Seven Questions for Quantum Physicists

[DrChinese]

Perhaps if scientists didn't avoid such things at all costs they would make more interesting discoveries?

1. If you learn what scientists actually discuss and consider, you will discover that they are not avoiding anything. I can assure you that scientists have first rate minds and are open to the "inconceivable". They do not avoid scary subjects or questions. But there is a process - the Scientific Method - and this serves as the arbiter as new ideas are considered. Two important questions for any theory or hypothesis:

a) Does it fit known facts (prior experiements)?
b) Does it makes useful or testable predictions different than current theory?

If the answers are Yes, then you will likely see it investigated.

2. To address some of your questions: the double slit experiment is not really the "cornerstone" of quantum weirdness (although there are famous quotes to that effect). There are many elements of QM that are could be considered "weird". Quantized electron orbitals are one. Virtual particles are another. I personally consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to be one of the weirdest, and this is essentially the source of the phenomena of the double slit. But it leads to many other strangle things too, including the EPR Paradox and Bell's Theorem.

 

[linton]

You can't go into an arena and bandy about words that have very specific definitions relative to that arena, and expect a coherent (from your perspective) response.
If someone berates you for the use of those terms, then find out what exactly it is you should be asking, and then be specific about that.
Also, the questions you asked, and your admitted lack of formal or informal education regarding this specific subject makes it pretty hard to give any kind of answer.
for instance, if you don't know what is used in the experiment, or have a decent understanding of it, you can't understand the result to any large degree other than "it's magic" and then you can stumble on terms like wave particle duality. You then apply an understanding that something is magically what it shouldn't be, using a layman’s understanding of the classic definition of particles and waves.

Anyhow, in any technical arena, you need to be aware that there are very specific meanings with reference to specific words, and if you use one out of place, you will not actually be asking what you think you are.
And, relative to this topic, describing quantum mechanics as irrational is ... well
suicidal for your thread.

If you want to see what is unintuitive, just study the subject for yourself. It will require that you equip yourself with the mathematical tools to understand most of the subject matter though.

 

[dron]

Thank you for your courteous answer Dr Chinese. I do enjoy good-natured responses - more than accurate ones, even in a physics forum. This, straight away, singles me out as unlikely to be a scientist.

1. If you learn what scientists actually discuss and consider, you will discover that they are not avoiding anything.

I have to disagree with that one. Science is entirely objective (and I am using objective here in my own way - which I will explain - I do adhere to and 'agree' with the usual subjective-objective split, but for the purposes of discussions like this I find it better to use a much stranger, more fundamental, split - objective being anything that I experience - which can include emotions, guesses, religious ideas, whatever - subjective for me is not personal emotions and unverifiable experience, these are just other kinds of objects (less helpful 'scientifically') - rather the pure silent witnesser - something that scientists - and a good many other people - tend to avoid)

I can assure you that scientists have first rate minds and are open to the "inconceivable".

Depends what you mean by "first rate". If you mean full of knowledge and techniques to use that knowledge, I'd call that second rate. If you mean attentive, perceptive, loving, creative I'd say that very few scientists have such "minds".

They do not avoid scary subjects or questions.

I wonder what their wives would say about that.

But there is a process - the Scientific Method - and this serves as the arbiter as new ideas are considered. Two important questions for any theory or hypothesis:

a) Does it fit known facts (prior experiements)?
b) Does it makes useful or testable predictions different than current theory?

If the answers are Yes, then you will likely see it investigated.

Such things exclude everything most important in life, which is why a very clever machine could do this kind of "science" quite successfully.

I'm not knocking science, or machines. I find science interesting (particularly when what I'd call a "first-rate" mind is involved) and machines useful (with material things). But both are as useless as religion when it comes to anything really important in life (love, suffering, creativity, learning, survival skills...). Of course science does touch upon these matters. Take cooking - the "scientific method" - trial and error, fitting known facts and all that - is a useful tool for improving my recipes and perhaps understanding them. Yes. But what makes me really attentive, really creative, really enjoy and benefit from the results - here science must be silent.

