Can someone explain this quantum physics concepts to me?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of matter and light in quantum physics, including their interconversion, the nature of quantum entanglement, and the philosophical implications of existence as explained by quantum physics. Participants explore definitions and interpretations of these concepts, raising questions about the fundamental nature of reality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how matter can transform into light and vice versa, questioning the mechanisms behind these processes.
  • One participant asserts that light is a type of matter, while others challenge this by suggesting that matter is fundamentally different due to its mass.
  • There is a discussion about quantum entanglement, with one participant noting that it involves particles affecting each other instantaneously, regardless of distance.
  • Several participants debate the implications of Einstein's equation E=mc², with differing interpretations about the relationship between energy and matter.
  • One participant suggests that the term "world" in quantum physics may refer to the many-worlds interpretation, while others seek clarification on its meaning.
  • There are claims that physics is fundamentally mathematical, while others argue that not all physical concepts can be expressed mathematically.
  • A participant describes quantum pairing as a process where two particles vibrate in sync, leading to instantaneous state changes, but acknowledges that a full explanation is lacking.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of light and matter, with multiple competing views presented. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the definitions and implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express that the questions posed are vague or poorly formed, which may limit the clarity of responses. There are also references to specific interpretations and theories that may not be universally accepted.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring foundational concepts in quantum physics, particularly regarding the nature of matter and light, as well as philosophical implications of quantum mechanics.

  • #31
ok let's have this as definition of matter:

matter is anything that can contribute to the energy-momentum tensor
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Dmitry67 said:
For example? (pure physical axioms, which can not be expressed in math terms are always interesting)

The axiom that one should try as much as possible to falsify a postulated/derived theory.

Thus physics has also elements which belongs to empirical science.

Math has no such element that it should be consistent with experiments/measurements - thus physics IS not math, but physics CONTAIN math.
 
  • #33
ansgar said:
Math has no such element that it should be consistent with experiments/measurements - thus physics IS not math, but physics CONTAIN math.

Perfectly emulated exisence is REAL for the being 'inside' the virtual world, even they make any experimens they want. So experiments per se, self-consistency of physical reality, and agreement between measurements and theories can not in principle, provde that there is something "real", not "emulated"
 
  • #34
Dmitry67 said:
Perfectly emulated exisence is REAL for the being 'inside' the virtual world, even they make any experimens they want. So experiments per se, self-consistency of physical reality, and agreement between measurements and theories can not in principle, provde that there is something "real", not "emulated"

I do not follow you totally now, do you for the first agree upon that physics also has science as one of its building blocks?
 
  • #35
Physics IS science.
What you are saying is Physics is built using science + something more.
That "something more" (called 'word baggage' by Max Tegmark) shrinks to 0 when we move towards more and more fundamental concepts. In TOE it should be 0 (no word baggage, just equations)
 
  • #36
Dmitry67 said:
Physics IS science.
What you are saying is Physics is built using science + something more.
That "something more" (called 'word baggage' by Max Tegmark) shrinks to 0 when we move towards more and more fundamental concepts. In TOE it should be 0 (no word baggage, just equations)

I meant empirical science, math is science but not an empirical science.

You have non mathematical axoims in physics, which is that one should also falsify it by doing experiments and observations. This is the main difference between math and physics.

2 minutes ago, you said that Physics is Math.. now it is science ;)
 
  • #37
Yes, Physics=Math, Physics=Science -> Math=Science :)
 
  • #38
Dmitry67 said:
Yes, Physics=Math, Physics=Science -> Math=Science :)


So physics is only science since MATH is science? ;)

Does math have the falsification axiom so that physics inherit that as well or do we have to add that axiom to physics?

I say we have to add that, since math "only" have to be self consistent.

By the way, are you a working physicists? Myself is doctoral student in theoretical particle physics.
 
  • #39
ansgar said:
1 Does math have the falsification axiom so that physics inherit that as well or do we have to add that axiom to physics?

2 I say we have to add that, since math "only" have to be self consistent.

3 By the way, are you a working physicists? Myself is doctoral student in theoretical particle physics.

1 Falsifiability had been abandoned by modern physics a long time ago.
People are talking about things going on inside the black holes, beyond the horizon... Cosmology claims that universe is the same even beyond the cosmological horizon (that it is almost flat) etc... Yes, it is abandoned or replaced with some weaker version. But it is not bad.

