report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Science Scams
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #109  
Old 03-03-2009, 09:11 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_jag View Post
Hey Kazza,

In your time doing physics, have you ever done any cloud physics? Specifically cloud formation on neuclei?

Or did you mostly stick to micro and macro physics?
Do you mean like clouds in the sky?


Reply With Quote

  #110  
Old 03-04-2009, 06:59 AM
Lord_jag's Avatar
Lord_jag Lord_jag is offline
I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,800
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Yeah. like have you looked at any of the reasons that the nuclei of silver nitrate can cause precipitation?

I was supprised by a scientist here who spent their whole life looking when he said they don't really know how rain forms.
__________________
A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

Reply With Quote

  #111  
Old 03-04-2009, 10:33 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Quantum Mechanics

No, I don't know anything about that actually. Many physicists end up in meteorology though. I have one friend working for the Beaureu of Meterology on sensors that can detect cloud cover, but that's as close I get to knowing anything about clouds.

Reply With Quote

  #112  
Old 03-24-2009, 12:52 PM
Old Man River's Avatar
Old Man River Old Man River is offline
Still Grouching Along
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 55
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by XNC1 View Post
Did you see the movie "What the &%!# do we know?" I realize it was widely criticized due to scientific errors, but I found it made me think about how I process what I view.

Most scientists scoffed at the movie but at least it presented Quantum Mechanics to a new audience.

Hopefully some, like me, would continue to do research.
I've only recently stumbled upon this forum, so I'm referencing older posts to this thread.

Allow me to partially quote a review of that movie:
Quote:
"....the people I feel sorriest for are those who come out of this movie and think that they have learned anything about quantum physics. .... It's no surprise that quantum physics has become the vehicle for superstitious nonsense and half-baked theories concocted by charlatans and bought into by scientific illiterates."
Individuals like yourself and most of the folks responding to this thread will want to learn more about real QM. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the sheep out there in the world, with little or no inclination to look deeper into the facts, will respond more like the above quoted review.

Thank goodness for guys like Kazza who try to make it understandable to guys like us.
__________________
People usually get the gods they deserve -Terry Pratchett

Grouch Happens!


Last edited by Old Man River : 03-24-2009 at 01:08 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #113  
Old 04-13-2009, 06:25 PM
lexx's Avatar
lexx lexx is offline
Most Valued Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,965
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Man River View Post
I've only recently stumbled upon this forum, so I'm referencing older posts to this thread.

Allow me to partially quote a review of that movie:

Individuals like yourself and most of the folks responding to this thread will want to learn more about real QM. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the sheep out there in the world, with little or no inclination to look deeper into the facts, will respond more like the above quoted review.

Thank goodness for guys like Kazza who try to make it understandable to guys like us.
you mean like this reply by your "chosen 1"!?right over your POST/HEAD!?

"No, I don't know anything about that actually"
__________________
i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

Reply With Quote

  #114  
Old 05-10-2009, 06:54 AM
doojie's Avatar
doojie doojie is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,349
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Kazza, this is fascinating. Ray Kurzweil on the kurzweilai.net page gets a lot of discussion on this in relation to Artificial Intelligence. Anyone with interest in this area might enjoy discussion there.

You're a good writer.

