's state is described as a sum of probabilities for all possible states.

Schroedinger's cat is the perfect example. Place a cat in a box with a bit of poison. Without looking under the box, you can never know if the cat is dead or not. All you have is a 99.9% chance the cat is still alive right after sticking it in the box. This probability gradually transitions to a 99.9% chance the cat is dead after a certain amount of time has passed. At no time is there a 100% chance of life or death without looking under the box.

Quantum Mechanics,they are a bunch of guys that repair quantums,what's so special about it?:PHate_Squad

When two or more quantums get stuck together, duh.

There's too many differences between the world of the atoms and the world of the stars, trying to think of ways to use the Quantum Mechanic's rules for space travel or something similar isn't sensible at the moment.

The best we could do with what we've learned of QM is to make a computer that takes advantage of the QM rules.

There's too many differences between the world of the atoms and the world of the stars, trying to think of ways to use the Quantum Mechanic's rules for space travel or something similar isn't sensible at the moment.

The best we could do with what we've learned of QM is to make a computer that takes advantage of the QM rules.

Hungry_bunny

Exactly. As of now, we haven't linked QM to Relativity. String theory tries, but ultimately fails. I don't know if we ever will.

[QUOTE="SilvrDog"]QM suggests or implies that a system doesn't exist unless we measure it.Oleg_Huzwog

Almost, not quite. QM suggests that a system's state cannot be known with certainty unless we measure it. Up until then, the system's state is described as a sum of probabilities for all possible states.

Schroedinger's cat is the perfect example. Place a cat in a box with a bit of poison. Without looking under the box, you can never know if the cat is dead or not. All you have is a 99.9% chance the cat is still alive right after sticking it in the box. This probability gradually transitions to a 99.9% chance the cat is dead after a certain amount of time has passed. At no time is there a 100% chance of life or death without looking under the box.

[QUOTE="SilvrDog"]QM suggests or implies that a system doesn't exist unless we measure it.Oleg_Huzwog

Almost, not quite. QM suggests that a system's state cannot be known with certainty unless we measure it. Up until then, the system's state is described as a sum of probabilities for all possible states.

Schroedinger's cat is the perfect example. Place a cat in a box with a bit of poison. Without looking under the box, you can never know if the cat is dead or not. All you have is a 99.9% chance the cat is still alive right after sticking it in the box. This probability gradually transitions to a 99.9% chance the cat is dead after a certain amount of time has passed. At no time is there a 100% chance of life or death without looking under the box.

I've heard this, but put a different way. In the version I heard you put the cat in a box with a radioactive atom, that is an atom that will change from it's current form to another at some point (C14 to N14 for instance) If the atom goes radioactive, the cat dies. However, because the rate at which atoms decay is measured in half lifes, you can never know if one particular atom has itself decayed. A single atom can decay at any point, or never decay since the decay rate is a probablility curve. Thus again, you can only know if the cat is dead by looking under the box. (At which point you yourself may be exposed to radioactivity, yay.) While it's the same general idea, I like this version because it directly uses one of the major problems with knowing something about a specific set in QM.

Of course this goes beyond just atoms decaying. Electrons also present an interesting problem. Through equations, we can know where an electron is, or how it is moving/where it is going, but we can't know both at the same time since at any given moment an electon can change it's behavior/pattern.

Ah, the joy's of QM. Which would ultimately drive me mad, so I don't seriously study it.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="SilvrDog"]QM suggests or implies that a system doesn't exist unless we measure it.Insane00

Almost, not quite. QM suggests that a system's state cannot be known with certainty unless we measure it. Up until then, the system's state is described as a sum of probabilities for all possible states.

Schroedinger's cat is the perfect example. Place a cat in a box with a bit of poison. Without looking under the box, you can never know if the cat is dead or not. All you have is a 99.9% chance the cat is still alive right after sticking it in the box. This probability gradually transitions to a 99.9% chance the cat is dead after a certain amount of time has passed. At no time is there a 100% chance of life or death without looking under the box.

