|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Quantum Mechanics- 1/24- The Quantum Enigma [Re: ShroomScape]
#14297611 - 04/15/11 07:52 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I am interested in this " -entanglement, an interconnectedness that can exist between two particles that are far apart"
And how it relates to string theory
|
ShroomScape
Sexplorer



Registered: 07/31/06
Posts: 706
Loc: ation
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: Quantum Mechanics- 1/24- The Quantum Enigma [Re: teknix]
#14297623 - 04/15/11 07:56 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
We'll get to entanglement eventually. I don't want to jump the gun and venture any guesses. I rather just let the story unfold at its own pace.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Quantum Mechanics- 1/24- The Quantum Enigma [Re: ShroomScape]
#14297625 - 04/15/11 07:56 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Hehehe, ok!
|
ShroomScape
Sexplorer



Registered: 07/31/06
Posts: 706
Loc: ation
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: Quantum Mechanics- 1/24- The Quantum Enigma [Re: teknix]
#14297652 - 04/15/11 08:04 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
According to the lecture titles, the discussion on entanglement isn't until lecture 15... haha. So don't hold your breath waiting! But we'll get there eventually!
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Quantum Mechanics- 1/24- The Quantum Enigma [Re: teknix]
#14297684 - 04/15/11 08:12 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Found an error
"Atoms are thousands of times too small for a microscope to see."
Atoms are were thousands of times too small for a microscope to see.


http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-4/text/atoms.htm
|
ShroomScape
Sexplorer



Registered: 07/31/06
Posts: 706
Loc: ation
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: Quantum Mechanics- 1/24- The Quantum Enigma [Re: teknix]
#14297808 - 04/15/11 08:33 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, that may have been an error on the part of the messenger--ie, me. If I remember correctly, he said that atoms are thousands of times too small for a "normal" microscope. I elide the word 'normal.'
Great catch and great find! 
A meaningless observation: It's interesting how those images look like mandalas. The sacred geometry of nature never fails to amaze me.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Quantum Mechanics- 1/24- The Quantum Enigma [Re: ShroomScape]
#14297869 - 04/15/11 08:40 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Me2!
Yeah, I figured it was meant as a light microscope.
|
ShroomScape
Sexplorer



