Quantum effects in a growing number of macroscopic systems.

[softbeard]

softbeard,
My blind acceptance of the quantum business is over though. Clearly there has been a tremendous amount of nonsense generated over the years based on misconceptions about the subject. My attempts at sorting that out for myself as a layman has me thinking quite differently about it at this point. Not that that matters to anyone but myself.

Now that, I think, is a good idea. Blind acceptance of theories is never good. It's excellent that you are trying to conceptualize and make sense of the workings of the universe, even if it is based on something like the 'rope' theory. There are tons of excellent intros to general relativity (no math needed) and quantum mechanics; all fascinating stuff.
I find the most fascinating thing about general relativity and quantum mechanics is that, while disparate theories, they are both correct. Correct at least as far as agreeing with observations from every physical experiment yet conducted (at least as far as I know).

 

[trainedobserver]

softbeard,

It isn't that I'm completely unread on the subject. I read Einstein's little book describing the Special and General theories (of relativity) in high school and still have my copy. Of course over years I've read Hawking and others on Quantum mussings. Its just that the incredible overuse and gross misuse of quantum this and that has me revisiting the subject and finding it not as solid as I had once thought. Certainly you are aware that the theory has always been and remains today a controversial one.

 

[softbeard]

Quantum mechanical theory is controversial because the effects it describes are so bizzare; yet it is nevertheless describing very real things. Even the photoelectric effect could not be described without quantum mechanics. Electrons should spiral to their doom into the nucleus of an atom but don't because of quantum mechanics. Einstein himself said he couldn't wrap his head around some of the implications of quantum mechanics. Yet, in the end, the results every physical experiment that I know of are consistent with quantum mechanics.

 

[Randall]

Quantum mechanical theory is controversial because the effects it describes are so bizzare; yet it is nevertheless describing very real things. Even the photoelectric effect could not be described without quantum mechanics. Electrons should spiral to their doom into the nucleus of an atom but don't because of quantum mechanics. Einstein himself said he couldn't wrap his head around some of the implications of quantum mechanics. Yet, in the end, the results every physical experiment that I know of are consistent with quantum mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics is an abstract mathematical analogy. So electrons don't do anything because of Quantum Mechanics. Rather electrons do what they do because of the fundamental forces of nature, the origins of which have yet to be discerned. What quantum mechanics attempts to do is predict the behavior ( state ) of an electron ( or other particle ) as it interacts with these forces by breaking all the variables down into discrete units ( quanta ). The actual math is beyond most people's working knowledge, which makes it's easy for the mystics to incorporate it into their woo. Just slap the "quantum" label on it. Who's gonna argue?

j.r.

 

[softbeard]

Quantum Mechanics is an abstract mathematical analogy. So electrons don't do anything because of Quantum Mechanics. Rather electrons do what they do because of the fundamental forces of nature, the origins of which have yet to be discerned. What quantum mechanics attempts to do is predict the behavior ( state ) of an electron ( or other particle ) as it interacts with these forces by breaking all the variables down into discrete units ( quanta ). The actual math is beyond most people's working knowledge, which makes it's easy for the mystics to incorporate it into their woo. Just slap the "quantum" label on it. Who's gonna argue?
j.r.

You're arguing semantics a bit, but you are correct in that quantum mechanics is just a theory doing the describing and predicting. But one of the major aspects of this theory is that it describes the fundamental limits to the ability to predict anything with absolute certainty. Especially things like both the exact position and momentum of an electron, or as you put it, its 'state'. As for the math involved, I do agree, it can be daunting. Of course, there is no shortage of charlatans and the self-decieved who spin anything dealing with the word 'quantum' into their own brand of pseudo-science.
In addition, I do get the gist of your argument. I should not have phrased it to say that electrons do not spiral to their doom because of quantum mechanics, rather that quantum mechanics theorizes why they don't. Semantics, semantics...