I've heard this, but put a different way. In the version I heard you put the cat in a box with a radioactive atom, that is an atom that will change from it's current form to another at some point (C14 to N14 for instance) If the atom goes radioactive, the cat dies. However, because the rate at which atoms decay is measured in half lifes, you can never know if one particular atom has itself decayed. A single atom can decay at any point, or never decay since the decay rate is a probablility curve. Thus again, you can only know if the cat is dead by looking under the box. (At which point you yourself may be exposed to radioactivity, yay.) While it's the same general idea, I like this version because it directly uses one of the major problems with knowing something about a specific set in QM.

Of course this goes beyond just atoms decaying. Electrons also present an interesting problem. Through equations, we can know where an electron is, or how it is moving/where it is going, but we can't know both at the same time since at any given moment an electon can change it's behavior/pattern.

Ah, the joy's of QM. Which would ultimately drive me mad, so I don't seriously study it.

All this talk of time travel and speed of light has got me going. so lets talk about Quantum Mechanics for awhile.

QM make accurate predictions that agree with experiments. The numbers that we get out of the theory are not an issue. The issue falls into relation with reality.

QM suggests or implies that a system doesn't exist unless we measure it. For an example an atom does not exist unless we observe it. Yet that is only the Micro what about the macro world that we live in. If the theory works for the Micro then it most be true for the Macro. Hence the whole matrix thing "There is no spoon." According to QM we must observe an object for it to exist in the universe.

Throw up some of your ideas.

SilvrDog

I've heard this, but put a different way. In the version I heard you put the cat in a box with a radioactive atom, that is an atom that will change from it's current form to another at some point (C14 to N14 for instance) If the atom goes radioactive, the cat dies. However, because the rate at which atoms decay is measured in half lifes, you can never know if one particular atom has itself decayed. A single atom can decay at any point, or never decay since the decay rate is a probablility curve. Thus again, you can only know if the cat is dead by looking under the box. (At which point you yourself may be exposed to radioactivity, yay.) While it's the same general idea, I like this version because it directly uses one of the major problems with knowing something about a specific set in QM.

Of course this goes beyond just atoms decaying. Electrons also present an interesting problem. Through equations, we can know where an electron is, or how it is moving/where it is going, but we can't know both at the same time since at any given moment an electon can change it's behavior/pattern.

Ah, the joy's of QM. Which would ultimately drive me mad, so I don't seriously study it.

Insane00

I try to keep my audience in mind. Replacing radioactive decay with poison makes the scenario less likely to fall upon deaf ears.

[QUOTE="Insane00"]

I've heard this, but put a different way. In the version I heard you put the cat in a box with a radioactive atom, that is an atom that will change from it's current form to another at some point (C14 to N14 for instance) If the atom goes radioactive, the cat dies. However, because the rate at which atoms decay is measured in half lifes, you can never know if one particular atom has itself decayed. A single atom can decay at any point, or never decay since the decay rate is a probablility curve. Thus again, you can only know if the cat is dead by looking under the box. (At which point you yourself may be exposed to radioactivity, yay.) While it's the same general idea, I like this version because it directly uses one of the major problems with knowing something about a specific set in QM.

Of course this goes beyond just atoms decaying. Electrons also present an interesting problem. Through equations, we can know where an electron is, or how it is moving/where it is going, but we can't know both at the same time since at any given moment an electon can change it's behavior/pattern.

Ah, the joy's of QM. Which would ultimately drive me mad, so I don't seriously study it.

Oleg_Huzwog

I try to keep my audience in mind. Replacing radioactive decay with poison makes the scenario less likely to fall upon deaf ears.

The topic title in itself keeps the scenario likely to fall on deaf ears. This is hardly the most intellectual forum I've ever been on.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="SilvrDog"]QM suggests or implies that a system doesn't exist unless we measure it.Insane00

Almost, not quite. QM suggests that a system's state cannot be known with certainty unless we measure it. Up until then, the system's state is described as a sum of probabilities for all possible states.

