Quantum Physics

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by dfrog, Mar 1, 2006.

  1. dfrog

    dfrog Guest

    dfrog, Mar 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dfrog

    dfrog Guest

    dfrog, Mar 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dfrog

    Donald Guest

    Donald, Mar 1, 2006
    #3
  4. dfrog

    why? Guest

    why?, Mar 1, 2006
    #4
  5. dfrog

    dfrog Guest

    "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >
    >>This has always puzzled me
    >>
    >>
    >>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum

    >
    > That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >
    > Me


    There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)

    dfrog

    It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being watched that
    throws me
     
    dfrog, Mar 1, 2006
    #5
  6. dfrog wrote:
    > "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>This has always puzzled me
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum

    >>
    >>That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>
    >>Me

    >
    >
    > There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >
    > dfrog
    >
    > It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being watched that
    > throws me
    >
    >


    No escaping big brother is there?
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian_H=B9=A9?=, Mar 1, 2006
    #6
  7. dfrog wrote:

    > It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being watched that
    > throws me


    They don't "know" they're being watched, but the act of observing
    changes the behavior. One of the conundrums of quantum physics. Sort of
    like saying where the exact position of an electron circling a nucleus
    is. There is no way to know where it is at any given point in time. If
    you were able to observe it, the experiment would be a failed one.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Mar 1, 2006
    #7
  8. dfrog

    fkasner Guest

    dfrog wrote:
    > "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>
    >>> This has always puzzled me
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum

    >> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>
    >> Me

    >
    > There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >
    > dfrog
    >
    > It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being watched that
    > throws me
    >
    >


    That's the result of using the logic of the macro world. The act of
    observing clearly has an effect on the observed. Consider that to "see"
    an object you have to have a photon of light strike the object and then
    react to the photon when it reaches the observer. Net effect is you are
    seeing the result of the collision of a photon and the object not really
    see an unperturbed object. If the object is small ots properties are
    changed by the interaction with the photon - not what happens when a
    photon interacts with a brick and you sense the reflected photon. The
    brick's properties change so slightly that you are tempted to believe
    (quite adequately) that the brick really didn't change at all.
    FK
     
    fkasner, Mar 1, 2006
    #8
  9. dfrog

    why? Guest

    On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:49:07 -0000, dfrog wrote:

    >
    >"why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>
    >>>This has always puzzled me
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum

    >>
    >> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>
    >> Me

    >
    >There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >
    >dfrog
    >
    >It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being watched that
    >throws me


    Just wait until the bit where probability, in an example means the
    particle position isn't any where near the room your are measuring
    things in. Some lecturers try to slip this in sometimes.

    Or if that's too easy, this is way cool -

    Quantum entanglement -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

    This is a nice quote from the above

    "At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and
    philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory, as one can show that
    the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are inconsistent with
    the seemingly obvious principle of local realism, which is that
    information about the state of a system should only be mediated by
    interactions in its immediate surroundings. "


    Back to your original issue with the simple stuff :)

    This is a nice summary of the wave particle duality
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality


    That's enough of that for tonight.


    Further reading, my book from university

    Student Physics
    Quantum Mechanics
    P.C.W. DAVIES
    ISBN 0-7100-9962-2
    Routledge & Kegan Paul


    Me
     
    why?, Mar 1, 2006
    #9
  10. dfrog

    clot Guest

    why? wrote:
    > On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:49:07 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> This has always puzzled me
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum
    >>>
    >>> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>>
    >>> Me

    >>
    >> There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >>
    >> dfrog
    >>
    >> It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being
    >> watched that throws me

    >
    > Just wait until the bit where probability, in an example means the
    > particle position isn't any where near the room your are measuring
    > things in. Some lecturers try to slip this in sometimes.
    >
    > Or if that's too easy, this is way cool -
    >
    > Quantum entanglement -
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
    >
    > This is a nice quote from the above
    >
    > "At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and
    > philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory, as one can show that
    > the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are inconsistent with
    > the seemingly obvious principle of local realism, which is that
    > information about the state of a system should only be mediated by
    > interactions in its immediate surroundings. "
    >
    >
    > Back to your original issue with the simple stuff :)
    >
    > This is a nice summary of the wave particle duality
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality
    >
    >
    > That's enough of that for tonight.
    >
    >
    > Further reading, my book from university
    >
    > Student Physics
    > Quantum Mechanics
    > P.C.W. DAVIES
    > ISBN 0-7100-9962-2
    > Routledge & Kegan Paul
    >
    >
    > Me



    Ouch!! Where did all those particles come from? Has anyone seen
    Heisenberg?
     
    clot, Mar 1, 2006
    #10
  11. dfrog

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2006-03-01, fkasner <> wrote:
    > dfrog wrote:
    >> "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> This has always puzzled me
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum
    >>> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>>
    >>> Me