2 Max Tegmark gets rid of that difficulty claiming that ALL mathematical worlds exist.

3 Yes, and even more: I got a Nobel Prize... but... unfortunately, it all happened in an alternative branch of our MWI-Universe. In this branch I am just CTO of one software company, always re-examining the choice made 20+ years ago (computers/business vs physics) and thinking about gains and losses of both options (I had a chance to see the world, to live in the US an France, to be in control of my own life, vs being very poor (20y ago scientist in Russia were not paid well… now it is better, but don’t know to what extent).
 
  • #40
I know of Tegmark, but it he is just "one" guy, and even a bad philosopher...
 
  • #41
Somebody has pushed the "what is matter" question hard enough to land in the philosophy forum. Just don't overdo it as it can potentially cross over into religion.

I don't think we have grown to a level where we have the fundamental knowledge to push our concepts and axioms that far. Even the reality is math theory is a bit of a stretch and speaks more of religion to me(i.e. some ultimate truth about reality), than of physics or philosophy. I don't think philosophy has answers, though it has propositions and a lot of skepticism.

So "what is matter" only makes sense within the framework of a specific theory - QM, GR, ST. We have to first define according to what theory we are stating the definition what matter is.
 
  • #42
Dmitry67 said:
Perfectly emulated exisence is REAL for the being 'inside' the virtual world, even they make any experimens they want. So experiments per se, self-consistency of physical reality, and agreement between measurements and theories can not in principle, provde that there is something "real", not "emulated"



I agree that math is a true description of reality(as far as we know it now), but how come the certainty that matter and space are not made of something else, unaccounted for yet(the underlying reality, as some like to call it), and math be just a true description of that underlying reality?

What if reality is made of 1-D strings?
 
  • #43
In any case at some point the process stops.
And you get some entities which are defined only based on the relationships with the other entities.
 
  • #44
Dmitry67 said:
In any case at some point the process stops.
And you get some entities which are defined only based on the relationships with the other entities.



I am not disagreeing with you, just not sharing the certainty. Otherwise you are certainly correct in doubting the existence of matter and space the way we experience them. I guess it must have been 10 years ago or so, when i first read that a giant black hole with an immense gravity pull could swallow a whole galaxy of 100 million stars and turn its volume to zero, or very close to zero. At that time i knew we had a partial view of space, matter and reality.

At any rate it's hard to see the connection between personal experience and a mathematical reality unless you postulate a matrix style scenario. At the level where you postulate that nothing is real, you have to apply the Occam's razor. And if i apply the occam's razor and get rid of unnecessary assumptions, i have to conclude that it's all about me and everyone else is fake(if reality is fake, why assume people to be real after all?). I guess i am not that egocentrical. Or maybe you like the Boltzmann brain theory?
 
  • #45
Dmitry67 said:
Physics IS mathematics (Mathematical Universe Hypotesis by Max Tegmark)

Do you know what Eta prime meson consists of?
Check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons




Just thought of something that could strengthen your position. I assume you have heard/seen about fractal mathematics and the endless level of complexity that can arise out of a fairly simple mathematical forumala like the Mandelbrot set:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_GBwuYuOOs&feature=fvst



There is inherent beauty and complexity in the Mandelbrot set(a really short equation) and it seems to me your mathematical TOE must be resembling a Mandelbrot set. Are the mathematical objects in the above video close to what you think of reality?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Yes, but the formulas which define mandelbrot set are very simple.
 
  • #47
Dmitry67 said:
Yes, but the formulas which define mandelbrot set are very simple.


Sure, but it's still good enough to somewhat resemble traveling through outer space in the above video.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Exact symmetry, quantum states, and symmetric dynamics
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
860
High School Frequency of an EM wave in Classical and Quantum Physics
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Quantum Physics Can Explain Earth’s Weather
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad What is the Definition of Quantum Physics?
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Undergrad Frequency of EM waves in classical and quantum physics
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
High School Quantum entanglement and hidden variables
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Feedback on Educational Script: What's a particle in QFT?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Physical meaning of two independent, non-interacting parts
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad Intuition for why linear algebra is needed in quantum physics
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Graduate Can particles appear and disappear "with" a cause?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K