Registered: 07/31/06
Posts: 706
Loc: ation
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: Quantum Mechanics- 1/24- The Quantum Enigma [Re: teknix]
#14436611 - 05/11/11 07:46 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yikes! How times flies. Sorry about the delay. But here's the next installment:
Lecture 7: Complementarity and the Great Debate
Summary: The principle of complementarity is introduced and briefly explained. The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is briefly also briefly explained. And the Great Debate between Einstein and Bohr over the meaning of QM is glimpsed. Albert Einstein is a deeply philosophical thinker who cares about the meaning behind the physics. He considers himself a solitary thinker, with relatively few students and few collaborators. Even though he is the father of wave-particle duality thanks to his photoelectric effect experiment, Einstein is not happy with quantum mechanics, even if he recognizes its importance. Why, for instance, does a photon land on side of the band or another in the double-slit experiment. Einstein is a ideologically stubborn individual. He believes that determinism—the idea that the present is completely determined by the past—is fundamental to the universe. In his famous words, “God does not play dice with the universe.”
Niels Bohr is a also a deeply philosophical figure. He had a powerful personality and was loved by his followers. Bohr developed his ideas dialectically through conversations, constantly engaging lots of different figures. He believes that QM demonstrates that physicists need to abandon strict determinism. In response to Einstein’s “God does not play dice.” Bohr might say, “Stop telling God what to do.” Bohr is the father of what has been known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. The Copenhagen interpretation rests of the principle of complementarity and was a way to unite QM into a unified theory.
Complementarity is founded on the distinction between the microscopic and the macroscopic realms. The microscopic realm cannot be described in ordinary language in the same way that the macroscopic world can be. Whenever we measure the microscopic realm, we always amplify the result in macroscopic ways—with the click of sound, the turn of a dial, or some other kind of indicator. For example, in the experiment where photons were fired at a wall, a detector was set to click every time it hit the detector. The amplification between the size of the photon and the click of the machine is an incredible scale. This amplification is no accident because we need it to record the results. It’s how we, macroscopic beings, get at the microscopic world.
The problem is that the rules between the macroscopic realm and the microscopic realm don’t exactly match up. So when we take a measurement, we have to be very careful about how we translate it.
Quote:
“A measurement is not just a passive observation. A measurement is an intervention. A measurement is an interaction between that particle and the experimental apparatus. And that interaction goes both ways. The particle is always affected in some way by that interaction… Different measurements will be different experimental set ups and will involve different kinds of interaction. That means that different measurements are logically exclusive of each other: we can do one or another, but not both.”
You cannot do two measurements at once because they require mutually exclusive different arrangements of laboratory equipment. For example, we cannot measure position and momentum at the same time because the two apparatuses that we need to measure it are logically exclusive. Thus, position and momentum are complementary quantities. How we conduct the experiment determined what kind of measurement we are taking and what kind of results we will achieve.
Critics have argued that the problem with QM is trying to figure out how to fit together the different pictures of the microscopic world—take the particle and wave pictures for example. Bohr solves this problem when he cleverly points out that we never actually have to use both pictures at once. We may do one experiment in which we use the particle picture and another experiment in which we use the wave picture, but we never use them at the same time.
The exact experimental arrangement determines what’s being measured and what’s being measured determines what picture is appropriate.
THE GREAT DEBATE The Great Debate between Einstein and Bohr revolves around the question: Is QM logically consistent? Is it valid?
The structure of the debate: During the great debate, Einstein proposed a series of thought experiments, puzzles, and paradoxes, each one designed to show some loophole or flaw in the theory. And Bohr has to respond to these puzzles one by one. Einstein is on the attack. Bohr is on the defensive. Einstein believed that if we’re very clever we can get around the uncertainty principle. To give a flavor of the debate, we will review only one of the thought experiments.
Einstein’s Thought Experiment: Suppose a particle passes through a barrier with one slit in which the barrier is free to move from side to side. Then if the particle is deflected, the barrier will be pushed according. If the barrier moves to the left, the particle was deflected to the right and thus we would know how it’s momentum was changed and we could know both position and momentum. And if we can beat the uncertainty principle (which says that we can't know a particle's definite position and momentum at the same time), QM isn’t 100% right.
Bohr’s Response: The uncertainty principle also applies to the barrier as well, not just the particle. To measure the recoil of the barrier, to figure out how far it was deflected to the left or to the right, we need to have a very small uncertainty in the barrier’s momentum. To do this experiment we have to make the side to side momentum very tiny, and we have to know where the slit is during the experiment. In order to get the electron’s position very small the position uncertainty of the barrier needs to be very small. Uncertainty in position and uncertainty in momentum can’t be both very small at the same time. Thus, Einstein’s thought experiment won’t work because Einstein doesn't apply the uncertainty principle to every aspect of the experiment, including the apparatus.
In the end, Bohr is always able to find the flaw in Einstein’s thought experiments. After 1930 Einstein is forced to accept that QM is a consistent theory of physics. But he is still not satisfied. He thinks it’s correct but incomplete—that something is missing. Thus, after 1930, the debate shifts gears but does not end.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: Quantum Mechanics- 1/24- The Quantum Enigma [Re: teknix]
#14438470 - 05/12/11 02:45 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Found an error
"Atoms are thousands of times too small for a microscope to see."
Atoms are were thousands of times too small for a microscope to see.


http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-4/text/atoms.htm
dude nice post, ive looked all over for that.
OP sweet posts too. They have lectures for free all over the net also, google berkly lectures.
|
|