Quantum Physics United with non quantum Physics

evanallmighty
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Could it be that there is no way to unite quantum physics and (non quantum) physics, could that be why there has been so many problems and controversy over string theory?

This would just help me understand string theory more and possibly help out my "pet theory"

_ev
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evanallmighty said:
Could it be that there is no way to unite quantum physics and (non quantum) physics, could that be why there has been so many problems and controversy over string theory?

This would just help me understand string theory more and possibly help out my "pet theory"

_ev

Er.. what makes you think there's no way to "unite" them? Have you ever even studied QM formally? Look at the quantum SHO, and solve it for very high quantum number "n". Doesn't that begin to approach the classical limit as far as where the particle is predicted to be?

Furthermore, it appears as if you've never heard of decoherence before, or visited our "Recent Noteworthy Paper", where several papers have been highlighted that showed how classical scenarios can be obtained out of quantum mechanical starting points.

"Pet theory" is awfully full of holes when one is ignorant of the subject matter.

Zz.
 
Then you are left with a murky problem as you start getting down to small sizes of when you need to use quantum mechanics. There is a whole pile of things in nanotechnology that require both calculations at different points.

This means both theories are wrong or they break down at this level there is no specific size we switch from one to the other.

In 2007 scientists entangled atoms 1m apart.
Last record I saw had 14 calcium atoms this year
We have recorded quantum effects in a molecule of 400 atoms April this year that's about the size of an insulin molecule (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110405151213.htm)

Thats all starting to get quite large ... so what's your random cutoff distance and why?
 
thanks ZapperZ and Uglybb, I am just wondering more on string theory, as I have not really studied it closely.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top