B Quantum mechanical one-liners?

[sadaronjiggasha]

I got a one liner for QP, Electron behave like wave when no observer is there but when we put observer ELECTRON saw this and they told themself hey they are observing us lets change our behaviour, WE are particle now. That type of strange QP is. Am I right?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I strongly suggest you learn QM before you attempt to explain it.

 

[sadaronjiggasha]

No matter how much I study QP is still mind boggling. I am not explaining QP I am telling what I am thinking. I want to understand QP better way.

 

[Demystifier]

Like in double slit experiment when several eletron shooted and the pattern in the wall created, it hard to understand why that happen but when I saw video of water flowing into double slit and created the same pattern than it was so easy to understand. Visual representation of anything is very easy to understand.

I am looking for something even may be one liner that will dramatically change my way of thinking. Putting all clasical physics behind me only thinking quantum way. Because I always try to understand anything by real life example. Then I can understand easily. But when I can't find any real life example I can't related to that. As QP physics does not relate to general physics I always mixed up QP to classic physics. How can I change that mind set?

Perhaps a "one liner" that can change your mind set is this:
Classical objects usually can be visualized, quantum objects usually can't.

Or if you can't accept that they can't be visualized, then a useful alternative framework for thinking is the Bohmian interpretation. In this framework, quantum phenomena are explained by some kind of "ghosts", that is, classically looking objects that can be visualized in mind, but that can't be seen in actual experiments. As you may guess, since these "ghosts" can't be seen in experiments, most physicists don't believe in them. Nevertheless, they can be a useful tool for thinking if visualization is what you are looking for.

 

[sadaronjiggasha]

@Demystifier Thank you so much. Excellent explanation. You understanding me well. Yes I am looking for this. The "Ghosts". Thanks again.

 

[Demystifier]

@Demystifier Thank you so much. Excellent explanation. You understanding me well. Yes I am looking for this. The "Ghosts". Thanks again.

Here are some relatively easy introductions to Bohmian "ghosts":
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611032
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412119
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0408113
If it's still too hard for you, the book by Rae I mentioned in one of previous posts contains an even easier explanation of those ideas.

 

[Nugatory]

I got a one liner for QP, Electron behave like wave when no observer is there but when we put observer ELECTRON saw this and they told themself hey they are observing us lets change our behaviour, WE are particle now. That type of strange QP is. Am I right?

No.
This idea that observation makes something change from wave to particle was abandoned almost a century ago, and is it's one of the first things that you have to unlearn if you want to understand QM.

 

[PeroK]

No matter how much I study QP is still mind boggling.

Try 6 hours a day, six days a week for six months and see whether that makes any difference.

I want to understand QP better way.

See above.

 

[thewowsignal]

My sincere apologies for writing a reply here, I should not as I am not a physicist... However, I came across this thread and... because I have been trying to follow how our understanding of the Universe progresses for more than three decades, would like to share my opinion on QP and QM.

I am an amateur. From this very small perspective I can only say, that mankind is quite far from understanding the simplicity of the Universe. There are many things which do not seem to add together, more and more theories, more resources needed to make a small progress - like the LHC for example.

There is a wonderful simplicity on the fundamental level of the Universe we are living in. Understanding this simplicity, which can potentially open a completely new door for mankind in this enormously big Universe, requires a different approach, in my opinion.

The question is - will spending more and more time on trying to solve a constantly growing puzzle will finally bring mankind to a higher level in this Universe? I think this forum is a very good example of how complex problems are in today's world. So, is this the only direction to follow?

 

[PeroK]

So, is this the only direction to follow?

Only yesterday I was saying that physics is about calculations, not mysticism.

 

[PeterDonis]

This thread is closed as the OP is word salad. It is being left visible because the responses are far more useful than the OP itself.