Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is Quantum Physics?

  1. Aug 7, 2014 #1
    I have a basic understanding of QM, i.e the experiments and some results, photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, double slit experiment; heisenburg uncertaintly principle, de broglie hypothesis, blackbody, spectroscopy and the schrodinger equation, of which I can kind of pin together as an understanding of what it is.

    What I'm asking is how do you explain what quantum physics is to someone who doesn't do physics?
    I got asked by someone in town and all I could say what it's about the quantization of energy and the wave-particle duality of matter on a very small scale. This didn't satisfy the question.


    What would you say?

    Also is there any experiments/phenomenon I've missed?

    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 7, 2014 #2

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I think "wave-particle duality" is misleading. What I would say is that QM is about moving beyond classical physics in which there are waves and particles to a more realistic view of reality which shows us that photons and electrons, etc, are NOT waves OR particle OR "waves AND particles" but rather are quantum objects that behave differently than what classical physics tells us.
     
  4. Aug 7, 2014 #3
    I agree, it'd explain why atoms of different size vary in characteristics and properties so drastically. I'm studying solid state and thermal/statistical physics this coming year and they adopt quantum principles, phonons, photon gases with canonical ensemble etc, it's going to be a huge learning curve. nervous times.
     
  5. Aug 7, 2014 #4

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    At the lay level, I think wave-particle duality is basically fine. Technically Schrodinger's equation is a wave equation, and the wave propagates in a space called Hilbert space, which is an abstract space whose dimensions are determined by the number of particles.

    A key feature of quantum mechanics is that although we measure particle positions in ordinary space, we need this abstract space to predict the results. A second feature is that a quantum particle does not have a classical trajectory, during which position and momentum are simultaneously well defined. A third feature is that all predictions are probabilistic. A fourth feature is that the ordinary reality we see is nonlocal, and there can be correlations between measurements that are widely separated in space, yet this nonlocality does not permit any faster-than-light communication.

    A very important aspect of quantum mechanics is that quantum mechanical theories describe everything we have observed to date, and there are no observable deviations from the predictions of quantum mechanics.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
  6. Aug 7, 2014 #5

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The following gives its conceptual core:
    http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

    I would say its what you inevitably get if you want continuous transformation between so called pure states in probability.

    The argument goes like this.

    Suppose we have a system in 2 states represented by the vectors [0,1] and [1,0]. These states are called pure. These can be randomly presented for observation and you get the vector [p1, p2] where p1 and p2 give the probabilities of observing the pure state. Such states are called mixed. Now consider the matrix A that say after 1 second transforms one pure state to another with rows [0, 1] and [1, 0]. But what happens when A is applied for half a second. Well that would be a matrix U^2 = A. You can work this out and low and behold U is complex. Apply it to a pure state and you get a complex vector. This is something new. Its not a mixed state - but you are forced to it if you want continuous transformations between pure states.

    QM is basically the theory that makes sense out of pure states that are complex numbers. There is really only one reasonable way to do it - by the Born rule (you make the assumption of non contextuality - ie the probability is not basis dependant, plus a few other things no need to go into here) - as shown by Gleason's theorem.

    A more detailed answer to your question can be found in the following papers where is is viewed from different perspectives:
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/quantph/0101012.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0695
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0653

    The view of the first paper is a detailed development of the continuous idea.
    The second shows its the same as requiring entanglement
    The third shows its what's required if we require something weird - complex numbers in classical equations - but that deeply is related to Feynman's sum over history view of QM.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  7. Aug 8, 2014 #6

    ChrisVer

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    QM for people who have never seen classical mechanics or anything like that? Well then, it wouldn't be much to say that QM is magic....
    QM is the mechanics we have built to study and describe the micro-world, since through time and by experiments we found out that the already known classical treatments would give reliable results.
     
  8. Aug 8, 2014 #7

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't think that listing the things that QM can be applied to really explains what QM is. I think the best you can do is to explain briefly what classical mechanics is, and then describe some of the differences between QM and CM.

    The essential feature of CM is that at every time t, a particle has a position x(t). The theory is built up around Newton's second law (F=ma), which is a differential equation of a kind that ensures that the function x (which tells us the position at all times) can be found if you know both the position and the velocity at one specific time.

    QM on the other hand doesn't say that particles have positions (and therefore neither should we). The best we can do is to associate a wavefunction with each particle. The wavefunction is determined by the preparation procedure that the particle has been subjected to before the experiment. It's a mathematical "thing" that can be used to assign probabilities to possible results of experiments.

    The problem with this explanation is that it can give them the impression that QM is just probability theory in the usual sense. But it's not. If it was, the Bell inequalities would hold, and they don't. It's a generalization of probability theory. Unfortunately this last comment can't be understood without advanced mathematics.
     
