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

[MusashiStyle]

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.

[kerowo]

The world is pretty much exactly what most people think it is, especially when you are talking quantum. To the best of my knowledge there aren't any quantum effects visible to the nekkid eye outside of a lab. It's not like something weird happens and now we know it is quantum instead of just saying "that's weird."

Yea, it's pretty strange and interesting stuff, but until I can get a qPhone for decoding all your secrets while listening to music that hasn't been written yet it's not going to do much for everyday people but push them away from science because of how non-intuitive it is.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Yea, it's pretty strange and interesting stuff, but until I can get a qPhone for decoding all your secrets while listening to music that hasn't been written yet it's not going to do much for everyday people but push them away from science because of how non-intuitive it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems backwards to me. The people who get far enough to hear about QM have already expressed a pretty substantial interest in science, and I think at that point they're usually like "Wow, really? How the hell does that work?" I think the counterintuitive nature of QM draws people in.

[Lestat]

I'm still trying to figure out the slit experiment. Yeah, the world doesn't seem to be what we think it is.

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[MaxWeiss]

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???

[kerowo]

[ 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.

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

YOUR limited understanding of certain concepts should not dictate a global limitation to understanding. I'm pretty shaky on relativistic quantum field theory, but that limitation in itself doesnt stop the progress within the field. WTF are you getting at?

[John21]

[ 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

[borisp]

For some reason, people seem to cling to a belief that we can simultaneously know everything about reality. As I see it, quantum mechanics demonstrates that this is a fantasy.

A "real life" example of a measurement destroying our capability to take other meaningful measurements: suppose your roommate TiVos a sporting event, and you plan to watch it together after the fact. The role of the electron is played by the mood of our roommate in this example, and it is either "happy," or "sad," depending on whether his/her preferred team wins. We can measure (a component of) the state of happiness by knowing the outcome ahead of time, but this destroys our ability to measure the happiness of our roommate while our roommate is watching the game, as we can no longer be an "observer."

I know this is a stretch...I would enjoy seeing better hypothetical examples of real world "measurement paradoxes."

As an aside, a measurable quantity in QM can be defined to be what is called a "normal" linear operator. In principle, one can apply this operator, measure the consequent eigenvalue, and then potentially one can narrow the possibilities for the state of the system.

Now, the identity operator is normal, but then no "narrowing" can happen, as every eigenvalue is just 1. All you know is that there is "something." So...I guess Descartes was the first to ever actually "do" quantum mechanics: his claim that "I think, therefore I am" was simply the statement that the identity is a normal operator.