|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thermodynamics and The Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
When scientists like Dr. Richard Feynman say things like, "NOBODY understands quantum mechanics," what are peon laymen like me to conclude about the illogics of QM Thermodynamics?
I've admittedly purposely quote mined the following statemts from a science blog site for the purpose of bringing forth the mysterious and phyosophical aspects of quantum science as admitted by scientists themselves. I know they're mined out of context, but I've done that solely for the purpose of driving home my point that they are illogical and mysterious which seem (I say 'seem') to serve as a function to undermine what we street folk laymen observe around us here on earth and in our Solar System. I've also mined out some statements showing how scientists disagree with one another on QM, likely more so than the more visibly objective aspects of science.
blog exerpts writes: In the beginning there was the bit . . and after that came the rest of the weird world, says Hans Christian von Baeyer "NOBODY understands quantum mechanics," lamented Richard Feynman. But Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna aims to prove him wrong. His research group has demonstrated the futuristic phenomena of quantum teleportation and quantum encryption, and these successes have encouraged Zeilinger to search for the essence of quantum mechanics-the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. He believes that he has found it. If he is right, all the mysteries of the quantum world will turn out to be inescapable consequences of a single, simple idea Quantum theory describes the world with astonishing precision, whether applied to elementary particles a hundred thousand times smaller than atoms or to currents in superconducting rings a billion times larger. And yet it seems to present a catalogue of intertwined conundrums. The most fundamental is quantisation, the notion that energy, spin and other quantities only come in discrete steps. Another enigma is the probabilistic nature of the quantum world, at odds with the classical world of definite physical properties. Then there is entanglement, the profound connectedness of objects and processes across large distances, and superposition, the astonishing proposition that an electron can be both here and there, a current can flow simultaneously clockwise and anticlockwise, and a cat can be both dead and alive, until you look to see which. Physicists have anxiously devised one philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics after another. The many-worlds interpretation insists that all possible outcomes of an experiment actually occur in as many parallel universes, but as we only occupy a single branch of the hydra-headed multiverse, we experience only one outcome. Or, if you prefer, there's the guiding wave interpretation, which assigns an undetectable "pilot wave" to each particle to steer it along a perfectly determined path. Altogether there are at least eight serious and reputable interpretations of the theory, which implies that no single one is convincing. None of these theories suffer from the confusions of quantum mechanics.Not forgetting that touchstone of quantum mechanics, the two-slit experiment (see "Two becomes one"). Less obviously, Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. This gives us a natural explanation for one of the most fundamental and puzzling features of quantum mechanics-entanglement.Zeilinger's single, simple principle leads to these three cornerstones of quantum mechanics: quantisation, uncertainty and entanglement. Physicists use Schrodinger's equation to work out how a particle will behave in a given situation.It governs the evolution of things called wave functions, inside a bizarre abstract arena called Hilbert space. Because Hilbert space makes use of imaginary numbers, based on the square root of minus one, these numbers-the amplitudes of the wave functions-have to be squared to produce a real, observable quantity, such as the probability of a particle being in a given place. It is not an intuitively obvious way of describing things. Zeilinger and Brukner discard it. Any quantum system has to describe how states change over time, so the point in information space has to move. It seemed natural to Zeilinger and Brukner to have the point move as if it were a real, classical object. So they used the mechanical equation that governs the motion of bullets and billiard balls. When translated back into its equivalent form in Hilbert space, it turns out to be none other than Schrodinger's equation. A qubit is simply an elementary system such as an electron spin. Because a qubit can be in a superposition of 1 and 0, it must hold not only classical information, but some more elusive quantum kind of information too. Many practitioners feel that ordinary information theory must be contained in quantum information theory. Attention Required! | Cloudflare
Son Goku writes: In fact the third law, Entropy tends to zero as temperture tends to zero kelvin (Which has the immediate consequence that specific heat decreases as you lower temperture), can only be explained by Quantum Mechanics. What happened to simple elementary cause and effect logics observable every day to explain this? This brings to mind the pharmaceuticals who take simple herbs you can pick in the field and apply safely to yourself, taking the same herb, mixing it up into a dangerous compound producing all kinds of side effects, including death, so they can patent the healing herb as a complex compound and charge big $$ to fill their pockets. Edited by Buzsaw, : fix link BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What happened to simple elementary cause and effect logics observable every day to explain this? By all means, apply them to the Two Slit experiment and show us how "elementary cause and effect logic" can explain how a single particle causes a wave-interference pattern with itself. Show us how it's done, Buz. Did it occur to you that, perhaps, the reason that quantum mechanics is so counterintuitive is because it has to explain a considerable number of counterintuitive observations? The universe isn't always a simple place, Buz, which means that sometimes, theory can't be simple, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