    >>
    >> There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >>
    >> dfrog
    >>
    >> It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being watched that
    >> throws me
    >>
    >>

    >
    > That's the result of using the logic of the macro world. The act of
    > observing clearly has an effect on the observed. Consider that to "see"
    > an object you have to have a photon of light strike the object and then
    > react to the photon when it reaches the observer. Net effect is you are
    > seeing the result of the collision of a photon and the object not really
    > see an unperturbed object. If the object is small ots properties are
    > changed by the interaction with the photon - not what happens when a
    > photon interacts with a brick and you sense the reflected photon. The
    > brick's properties change so slightly that you are tempted to believe
    > (quite adequately) that the brick really didn't change at all.
    > FK


    But there will or won't be 'photons' striking (or passing through or
    around) the 'particle', whether or not there is an observer ... if an
    electron orbits in the atom but no-one observes it, does it behave
    differently? 'Observing' changes only the observer.

    /Measuring/ one parameter means that no other parameters can be measured
    at that same moment; that is the 'uncertainty' - you can know the mass of
    something, or the velocity, or the location - but not all at once. You
    can however calculate probabilities about the unmeasured parameters.

    What boggles my mind is the way one electron can pass through two slits at
    the same time and 'interfere' with itself - ie it can be in two places at
    once.

    Everything = Nothing, approximately.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Mar 2, 2006
    #11
  12. dfrog

    Rich Wilson Guest

    "dfrog" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>
    >>>This has always puzzled me
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum

    >>
    >> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>
    >> Me

    >
    > There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >
    > dfrog
    >
    > It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being watched that
    > throws me


    I quite like the fact that electrons aren't just little "marbles". Because
    you'd always be able to ask "what are the marbles made of" and the answer
    would always be "smaller marbles"... and you'd never get a satisfying
    explanation of anything.

    By the way, are you an observer or is it just me? If I don't come back here
    to see if you've replied, does that leave you in an uncertain state of both
    having replied and not having replied?
     
    Rich Wilson, Mar 2, 2006
    #12
  13. clot wrote:
    > why? wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:49:07 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> This has always puzzled me
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>>>
    >>>> Me
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >>>
    >>> dfrog
    >>>
    >>> It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being
    >>> watched that throws me

    >>
    >>
    >> Just wait until the bit where probability, in an example means the
    >> particle position isn't any where near the room your are measuring
    >> things in. Some lecturers try to slip this in sometimes.
    >>
    >> Or if that's too easy, this is way cool -
    >>
    >> Quantum entanglement -
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
    >>
    >> This is a nice quote from the above
    >>
    >> "At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and
    >> philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory, as one can show that
    >> the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are inconsistent with
    >> the seemingly obvious principle of local realism, which is that
    >> information about the state of a system should only be mediated by
    >> interactions in its immediate surroundings. "
    >>
    >>
    >> Back to your original issue with the simple stuff :)
    >>
    >> This is a nice summary of the wave particle duality
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality
    >>
    >>
    >> That's enough of that for tonight.
    >>
    >>
    >> Further reading, my book from university
    >>
    >> Student Physics
    >> Quantum Mechanics
    >> P.C.W. DAVIES
    >> ISBN 0-7100-9962-2
    >> Routledge & Kegan Paul
    >>
    >>
    >> Me

    >
    >
    >
    > Ouch!! Where did all those particles come from? Has anyone seen Heisenberg?


    I'm not certain. Is he the principal?
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Mar 2, 2006
    #13
  14. dfrog

    dfrog Guest

    "Rich Wilson" <> wrote in message
    news:ORrNf.64329$...
    >
    > "dfrog" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>This has always puzzled me
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum
    >>>
    >>> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>>
    >>> Me

    >>
    >> There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >>
    >> dfrog
    >>
    >> It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being watched
    >> that throws me

    >
    > I quite like the fact that electrons aren't just little "marbles". Because
    > you'd always be able to ask "what are the marbles made of" and the answer
    > would always be "smaller marbles"... and you'd never get a satisfying
    > explanation of anything.
    >
    > By the way, are you an observer or is it just me? If I don't come back
    > here to see if you've replied, does that leave you in an uncertain state
    > of both having replied and not having replied?


    Hiya Rich,
    cannot tell a lie - it was me that started all this - sent the original
    (fun) message to a friend but mistakenly posted it here instead.

