quantum mechanics- is the world not what we think it is?

[MusashiStyle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Certain real physical microscopic quantities (e.g. the angular momentum of an electron) obey mathematical laws that are completely unusual. We find that there are only 2 possible spin states of an electron and that measuring the spin state in any 3d axis completely destroys information about the spin state components along another axis.
we find that these quantities can be represented as linear combinations of basis vectors in a complex vector space, hilbert space as opposed to matter in a euclidean space.
this is quite shocking. And I know many of u in this forum are very aware of this, however I hope some people appreciate how mysterious this phenomena is and it show how little we know about nature and how complex it is.

edit: of course this phenomena is correllated to the particle -wave duality of these quantities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because I golf, I'll side with flipdeadshot.

However you said, "how little we know about nature and how complex it is," and that could be called into question.

I don't know where you're at, but if someone was trying to describe an analog wave digitally: is the "complexity" generated from the wave itself or the methods of observation?

If the above is obvious, I guess you could substitute "nature" for "wave". Consequently calling into question your assumption that nature is complex.

Which I guess would lead you to someone's "relative" explanation.

-John

[/ QUOTE ]


correct me if I'm wrong, however your response appears to be incoherent and contains no logically sequential phrases at all.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I see absolutely no reason why the worlds of the very large very small must conform to our notions of what we think reality should be, since we have evolved in the sort of middle ground of it. The Swartzchild equations show things moving faster than light inside a black hole--I don't know what's happening, how that's possible, or why--but that doesn't really bother me.

Why do so many people feel that nature must conform to our limited understanding???

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a bias I recognise I have. It has puzzled me, partly because I cant seem to shake it. My best guess is because I've always been able to solve apparent conundrums if I've put enough effort into - ie the world I've experienced makes sense (eventually). Despite accepting that logically, it is entirely possible that some part of the universe is fundamentally incomprehensible, I cant help operating from the assumption that I'll work it out if I think long enough.

[MusashiStyle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see absolutely no reason why the worlds of the very large very small must conform to our notions of what we think reality should be, since we have evolved in the sort of middle ground of it. The Swartzchild equations show things moving faster than light inside a black hole--I don't know what's happening, how that's possible, or why--but that doesn't really bother me.

Why do so many people feel that nature must conform to our limited understanding???

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a bias I recognise I have. It has puzzled me, partly because I cant seem to shake it. My best guess is because I've always been able to solve apparent conundrums if I've put enough effort into - ie the world I've experienced makes sense (eventually). Despite accepting that logically, it is entirely possible that some part of the universe is fundamentally incomprehensible, I cant help operating from the assumption that I'll work it out if I think long enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

My op wasn't meant to suggest that the world is incomprehensible but rather that it is amazingly complex and yet still comprehensible which is what is amazing.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]

My op wasn't meant to suggest that the world is incomprehensible but rather that it is amazingly complex and yet still comprehensible which is what is amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's true that it's amazingly, surprisingly subtle. I mean who would have thought...

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it's not going to do much for everyday people but push them away from science because of how non-intuitive it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, your theory is that the unexplained mysteries of science actually push people away from science? You seem to have little grasp of what makes a good scientist. If everything was black and white and explained all nice an tidy, there would be no need to keep probing the frontiers of the unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what makes a good scientist, that's not what I was talking about. When scientists try to explain things that are so outside Joe Six-packs day to day understanding of how things work most of the time that doesn't drive Joe to expand the boundaries of his perception or understanding of the world around him. Usually, it just makes him change the channel to boobies.

I'm all for expanding science teaching in the schools and trying to make science exciting to get more kids involved in it, but I'm not naive enough to think that telling people spooky action at a distance is real but baby Jeebus isn't does anything to make people like science more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? The goal of science isn't to get people to "like it", it's to learn the truth about the universe, even if people choose to watch boobies instead. I fail to understand what your point is.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares? The goal of science isn't to get people to "like it", it's to learn the truth about the universe, even if people choose to watch boobies instead. I fail to understand what your point is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj, I hope scientists have better reading compreshension than you.

I was never talking about what makes a good scientist or the goal of science. I was saying that as science gets farther away from explaining things that affect our day to day lives it is going to be less and less interesting to people who aren't science geeks.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares? The goal of science isn't to get people to "like it", it's to learn the truth about the universe, even if people choose to watch boobies instead. I fail to understand what your point is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj, I hope scientists have better reading compreshension than you.

I was never talking about what makes a good scientist or the goal of science. I was saying that as science gets farther away from explaining things that affect our day to day lives it is going to be less and less interesting to people who aren't science geeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people have no freaking clue how a TV works nor could they comprehend it if one tried to explain it -- the concept is actually based on QM which you claim is too beyond people to have any value. And yet, it somehow has made it possible to entertain billions of people with these crazy scientific principles. And gee, you don't even have to be a science geek.

[kerowo]

Wow, you are really not good at the internerts. I never said that complicated science didn't have any value. I said trying to explain complicated science to people who don't care about it isn't going to make them want to learn more about complicated science.

Yes, everyday people use things they don't understand how to build or the working principles behind them. And yet there are pretty much zero hard science shows in the top twenty TV shows on the air today. That would lead me to think that either no one knows how to write such a show in a way that is entertaining or that Joe Six Pack doesn't care about how his TV works, he just wants the boobies.