so they can patent the healing herb as a complex compound and charge big $$ to fill their pockets. There's some truth in what you say Buz... despite having had a huge City career, and now running my own very successful business, I have never managed to repeat the unbelievable levels of income I used to generate as a physicist. Industry used to fight hand over fist to give us cash... they saw the immense potential in quantum theory, string theory, relativity. I'm immensely jealous of Son Goku, someone still in the field, and I've heard about the size of his pad and the parties he throws there. I'm working a 100 hour week to scrape a tenth of what he has rolling in. Some just wouldn't believe it....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Buzsaw writes:
I still don't understand how QM undermines thermodynamics. I appreciate what you're saying about it running counter to intuition, but I fail to see its conflict with Thermodynamics.
I've admittedly purposely quote mined the following statemts from a science blog site for the purpose of bringing forth the mysterious and phyosophical aspects of quantum science as admitted by scientists themselves. I know they're mined out of context, but I've done that solely for the purpose of driving home my point that they are illogical and mysterious which seem (I say 'seem') to serve as a function to undermine what we street folk laymen observe around us here on earth and in our Solar System. Buzsaw writes:
People disagree on the explanation of the measurement problem (most now think decoherence is the resolution to the problem), but this is a marginal part of QM, in the sense of the pragmatics of the subject, which isn't studied outright in most places. It has very little to do with how good QM is as a physical theory.
I've also mined out some statements showing how scientists disagree with one another on QM, likely more so than the more visibly objective aspects of science. Buzsaw writes:
The third law was never explained using Classical Mechanics. One could notice it as a condition on the Specific Heat as you reduced the temperature in an experiment, but an explanation doesn't come until you encounter QM's lack of a continuum of energies. The third law isn't that intuitive on the every day level. Sure, even the existence of absolute zero, which the third law pertains to, isn't obvious at all.
What happened to simple elementary cause and effect logics observable every day to explain this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
SonGoku writes: I still don't understand how QM undermines thermodynamics. I appreciate what you're saying about it running counter to intuition, but I fail to see its conflict with Thermodynamics. First off, thanks for addressing this layman's logic questions in a good spirited manner. "Counter to intuition" isn't quite like observation based logic. We observe a measure of reduced entropy in every nook and corner on earth with comparitively precious little on any other planet. QM seems to work to reconcile this using methodology which even science greats like Feynman and his colleages don't really understand and disagree widely on. This relativity kind of methodology appears to undermine what the layman observes objectively pertaining to application of the three basic laws of science. Conflict with TD? The conclusions QM science arrives at regarding subjective things the layman observes is the conflict problem we have. The mysterious and phylosophical aspects of QM are difficult for the layman to reconcile with the less abstract and objective. Imo, some of the same problems the IDist creos have with QM conclusions are somewhat like the problems QM scientists have with ID creationism, i.e. the mysterious and phylosophical aspects of the ideologies. By the same token that you folks say these mysterious aspects of ID undermine science , IDists tend to regard some conclusions of QM as undermining the basic laws of science. Perhaps this is why Feynman finds QM difficult to understand. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Buzsaw writes:
Okay, I see what you are saying here. I'll deal with this, but first may I ask you a question relating to the following quote:
The mysterious and phylosophical aspects of QM are difficult for the layman to reconcile with the less abstract and objective.Buzsaw writes:
You are saying there is some conclusion coming from Quantum Mechanics that conflicts with some basic Thermodynamic observation the layman makes. Conflict with TD? The conclusions QM science arrives at regarding subjective things the layman observes is the conflict problem we have. Am I correct in my assessment of what you're saying?If I am, what is the troublesome conclusion from QM and what Thermodynamical observation does it conflict with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
velcero Inactive Junior Member |
I'm curious. What, then, is the scientists' position on t=0 with respect to the universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I'm sure the more accomplished scientists in this group will have some possibilities and hypotheses for you. What they will come down to, however is a big fat "we don't know...yet."