2. To address some of your questions: the double slit experiment is not really the "cornerstone" of quantum weirdness (although there are famous quotes to that effect). There are many elements of QM that are could be considered "weird". Quantized electron orbitals are one. Virtual particles are another. I personally consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to be one of the weirdest, and this is essentially the source of the phenomena of the double slit. But it leads to many other strangle things too, including the EPR Paradox and Bell's Theorem.

Thank you.

 

[dron]

You can't go into an arena and bandy about words that have very specific definitions relative to that arena, and expect a coherent (from your perspective) response.
If someone berates you for the use of those terms, then find out what exactly it is you should be asking, and then be specific about that.

I don't understand this. Perhaps you could clear up which words I am "bandying" about, and give me the very specific definitions of them? I've already said that this could be a semantic issue, and I'm quite willing to see that I am using words in a way that scientists do not. Why don't we try to understand each other? Give me your definitions, I'll give you mine, and we'll see if we can meet in the middle, eh?

Also, what should I be asking? All I wanted was some information I could understand about what is weird / irrational / paradoxical / etc (to be cleared up later) in QP.

Also, the questions you asked, and your admitted lack of formal or informal education regarding this specific subject makes it pretty hard to give any kind of answer.

The many "popular science" books out there would suggest that, at least, some people think it is possible to give layman some kind of answer. I know, from those fields that I am more knowledgeable (psychology, literature, anthropology, comparative religions, linguistics, etc) about that I can explain them satisfactorily to a seven year old.

for instance, if you don't know what is used in the experiment, or have a decent understanding of it, you can't understand the result to any large degree other than "it's magic" and then you can stumble on terms like wave particle duality. You then apply an understanding that something is magically what it shouldn't be, using a layman’s understanding of the classic definition of particles and waves.

I beg to differ. I think I am capable of understanding a little more than "it's magic". Of course (assuming for a moment there's just you and me talking) I will never be able to understand if you think I'm not capable!

Anyhow, in any technical arena, you need to be aware that there are very specific meanings with reference to specific words, and if you use one out of place, you will not actually be asking what you think you are.

Yes, I see that. Please help me clear up my confusion here.

And, relative to this topic, describing quantum mechanics as irrational is ... well
suicidal for your thread.

Perhaps. It seems to be going pretty strong so far; and at the very least is of interest to me.

If you want to see what is unintuitive, just study the subject for yourself. It will require that you equip yourself with the mathematical tools to understand most of the subject matter though.

Bugger that!

 

[yaychemistry]

Hello dron,

If I could, I would like to know what your motives are in discovering these "irrational" pieces of Quantum Mechanics are. It seems to me you are not just trying to satisfy an idle curiosity, but are looking for ammunition to take us scientists down a peg, e.g.

the results and implications of the double-slit experiment strike me as wonderful. They start to take away the power of the scientific priesthood; a significant step towards beauty and awe; which, at the moment, are generally considered (by mediocre scientists) to be "unscientific".

This might be why there are several people apparently upset with you, and in response: First of all, the double-split experiment is probably one of the first experiments explained in a college quantum mechanics courses, or even freshman physics. It is well understood in the scientific community, and, in fact, demonstrates the success of science in our ability to understand it. Stating that the double-slit experiment takes anything away from "science" would be similar to the claim that the Michaelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel deals a fatal blow to "painting" because I, as a non-artist, would never have imagined painting something like that on a ceiling. Both statements are absurd.


In addition, you speak as if you know something about scientists. In response to DrChinese's statement that science is full if first rate minds you stated:

Depends what you mean by "first rate". If you mean full of knowledge and techniques to use that knowledge, I'd call that second rate. If you mean attentive, perceptive, loving, creative I'd say that very few scientists have such "minds".

