Outrageous Facts by Academically Validated Physicists

[wittgenstein]

Can anyone post here quotes from academically validated physicists that state outrageous facts? I realize that Bohr said that if one isn't shocked by QM one doesn't understand it. But I am looking for something more specific. For example a quote about superposition , entanglement etc. The idea that a particle does not have a location until "observed".
I will never understand all the math. I understand that one shouldn't have too much faith in authority. But a few quotes from respected physicists will facilitate a belief that QM is truly paradigm shattering.

 

[fresh_42]

Are you especially interested in quotations about quantum physics? Or physics in general?

And outrageous is coupled to time. E.g. these two interviews:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1926-01-30.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1927-10-16.htm
had been outrageous then, but not so much today.

The internet is full of quotations. You said something more specific, so specify!

 

[wittgenstein]

Something about Superposition. I need at least confirmation from a validated physicist to believe in something so outrageous. Do respected physicists really believe that an object has no location until measured? That it can be in more then one place at the same time?

 

[wittgenstein]

I have searched the internet for quotes from respected physicists about superposition and entanglement but have found none! That surprised me. I expected that after superposition became orthodox there would be plenty of quotes that say that a particle can be in more then 2 places at once.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I expected that after superposition became orthodox there would be plenty of quotes that say that a particle can be in more then 2 places at once.

Superposition doesn't say that.

 

[wittgenstein]

So its basically Newtonian? Nothing unusual?

 

[wittgenstein]

I have heard that it is the same old billard balls but has been portrayed as unusual by laymen.For example, that it is not that the cat is in two states, its just that we don't know what state it is in.

 

[wittgenstein]

I always thought that Schrodinger's cat was suspicious. It would be A ( particle ) and not A (a particle ). And from a contradiction everything follows.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is now veering into actual physics question, rather than just wanting quotes and making it a General Discussion topic. If you want to ask about quantum superposition, either browse the numerous existing threads on this topic, or ask in the Quantum Physics forum. Otherwise, you are derailing your own thread.

Zz.

 

[wittgenstein]

I simply want quotes from physicists about superposition . How am I derailing my own thread? That is what the OP asked for. OK I will ask the question in a quantum section.

 

[ZapperZ]

I simply want quotes from physicists about superposition . How am I derailing my own thread? That is what the OP asked for. OK I will ask the question in a quantum section.

Read what you wrote here:

I have heard that it is the same old billard balls but has been portrayed as unusual by laymen.For example, that it is not that the cat is in two states, its just that we don't know what state it is in.

I always thought that Schrodinger's cat was suspicious. It would be A ( particle ) and not A (a particle ). And from a contradiction everything follows.

These are physics-related questions. You are no longer asking for "quotes".

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So its basically Newtonian? Nothing unusual?

I said no such thing.

If you want to understand QM, there are better ways to go about it than a parade of misunderstandings, misstatements and misrepresentations, hoping someone will correct you.

 

[nitsuj]

I said no such thing.

If you want to understand QM, there are better ways to go about it than a parade of misunderstandings, misstatements and misrepresentations, hoping someone will correct you.

Am currently reading a book about four personality types that have basis in genetics...

 

[DennisN]

Hi again, @wittgenstein, I was about to post this in the other thread yesterday, but it got locked before I could post it.

But a few quotes from respected physicists will facilitate a belief that QM is truly paradigm shattering.

Perhaps this short clip with Richard Feynman is in the ballpark of what you are asking for?

Richard Feynman - Quantum Mechanics

(note: here Feynman in my opinion regretfully says "god particles"* and I don't know why or what he means by that, so I suggest you please ignore that and replace it with just "particles" )
*Edit: He probably says "gut particles" and the subtitle was wrong.

 

[AlexCaledin]

I want to... explain why there must be antiparticles... It is easy to demonstrate that if Nature was nonrelativistic, if things started out that way then it would be that way for all time, and so the problem would be pushed back to Creation itself, and God only knows how that was done.

Richard Feynman "THE REASON FOR ANTIPARTICLES" 1986
https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...c1_p1-60_CBO.pdf/reason_for_antiparticles.pdf
(p. 2, 3)

 

[robphy]

(note: here Feynman in my opinion regretfully says "god particles" and I don't know why or what he means by that, so I suggest you please ignore that and replace it with just "particles" )

Although the video subtitle at 0m20s says `the "god particles" in the deep inner workings`,
it sounds like he is saying `the "gut particles" in the deep inner workings`...
"gut" maybe as in GUT ("grand unified theory") https://www.google.com/search?&q="gut particle"+physics .

 

[AlexCaledin]

- extended:

 

[robphy]

The Weinberg quote sounds like a subtle pitch for "string theory" (a point-less theory).

 

[DennisN]

Although the video subtitle at 0m20s says `the "god particles" in the deep inner workings`,
it sounds like he is saying `the "gut particles" in the deep inner workings`...
"gut" maybe as in GUT ("grand unified theory").

Yes, I've listened to it twice now without watching the subtitles, and I think you are right, it sounds like "gut" or "GUT". So my guess it was bad subtitles. Thanks!

 

[George Jones]

Hi again, @wittgensteinRichard Feynman - Quantum Mechanics

(note: here Feynman in my opinion regretfully says "god particles" and I don't know why or what he means by that, so I suggest you please ignore that and replace it with just "particles" )

Although the video subtitle at 0m20s says `the "god particles" in the deep inner workings`,
it sounds like he is saying `the "gut particles" in the deep inner workings`...
"gut" maybe as in GUT ("grand unified theory") https://www.google.com/search?&q="gut particle"+physics .

Yes, I've listened to it twice now without watching the subtitles, and I think you are right, it sounds like "gut" or "GUT". So my guess it was bad subtitles. Thanks!

Definitely "gut", but not GUT as in Grand Unified Theory, but gut, as in definition 2 from Merriam-Webster online,

"2 guts plural : the inner essential parts
// the guts of a car"