    Posted a retraction straight away, but it hasn't stopped this bit of fun
    continuing ( no offence to those who may have been taking it seriously
    though :) )

    I like to see this - gives me a smile - & I think you've made 2 very valid
    points :-

    1 I'll never be satisfied by quantum physics
    2 The issue does add to my state of uncertainty (but I'll continue to
    observe 'cos I don't want to miss anything, just in case :) )

    dfrog
     
    dfrog, Mar 2, 2006
    #14
  15. dfrog

    dfrog Guest

    "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    news:44064aa2$0$11184$...
    > clot wrote:
    >> why? wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:49:07 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> This has always puzzled me
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Me
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >>>>
    >>>> dfrog
    >>>>
    >>>> It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being
    >>>> watched that throws me
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Just wait until the bit where probability, in an example means the
    >>> particle position isn't any where near the room your are measuring
    >>> things in. Some lecturers try to slip this in sometimes.
    >>>
    >>> Or if that's too easy, this is way cool -
    >>>
    >>> Quantum entanglement -
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
    >>>
    >>> This is a nice quote from the above
    >>>
    >>> "At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and
    >>> philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory, as one can show that
    >>> the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are inconsistent with
    >>> the seemingly obvious principle of local realism, which is that
    >>> information about the state of a system should only be mediated by
    >>> interactions in its immediate surroundings. "
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Back to your original issue with the simple stuff :)
    >>>
    >>> This is a nice summary of the wave particle duality
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> That's enough of that for tonight.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Further reading, my book from university
    >>>
    >>> Student Physics
    >>> Quantum Mechanics
    >>> P.C.W. DAVIES
    >>> ISBN 0-7100-9962-2
    >>> Routledge & Kegan Paul
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Me

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Ouch!! Where did all those particles come from? Has anyone seen
    >> Heisenberg?

    >
    > I'm not certain. Is he the principal?


    nice one Dodge
     
    dfrog, Mar 2, 2006
    #15
  16. dfrog

    why? Guest

    On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:43:22 GMT, clot wrote:

    >why? wrote:
    >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:49:07 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> This has always puzzled me
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum
    >>>>
    >>>> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>>>
    >>>> Me
    >>>
    >>> There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >>>
    >>> dfrog
    >>>
    >>> It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being
    >>> watched that throws me

    >>
    >> Just wait until the bit where probability, in an example means the
    >> particle position isn't any where near the room your are measuring
    >> things in. Some lecturers try to slip this in sometimes.
    >>
    >> Or if that's too easy, this is way cool -
    >>
    >> Quantum entanglement -
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
    >>
    >> This is a nice quote from the above
    >>
    >> "At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and
    >> philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory, as one can show that
    >> the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are inconsistent with


    <snip>

    >Ouch!! Where did all those particles come from? Has anyone seen


    Some credit, the names for a lot of the particles / group names show the
    sense of humor, I mean where else do you get

    quark, top , boson , bottom , charm , strange , muon and the lepton.

    >Heisenberg?


    Maybe.

    Me
     
    why?, Mar 2, 2006
    #16
  17. dfrog

    clot Guest

    Rôgêr wrote:
    > clot wrote:
    >> why? wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:49:07 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:27:54 -0000, dfrog wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> This has always puzzled me
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's only the basic stuff at the beginning.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Me
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There's no wonder I didn't understand the rest of it then :)
    >>>>
    >>>> dfrog
    >>>>
    >>>> It's the bit about the little buggers knowing they were being
    >>>> watched that throws me
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Just wait until the bit where probability, in an example means the
    >>> particle position isn't any where near the room your are measuring
    >>> things in. Some lecturers try to slip this in sometimes.
    >>>
    >>> Or if that's too easy, this is way cool -
    >>>
    >>> Quantum entanglement -
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
    >>>
    >>> This is a nice quote from the above
    >>>
    >>> "At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and
    >>> philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory, as one can show
    >>> that the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are
    >>> inconsistent with the seemingly obvious principle of local realism,
    >>> which is that information about the state of a system should only
    >>> be mediated by interactions in its immediate surroundings. "
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Back to your original issue with the simple stuff :)
    >>>
    >>> This is a nice summary of the wave particle duality
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> That's enough of that for tonight.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Further reading, my book from university
    >>>
    >>> Student Physics
    >>> Quantum Mechanics
    >>> P.C.W. DAVIES
    >>> ISBN 0-7100-9962-2
    >>> Routledge & Kegan Paul
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Me

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Ouch!! Where did all those particles come from? Has anyone seen
    >> Heisenberg?

    >
    > I'm not certain. Is he the principal?


    So it was you! They hurt you know! I didn't expect that! ;)
    Loved the reply.
     
    clot, Mar 2, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ->RINGO-

    Physics question

    ->RINGO-, Dec 4, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    906
    Mr. Smiley
    Dec 10, 2003
  2. Robert Feinman

    New Fuji camera creates new laws of physics

    Robert Feinman, Aug 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    954
    Robert D Feinman
    Aug 12, 2003
  3. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    796
    Silverstrand
    Sep 21, 2006
  4. ½ Confused
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    288
    ASAAR
    Feb 21, 2006
  5. The physics behind a metronome.

    , Feb 21, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,562
    penguin676
    Feb 22, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page