Besides the fact you are being insulting, your statement bothers me very much. You are broadly characterizing people, who work as scientists, based on what? Do you know what it is like working in a research lab? Do you know all the hopes and dreams of those scientists?
On what authority can you claim that scientists cannot be attentive, perceptive, loving, or creative just because they are scientists?
Would I have the right to characterize machinists or factory workers as dull, repetitive people because they work in factories? Can I claim that patent clerks are unimaginative and not creative because their job is boring?

Be careful not to let -your perception- of science color your perception of scientists. We work with the scientific method in the way that DrChinese outlined. There is a reason that we do. It is the best way to generate an understanding of the physical world. While you appear to interpret the double slit experiment, or perhaps other counter-intuitive or "paradoxical" (quotes indicate that the paradox lies only in an incomplete understanding) experimental results as a blow to the scientific method, but in fact these experiments, and all experiments of quantum theory, show exactly the triumph of science.

 

[dron]

Hello Yay!

If I could, I would like to know what your motives are in discovering these "irrational" pieces of Quantum Mechanics are.

Like many people I enjoy beautiful irrationality.

First of all, the double-split experiment is probably one of the first experiments explained in a college quantum mechanics courses, or even freshman physics. It is well understood in the scientific community, and, in fact, demonstrates the success of science in our ability to understand it. Stating that the double-slit experiment takes anything away from "science" would be similar to the claim that the Michaelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel deals a fatal blow to "painting" because I, as a non-artist, would never have imagined painting something like that on a ceiling. Both statements are absurd.

Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by "painting". Michealangelo's work certainly deals a fatal blow to art as it is practised these days.

Besides the fact you are being insulting, your statement bothers me very much. You are broadly characterizing people, who work as scientists, based on what?

Based on my experience, something I trust more than facts, research or any method.

Do you know what it is like working in a research lab? Do you know all the hopes and dreams of those scientists?

I don't have to know the details.

On what authority can you claim that scientists cannot be attentive, perceptive, loving, or creative just because they are scientists?

I didn't say they cannot be "attentive, perceptive, loving, or creative just because they are scientists." Do pay attention yay! I am saying that most scientists are not attentive, perceptive, loving and creative (in one big bunch I call "intelligence" rather than mere "cleverness"), and my "authority" is my experience, the highest authority on earth! My experience tells me that scientists, en masse (and as a group they are one of the most powerful on earth) do not make the world any better and rarely demonstrate this intelligence.

Would I have the right to characterize machinists or factory workers as dull, repetitive people because they work in factories? Can I claim that patent clerks are unimaginative and not creative because their job is boring?

Yes! Have you met many factory workers? I have. They are usually insane, small-minded and dull. I say usually, there are exceptions everywhere. There are quiet Americans who understand irony, fresh innocent unsarcastic Brits, uncorrupted seven-year olds, beautiful women who are unaware of their beauty, and so on. The exception to the rule is normally the most beautiful of finds (but there are exceptions to that rule too).

Be careful not to let -your perception- of science color your perception of scientists.

It doesn't. Science is a body of facts and methods, most of which are useless to most people, some of which are useful, some of which beautiful. Facts and methods, fine - no different to hammers, really. Fact (and hammer) users are quite different. They are people. Most people are a mixture of sanity and insany, emotional instability and real peace, creativity and dullness, confidence and creativity... and so on to their impossibly paradoxical depths. Most people, because of the world we live in have had the sanity, peace, creativity, confidence and paradox knocked out of them before they are five. Scientists are no different.

We work with the scientific method in the way that DrChinese outlined. There is a reason that we do. It is the best way to generate an understanding of the physical world.

So you say. I say the best way to generate an understanding of the physical world is to love it.

While you appear to interpret the double slit experiment, or perhaps other counter-intuitive or "paradoxical" (quotes indicate that the paradox lies only in an incomplete understanding) experimental results as a blow to the scientific method...

That's not quite true.

...but in fact these experiments, and all experiments of quantum theory, show exactly the triumph of science.