  9. Aug 8, 2014 #8

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I REALLY think that most of the answers here are technically correct and utterly useless for explaining things to a non-physicist. I still think that something like my response in post #2 is what's needed, then follow up with examples if pressed for details.
     
  10. Aug 10, 2014 #9

    Barry911

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think that the essential message is that all interpretations are premature.
     
  11. Aug 10, 2014 #10

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Probably, but anyway, interpretations of WHAT? Your sentence does nothing to explain to anyone what QM is which is the question that we are supposed to be answering.
     
  12. Aug 10, 2014 #11
    And that all interpretations should be discouraged.
     
  13. Aug 10, 2014 #12

    Barry911

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hello phinds: My point is that any interpretation or explanation is inappropriate at this time. We end up
    with inappropriate speculation. Consider the "Copenhagen Interpretation" A wholly observer dependent
    reality. Bohr's stubbornness on the issue of "no objective reality" was based on von Neumanns's so
    called proof, later proven incorrect by John Bell. Notions such as the Everett "Many worlds solution" for the
    measurement problem. Note that it was not so much a solution as it was an "end run" around the problem.
    An incredibly inelegant conjecture at that. So I'm simply saying that it is ok to accept the very elegant and powerful mathematical formalism and forgo interpretation until more is known.

    thanks

    Barry911
     
  14. Aug 10, 2014 #13

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Well, the only thing you need from a physics point of view is, how to apply the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics when describing real-world phenomena, and for this you just look at what (theoretical and experimental!) physicists do when they use quantum theory do describe an observation: They use the minimal statistical interpretation. No more no less. No esoterics or quasi-religious believes on the meaning of the quantum-theoretical mathematical objects are needed. Bohr was a great physicist, but bringing in all this metaphysics into the debate didn't help much to understand quantum physics. Better read Pauli (who kept his strong tendency to esoterics strictly out of his scientific writings), Sommerfeld, Dirac, Feynman, and other physicists following the "no-nonsense approach". This helps you to concentrate on what quantum theory really is as an important (if not the most important) part of physics, and it's a marvelous theory describing a lot of phenomena and no phenomena are known contradicting it!
     
  15. Aug 10, 2014 #14

    ChrisVer

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Just to understand what you're trying to say (or learn it if it's a used phrase on the topic)... what is the "no-nonsense approach" of the above mentioned physicists?
     
  16. Aug 10, 2014 #15

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    And I ask again ... what does any of that have to do with the OP's question? You think talking to a rank beginner about interpretations, is going to be helpful?
     
  17. Aug 10, 2014 #16
    I kinda follow, reading Griffiths 2nd edition QM, just finished first chapter. Questionably metaphysical.
     
  18. Aug 10, 2014 #17

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I think interpretation is one of the most important aspects of QM. The important points are that a Copenhagen-like interpretation (eg. Landau & Lifhistz or Weinberg) in which a Heisenberg cut is present has something called a "measurement problem". This problem has at least one solution. The full range of possible solutions is not yet known, and as long as quantum mechanics is not experimentally falsified, there is no way to distinguish between the solutions.

    A great introduction to the "measurement problem" is found in http://www.tau.ac.il/~quantum/Vaidman/IQM/BellAM.pdf.

    Of course, this doesn't mean one should spend hours on interpretation. But an introduction without mentioning interpretation is not physics, since physics is all about the interpretation of mathematics.
     
  19. Aug 10, 2014 #18

    RonL

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The study of things so small they can't be seen with our eyes or interacted with in a physical way in the world we are in.

    If one can remember back to the very point they knew nothing about quantum physics then that might not sound too simple or dismissive. How can "someone in town" be interested in what they have absolutely no knowledge ?

    My trigger point was 2-1/2 years ago when looking for information about magnetic fields of a toroidal transformer. I may be slow of mind but now can read a post in the quantum physics threads and at least have a very shallow understanding of what is being discussed, getting to know most acronyms like (HUP, ERP< BT, FAPP) and many others has been a big challenge.

    It seems to me that most people are asleep when you reach the electron level :smile:
     
  20. Aug 10, 2014 #19

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I'm not following you at all on that since photons and electrons, for example, are quantum objects and are interacted with physically quite regularly.
     
  21. Aug 10, 2014 #20

    ChrisVer

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Like what? The electron-photon interactions can either be Compton scattering, Photoelectric effect or pair production... all these 3 processes are quantum mechanical.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: What is Quantum Physics?
  1. What is Quantum Physics? (Replies: 12)

  2. What is quantum physics? (Replies: 13)

  3. What is Quantum Physics? (Replies: 16)

Loading...