Schroedinger's cat is the perfect example. Place a cat in a box with a bit of poison. Without looking under the box, you can never know if the cat is dead or not. All you have is a 99.9% chance the cat is still alive right after sticking it in the box. This probability gradually transitions to a 99.9% chance the cat is dead after a certain amount of time has passed. At no time is there a 100% chance of life or death without looking under the box.

I've heard this, but put a different way. In the version I heard you put the cat in a box with a radioactive atom, that is an atom that will change from it's current form to another at some point (C14 to N14 for instance) If the atom goes radioactive, the cat dies. However, because the rate at which atoms decay is measured in half lifes, you can never know if one particular atom has itself decayed. A single atom can decay at any point, or never decay since the decay rate is a probablility curve. Thus again, you can only know if the cat is dead by looking under the box. (At which point you yourself may be exposed to radioactivity, yay.) While it's the same general idea, I like this version because it directly uses one of the major problems with knowing something about a specific set in QM.

Of course this goes beyond just atoms decaying. Electrons also present an interesting problem. Through equations, we can know where an electron is, or how it is moving/where it is going, but we can't know both at the same time since at any given moment an electon can change it's behavior/pattern.

Ah, the joy's of QM. Which would ultimately drive me mad, so I don't seriously study it.

[QUOTE="SilvrDog"]QM suggests or implies that a system doesn't exist unless we measure it.Oleg_Huzwog

Almost, not quite. QM suggests that a system's state cannot be known with certainty unless we measure it. Up until then, the system's state is described as a sum of probabilities for all possible states.

Schroedinger's cat is the perfect example. Place a cat in a box with a bit of poison. Without looking under the box, you can never know if the cat is dead or not. All you have is a 99.9% chance the cat is still alive right after sticking it in the box. This probability gradually transitions to a 99.9% chance the cat is dead after a certain amount of time has passed. At no time is there a 100% chance of life or death without looking under the box.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a sound. :|rudyroundhead

yeah, dumbest hypothesis I've ever heard, but maybe if I actually studied QM I'd appreciate it a little bit more

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a sound. :|rudyroundhead

Actually, QM states that with no one around to witness the event, there's no way of knowing with 100% certainty the tree fell in the first place.

[QUOTE="rudyroundhead"]If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a sound. :|verparanoidpers

yeah, dumbest hypothesis I've ever heard, but maybe if I actually studied QM I'd appreciate it a little bit more

you mean quantum dots?nightshade85

[QUOTE="nightshade85"]you mean quantum dots?xaos

they are the key to human evolution- nothing distinctive is something I would not say

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="nightshade85"]you mean quantum dots?nightshade85

they are the key to human evolution- nothing distinctive is something I would not say

[QUOTE="nightshade85"]

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="nightshade85"]you mean quantum dots?xaos

they are the key to human evolution- nothing distinctive is something I would not say

I heard about it on a radio program - tesla worked with them and they are supposedly important to time travel and nano patterning

*also - I hate wikipedia - it is usually not reliable and has anime references or something like that*

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="nightshade85"]

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="nightshade85"]you mean quantum dots?nightshade85

they are the key to human evolution- nothing distinctive is something I would not say

I heard about it on a radio program - tesla worked with them and they are supposedly important to time travel and nano patterning

*also - I hate wikipedia - it is usually not reliable and has anime references or something like that*

[QUOTE="nightshade85"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="nightshade85"]

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="nightshade85"]you mean quantum dots?xaos

they are the key to human evolution- nothing distinctive is something I would not say

I heard about it on a radio program - tesla worked with them and they are supposedly important to time travel and nano patterning

*also - I hate wikipedia - it is usually not reliable and has anime references or something like that*

every discovery is an evolution

it makes a compression wave through the air.

"this is indeed a disturbing universe"

im commiting quantum suicide, but im am both alive and dead, mwuahahahahahahahahaGigagamer2

There's a 99.9% chance it makes a compression wave through the air, but we can't be 100% certain without measuring.

"this is indeed a disturbing universe"

comp_atkins

Fixed. You're welcome.