Quantum Enigma

[Grandeza]

Ok I was introduced to quantum mechanics in the Debate Hall topic on If a tree falls in the forest. I found it really interesting so I looked into it a little bit and find it incredibly interesting and hard to believe. For those who don't know quantum mechanics is: (quote from the book Quantum Enigma

the most successful theory in science and the basis of one-third of our economy

And a quote from altf4warrior:

Quantum Mechanics has the concept of an "Observer" which is necessary for certain things to happen. You see, matter itself is not made of particles. Matter is represented entirely through a mathematical structure: a probability distribution cloud. A particle is never "in any one spot" but rather smeared over a given area.

A particle only gains a "definite" position when observed. Until that point, it remains in a kind of limbo where it only has probability of being in any particular place.

Many "commonsense statements" are challenged in quantum mechanics by having observation create the world we see. Our world is not there independent of observation which is quite astounding to me when I think about it.

Now the thing this book focuses on most is Quantum enigma. What happens when quantum mechanics is coupled with consciousness. Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness and that is the gray area or skeleton in physicists closet.

I just want this thread to be just for discussing anything about the quantum physics, mechanics, theory, any applications of quantum physics, and the enigma.

Go a little easy on technical language please or explain cause I'm only going into 8th grade so I dont know a lot of scientific vocab.

 

[Mr P]

The laws of quantum physics do not apply to the world on a large scale, quantum physics has absaloutly nothing to do with consciousness, the laws only work in the small scale.

 

[Overload]

nobody ever believes me when I tell them when a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it it doesn't make a sound

 

[AltF4]

I'm flattered.

Don't jump to the conclusion that "observer" has to mean "consciousness". It doesn't. How would you even define "consciousness" anyway? Try to do it, I suspect you won't be able to.

An observer can be anything which interacts with the said particles in question. A lot of people who misunderstand Quantum Mechanics jump to the conclusion that it puts an emphasis on consciousness, when this is not at all the case.

The movie "What the Bleep do we know" (That's actually the name of the movie. "Bleep" is in the title.) is a prime culprit of this. It begins with some real (but weird) science, but then quickly degenerates into new age mumbo jumbo.


But feel free to ask more specific questions if you have them. I'm glad that someone actually read and found interesting what I wrote!

 

[GoldShadow]

I mostly second what Mr P said.

Now take this with a grain of salt, I don't study physics or quantum mechanics or engineering, so please correct me if I am wrong.

It's not that quantum physics doesn't apply to the world on a macroscopic scale (ie, everything we see around us; people, airplanes, trees, soda), but that its effects are statistically and numerically insignificant on the macro scale. They are negligible.

It becomes much more important when applied to microscopic phenomena, however. Electrons, atoms, atomic kinetics and vibrations, that sort of thing.

 

[AltF4]

In practice, you can ignore any effects from Quantum Mechanics when dealing with anything on a macroscopic scale. But strictly speaking, this isn't precise.

Just like when you're trying to calculate how far a ball will go when thrown with a given momentum in high school physics, you're allowed to ignore the fact that gravity is not constant. The higher the ball travels in the air, the weaker gravity becomes. Furthermore, the path of the ball is elliptical, not parabolic (despite what they teach you in high school).

For the purpose of figuring out where the ball will land, you can ignore those factors. But that is not to say that they do not make a difference, no! They certainly do, just a small one.

So, Mr. P's statement is a little too strong. The laws of QM sure do "apply" at a macroscopic scale. They just have only small effects. (Or, rather, the chances of having noticeable effects are inconceivably small)

 

[Grandeza]

Well thanks for responding guys. I'm quite confused lol, and it's sad to hear the book I got is a flop, but it's still an interesting read. Thanks for the help. If I think of any questions I'll ask em.

 

[Mewter]

Alt4Warrior, could you please explain to me what this is about? I'm quite curious about it.

And also,(correct me if I'm wrong) does the "If the tree falls" argument mean to say that if something happens, but is not noticably significant, you don't need to worry about it? But if they can have any significant effect, you should take it into the equation? That's my translation so far.

 

[AltF4]

Well, you see in real world applications of the science, certain amounts of error can be allowed. You needn't be perfectly accurate.

For example, you can use basic physics to tell you where to aim when trying to fire artillery rounds in battle. Many factors can be included such as wind direction and speed, relative elevation, angle of fire, mass of the shell, etc...

But there are many other things which *don't* need to be taken into account. Such as the position of the moon. The moon has a gravitational pull that will tug on the fired artillery shell, and can send it off course. Off course by a couple of nanometers, probably.

But you see, a couple of nanometers does not matter for an artillery shell: You'll blow up your opponent no matter what. So the moon's gravitational field can be "ignored" in such a situation. But strictly speaking, it DOES have an effect.

That is what we're getting at.

 

[Mewter]

Well, you see in real world applications of the science, certain amounts of error can be allowed. You needn't be perfectly accurate.

For example, you can use basic physics to tell you where to aim when trying to fire artillery rounds in battle. Many factors can be included such as wind direction and speed, relative elevation, angle of fire, mass of the shell, etc...

But there are many other things which *don't* need to be taken into account. Such as the position of the moon. The moon has a gravitational pull that will tug on the fired artillery shell, and can send it off course. Off course by a couple of nanometers, probably.

But you see, a couple of nanometers does not matter for an artillery shell: You'll blow up your opponent no matter what. So the moon's gravitational field can be "ignored" in such a situation. But strictly speaking, it DOES have an effect.

That is what we're getting at.

Aaaah, ok. So, just ignore the miniscule quantity? Seems easy enough. It's like calculating the volume of a cube that has just one tiny bump. It doesn't matter.
All right, thanks!