We have good consistent reliable theories that explain back to about t=10^-43 seconds. But trying to "see" before that has proven to be problematic. The present hope is that some kind of Quantum Gravity theory will be able to help us understand what was happening prior to this time. Edited by AZPaul3, : fix boo-boo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
My point is that as I understand it, science would be hard pressed to explain the quantity of decreased entropy observed on earth as compared to the rest of the Solar System outside of of the application of QM. Like an abstract painting QM appears to obfuscate the object observed to the degree that it becomes so mysterious that the painted object is no longer objective but can be interpreted relative to the observer's ideals.
Looking at it via another analogy, QM would be to application of thermodynamics like judging a dog at a dog show with a microscope. The beauty of the beast becomes irrelavant to judgement. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I'm curious. What, then, is the scientists' position on t=0 with respect to the universe? My point to Chiroptera was simply that most scientists outside of theoretical cosmology have little or no knowledge or appreciation of the real issues surrounding t=0 in the Big Bang model. It's easy quoting the usual blurb - going from phase transition to inflation to phase transition to recombination to galaxies to stars to us, all dull stuff - the party is at t=0 Of course we do not know what happens at t=0, but to the interested layman this should be irrelevant. Considering and understanding the various bizarre possibilities is key to appreciating what GR, quantum gravity, and by association string theory, loop gravity, etc. are really all about. T=0 is about stretching your understanding so you can appreciate what the issues really are. For example, there may well be a t<0. BUT until you can appreciate a universe for which there is no t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
cavediver writes: Of course we do not know what happens at t=0, but to the interested layman this should be irrelevant. Considering and understanding the various bizarre possibilities is key to appreciating what GR, quantum gravity, and by association string theory, loop gravity, etc. are really all about. T=0 is about stretching your understanding so you can appreciate what the issues really are. t=0 is relevant to IDist evo/creo debate. I see the science mechanisms you use (above) as abstract mechanisms vaguely understood by your best scientists to absolve your universe hypothesis accountability for the mysterious and philosophical (bizzare) possibilities of it. Science does not grant our hypothesis that luxury. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Looks like he's given up. No answer to my last reply, and it's been more than a week.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Buz writes: I know they're mined out of context, but I've done that solely for the purpose of driving home my point that they are illogical and mysterious which seem (I say 'seem') to serve as a function to undermine what we street folk laymen observe around us here on earth and in our Solar System. Buz, you're so out of your depth here it's almost too painful to read....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I see the science mechanisms you use (above) as abstract mechanisms I wasn't suggesting mechanisms, Buz. I was attempting to stress the need for understanding and appreciation - something you are singularly determined to avoid. Please see RickJB's post above Message 73
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fabric Member (Idle past 5701 days) Posts: 41 From: London, England Joined: |
velcero writes: I'm curious. What, then, is the scientists' position on t=0 with respect to the universe? This subject about what happened before the "big bang" has been covered on this forum numorous times, if you take a little time to search the threads im sure you will find alot of interesting reading about it, also google questions you have on the web, self education is very satisfying i find
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024