Quantum Physics Made Simple

[lesterb]

Okay, Wayne, have at it...

I'd love to know, in simple language and concepts, what this is really all about.

[Wayne in Maine]

Okay, Wayne, have at it...

I'd love to know, in simple language and concepts, what this is really all about.

On a large scale Newton's laws of physics reasonably describe how things work. Einstein's relativity is a more useful way of describing certain physical phenomena, typically phenomena outside of our every day experiences (the big factor in Einsteinium physics is that time is not constant but the speed of light is)- again, on a large scale.

As physicists probed the atom, all of a sudden the old physics didn't work. There were newly discovered forces acting on sub-atomic particles that could not be described with the mathematics that describe the effect of gravity on rocks or planets or galaxies. In fact, the effects of gravity are completely negligible on a very small scale. The bazaar thing is that the behavior if these tiniest particles can only really be described in terms of probabilities, uncertainties and complimentarity. You cannot, for example, say that an electron is at some place in space, you can only say that it has a certain probability that it is there. The picture we have of atoms where electrons are whirling around a nucleus just doesn't describe what really is happening in terms of what can be measured and observed. And to describe light you have to use the complimentary nature of light as a particle and light as a wave.

The really odd thing about this is that these mathematical tools of statistics and probability can actually produce tangible results, even practical products. The mathematical "formulas" for transistors were worked out long before the method of making these devices was developed. Somewhere in my old notebooks I have the equations that tell you how to formulate silicone and other chemicals into light emitting diodes including what colors they will produce (blue was a really tough one to fabricate).

[karpos]

Okay, Wayne, have at it...

I'd love to know, in simple language and concepts, what this is really all about.

On a large scale Newton's laws of physics reasonably describe how things work. Einstein's relativity is a more useful way of describing certain physical phenomena, typically phenomena outside of our every day experiences (the big factor in Einsteinium physics is that time is not constant but the speed of light is)- again, on a large scale.

As physicists probed the atom, all of a sudden the old physics didn't work. There were newly discovered forces acting on sub-atomic particles that could not be described with the mathematics that describe the effect of gravity on rocks or planets or galaxies. In fact, the effects of gravity are completely negligible on a very small scale. The bazaar thing is that the behavior if these tiniest particles can only really be described in terms of probabilities, uncertainties and complimentarity. You cannot, for example, say that an electron is at some place in space, you can only say that it has a certain probability that it is there. The picture we have of atoms where electrons are whirling around a nucleus just doesn't describe what really is happening in terms of what can be measured and observed. And to describe light you have to use the complimentary nature of light as a particle and light as a wave.

The plum model of the atom that I recall from early chemistry books is very different from models with different electron orbitals that we had in college.

What is really interesting is the notion that electrons can be in 2 different places at the same time.

We are a long ways from any unified theory.

[karpos]

Okay, Wayne, have at it...

I'd love to know, in simple language and concepts, what this is really all about.

I asked someone if there was a 'genetic algorithms for dummies' book and he said no. I asked why. He said genetic algorithms are not for dummies and so there is no such book. The title of this thread made me think of that conversation.

I read this book a long time ago and think it might help explain some of einsteins theories (quantum mechanics/physics/computing is more complicated)



Classical physics doesnt explain time dialation, the orbit of mercury and a good many other things we observe in the universe. Kind of like trying to explain something with algebra that really requires calculus to accurately calculate something. So we have more advanced models of physics that do better at explaining things we see in nature that classical physics or even general relativity doesnt explain.

[Wayne in Maine]

The plum model of the atom that I recall from early chemistry books is very different from models with different electron orbitals that we had in college.

What is really interesting is the notion that electrons can be in 2 different places at the same time.

I found it interesting that an electron can pass through "solid matter". Tunnel Diodes are a practical device that work on the principle that there is a finite probability that I can be on the other side of the wall of my office without physically crashing through the wall.

We are a long ways from any unified theory.

It's humbling.

[Josh]

“Solid matter” isn’t really solid; it’s just got a very strong force against any charged particles. Things like a gamma ray can pass right through it.

[karpos]

We are a long ways from any unified theory.

It's humbling.

People in the early 1900s said a unified theory of everything was 50 years away. I'm fairly certain physics books 500 years from now will consider einstein and the like to be primitive neanderthals.

Something that I really found to be humbling was a documentary on Archimedes, his primitive computer and his early math formulas on approximation / ideas on infinity.

Someone said if his works had not been lost/forgotten in the dark ages then people would have been on mars centuries ago.

maybe quantum mechanics will be elementary school material a hundred years from now.

[ohio jones]

You cannot, for example, say that an electron is at some place in space, you can only say that it has a certain probability that it is there.

What is really interesting is the notion that electrons can be in 2 different places at the same time.

The troubling thing is that we depend on those electrons for structural engineering, banking, aeronautical navigation, and similar things that are pretty important to get precisely correct.

[Judas Maccabeus]

You cannot, for example, say that an electron is at some place in space, you can only say that it has a certain probability that it is there.

What is really interesting is the notion that electrons can be in 2 different places at the same time.

The troubling thing is that we depend on those electrons for structural engineering, banking, aeronautical navigation, and similar things that are pretty important to get precisely correct.

You can thank Heisenberg for all of this uncertainty

J.M.

[RZehr]

Hey stick to the topic. Supposed to be simple. I can’t understand anything you are saying.