Maybe so. Nevertheless I am still no closer to seeing how the results of the double-slit experiment do not show a reality that is, to the brain, quite mysterious. I don't see the problem with this. If its mysterious it wouldn't invalidate science, and I wouldn't care. I am not so stupid as to try and use science to invalidate science - any more than I try to reason with a madman - being an attentive and joyous human being is enough to "refute" most scientists. If science did discover the heart of a particle was something it couldn't adequately imagine or rationally get to grips with, that would please me in much the same way as anything else elegant and weird does.

 

[Evo]

Anyrate, the dark ages have this name, as far as I know, because we know very little about what happened during them, not because they were a time of darkness.

Actually quite a bit is known about the period that used to be referred to as the "Dark Ages". It's ususally referred to as the early middle ages now.

As far as I know the greatest period of human history that we have any (albeit indirect) record of was between six and twelve thousand years ago; very little warfare, non-hierarchical societies, not much disease.

Since I study Ancient history and pre-history, that is not an accurate depiction of that time.

Also there have been more than a couple "primitive" tribes, completely ignorant of science, who have displayed far great social intelligence, cooperation and creativity than our "scientific" (if that's what it is) world has yet come up with.

These tribes are usually in fear of being attacked, very superstitious, and ready to go to war to defend a perceived breach of honor. It can be over a stolen pig. Or someone is accused of bringing "bad spirits" into the village.

 

[Dale]

Thank you for your courteous answer Dr Chinese. I do enjoy good-natured responses - more than accurate ones, even in a physics forum. This, straight away, singles me out as unlikely to be a scientist.

Hey dron, I got to give you points for sheer chutzpah here. You come into this forum, insult scientists and demean science, and then have the gall to berate us for discourtesy but the tact to do so in the context of a compliment. Bravo!

 

[Dale]

Can you explain what you mean here? I can demonstrate paradoxes which the thinking rational brain cannot adequately understand.

A paradox has a specific logical definition. It is when, from the same set of axioms, you can prove both proposition A and not A. If you don't have that then you don't have a paradox.

I did not admit complete ignorance, nor did I admit ignorance of anything other than quantum mechanics (in this I belong to very large group of people).

Since the topic is quantum mechanics that is the only ignorance or knowledge of relevance.

I am not going out of my way to deliberately antagonise you, and find it quite remarkable that you are antagonised

Yes you are deliberately trying to antagonize us. You have already been informed that your language is considered offensive, and why, but yet you persist in using it.

If someone came from another culture and, in ignorance, used a vulgar expletive then they could reasonably claim that they were not trying to deliberately antagonize anyone and reasonably express surprise over the reaction. If they afterwards persist in using that expletive then they are acting deliberately and with knowledge of the offense they are causing. You are in that latter case and have no more justification for claiming innocence.


From your other comments I am getting a kind of vague impression that you find some inherent aestetic value in what you describe in terms like "beautiful irrationality" and "love and great art are irrational". That for you, there is aestetic pleasure in the idea that some things are unknowable or beyond human grasp, and this is an judgement that you bring to your admittedly casual understanding of QM. Is this correct? If so, I think we can probably have a safe conversation on the aestetics of knowledge where we will disagree, but not antagonistically.

 

[||spoon||]

I don't know how you can stand by your generalizations, not only of scientists but also of factory workers!

And even to imagine that this can be justified by YOUR OWN experience is utterly ridiculous. I highly doubt that you personally have met "most" of any significant group of people.

Also, just because something is against intuition does not make it irrational or paradoxical in any sense...! Of course things like infinity are impossible to imagine, but I would hope that you would not classify infinty as irrational! In the same sense, many quantum mechanical aspects are hard to understand but this does not mean they are paradoxical or irrational.

-Spoon

 

[Evo]

This thread doesn't meet the criteria for this forum.

Dron I suggest you read the guidelines, can the attitude, and listen to and try to learn from those that know more than you.