Quantum Mechanics without the math

[jayanu]

Yes, it just seems like the math can't possibly take into account all variables, ever.

There was a panel discussion at the 2017 World Science Festival hosted by Brian Greene that featured several physicists and a philosopher of physics. Among other things they discussed the Many Worlds theory. One of the panel members, Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft, explained that the theory arises from the limitations of math.

My late friend at Bell Labs - Fred Wendland used to say, "lack of MR (Modification Request for software does not mean it is perfect!"

 

[O2Bfree]

My late friend at Bell Labs - Fred Wendland used to say, "lack of MR (Modification Request for software does not mean it is perfect!"

One software engineer I worked with said, "The only way we're going to stop finding bugs is to stop looking."

 

[braumeister]

Or, as the folks I used to work with would say, "That's not a bug; it's a feature!"

 

[O2Bfree]

Or, as the folks I used to work with would say, "That's not a bug; it's a feature!"

Oh, I hated trying to describe those in the manual! But then I'd tell the guys, "Great, I always wanted to be a fiction writer!"

 

[jim584672]

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? QM, unless you observe it it doesn't exist.

 

[ls99]

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? QM, unless you observe it it doesn't exist.

Not true. When the falling tree impacts the forest floor, the impact generates a variety of frequencies, no need for presence of observer.

 

[jim584672]

Not true. When the falling tree impacts the forest floor, the impact generates a variety of frequencies, no need for presence of observer.

But if you didn't have those detectors maybe it never falls because only the potential possibilities exist and they don't become real until observed. (Not being totally serious with any of this.)

 

[ls99]

But if you didn't have those detectors maybe it never falls because only the potential possibilities exist and they don't become real until observed. (Not being totally serious with any of this.)

Agree , and I could be God

 

[O2Bfree]

Not one, nor the other, nor neither, nor both.

 

[Koolau]

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? QM, unless you observe it it doesn't exist.

Okay, but if a man does something in the woods and his DW isn't there to tell him he did it wrong, does that mean he did it right?

 

[corn18]

Okay, but if a man does something in the woods and his DW isn't there to tell him he did it wrong, does that mean he did it right?

No. Spooky action at a distance will ensure that he immediately knows that he did it wrong.

 

[jim584672]

The double slit quantum eraser experiment means right or wrong is known before you do anything.

 

[Chuckanut]

https://arstechnica.com/features/20...-quantum-mechanics-pt-4-looking-at-the-stars/

Part 4

“This week we’ll concentrate on how photons travel across light years, and how their inherent quantum waviness enables modern telescopes, including interferometric telescopes the size of the Earth.”

 

[Koolau]

https://arstechnica.com/features/20...-quantum-mechanics-pt-4-looking-at-the-stars/

Part 4

“This week we’ll concentrate on how photons travel across light years, and how their inherent quantum waviness enables modern telescopes, including interferometric telescopes the size of the Earth.”

Seriously cool! Thanks.

 

[yakers]

Not one, nor the other, nor neither, nor both.

Buddhist four way dialectic

 

[O2Bfree]

Buddhist four way dialectic

Not that either.

 

[ls99]

Not one, nor the other, nor neither, nor both.

When you solve that Koan, become Buddha.

 

[Koolau]

Buddhist four way dialectic

"Make me one with everything." Response to hot dog vendor.

 

[FI_RElater]

Thanks, I'll check it out. I have to admit to getting lost a few chapters in with Hawking's book,

In a similar vein, I sometimes follow some posts at physics.org, and some of the real physicists there get frustrated when someone tries to explain electricity to a newbie/student using analogies (like the water-pipe analogy). They feel this gets in the way of a real understanding of electricity.

But how far do you go? Is electrons and holes and fields enough? Or do we need to delve into QM?

[mThere was a guy there posting questions about basic circuits, he was an HVAC apprentice. And some of these physicists are going into a deep dive into theory when the guy just wants to understand how a relatively simple relay circuit. If you can follow the loop, you can figure this out, you don't need to know the deep theory. Not anymore than anyone needs to understand that the stoichiometric air–fuel mixture for a gasoline engine is about 14.7:1 (or Li1-xCoO2(s)+x Li+ +xe- -> LiCoO2(s) for you EV fans*) to drive a car competently.

-ERD50

* Please excuse the improper formatting of subscripts and superscripts

It'd be funny when they start talking about election tunneling to him