Reply With Quote

  #115  
Old 11-29-2009, 06:59 AM
notimportant notimportant is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Hi Kazza, I just registered here so I could ask you a couple of questions about this. First of all, thanks for this excellent thread. I always wanted to know more about this in a non-academical way. Still, I have some doubts about the issue:
1) If I understood correctly, what you say is that as things get "larger", this "probability waves" (sorry for my mundane terms from now on) have a much higher frequency, so high that you would see a flat line instead of a wave. That would explain why if I have a big ball it stays in one point at a time.
What I don't understand is why this "flat line" I would see will always be the peak. Why not the zero, if there's an equal amount of probabilities that the ball will "be" at that place and will "not be" at that place?
2) Does the ball "phase in/out" of the fuzzyness (lacking for a better phrasing) at a rapid rate, so high that my eyes and most devices can't even measure it?
3) If I understood correctly, graphics you provided showed the possibility of a particle showing at "the exact time" I measure it. But what happens when I want to define the possibility of a particle being "there" for an extended period of time. Is it always in this "fuzzy" zone? This leads me to my next question.
4) Let's assume there is a higher beign, entity, whatever which is much larger than us. We are like, I don't know, electrons to it. Let's assume that, as it happens with us and the microscopic realm, that we are "too fast" for this entity. So fast that the story of mankind is for it like a second, for example.
"It" wants to measure "me". It has a probability that It would find me at a certain place the way I could do with an electron, let's suppose my "fuzziness" is all over the world.
So when It decides to measure me, it instantly forces me to "be" at the location It thought would be more likely to find me, i.e. Anctartica.
So in my life, for some reason, I would be "compelled" to go to Anctartica (Hey! I won a cruise to the Southern Pole! Let's go!) and the "Larger Thing" would find me there, in an instant given by It. Would that reasoning be correct, quantum mechanichs involved and all? (Please don't miss the point, this is not a philosophical question, I just want to know if this is correct in the realm of quantum mechanics).
5) I want to expand question #3 a bit more. If I have an electron, for example, which is travelling far away (from a galaxy to another, whatever) and I want to measure when it will pass through a certain point in space, I would have a very definite "momentum" since I know speed and direction. But a graphic of probabilities doesn't show a "time frame" if I understood correctly. It only shows the probability of something being on a particular place on the exact time I "measure" it. What happens if I want to know the probability of this particle being there on an extended period of time (it's like your graphic says "This is the probability of a particle being there on the moment I will measure i, for example 12:12:12,000 AM or whatever other time I choose to; and I want a graphic that shows me the probability of this particle on an extended period of time, for example IF I measure it from 12:12:12,000 AM to 12:12:12,400 AM at ANY time of this given timeframe).
At first glance this seems the same situation, but for some reason I believe that if I give a "timeframe" to this probabilities would be different.
Sorry if this is confusing and for my lack of "academic language" but I'm working really hard to make things in my head as understandable as possible in english!

I see this is an old topic, I hope you still answer my questions!

Reply With Quote

  #116  
Old 11-29-2009, 01:42 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by notimportant View Post
Hi Kazza, I just registered here so I could ask you a couple of questions about this. First of all, thanks for this excellent thread. I always wanted to know more about this in a non-academical way. Still, I have some doubts about the issue:
Hey mate, how ya doing. Always happy to answer questions.

Quote:
1) If I understood correctly, what you say is that as things get "larger", this "probability waves" (sorry for my mundane terms from now on) have a much higher frequency, so high that you would see a flat line instead of a wave. That would explain why if I have a big ball it stays in one point at a time.
It's been quite a while since I posted this stuff, but I'm going to assume you were talking about this post?
http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=388052&postcount=25
Correct me if I'm wrong.

The "flat line" in this example, is just a probability distribution. The probability distribution tells me that if I put a ball in a box then there is a certain probability of it being in a particular place when I measure it. In the animation at the top of the post, it spends an equal amount of time at every position, so if I were to graph that, it would look like a flat line. On the other hand, a quantum particle will never be found at the boundary, so it has a curved line.


Quote:
What I don't understand is why this "flat line" I would see will always be the peak. Why not the zero, if there's an equal amount of probabilities that the ball will "be" at that place and will "not be" at that place?
I skipped over something in my explanations, and that something is called 'normalisation'. What normalisation means, is that no matter what, the probability of the ball being somewhere is 100%. So when we normalise the wavefunction we re-scale it so that all of the probabilities add up to 100%.

When we draw those wavefunctions, you can think about taking the starting 100% probability, and spreading it out over the box. If you put most of that 100% in the middle, and only a little bit on the outsides, then it represents a quantum particle in the ground state. If you spread it pretty evenly over the whole box, then it is either like a classical particle, or a quantum particle at very high frequency.

Quote:
2) Does the ball "phase in/out" of the fuzzyness (lacking for a better phrasing) at a rapid rate, so high that my eyes and most devices can't even measure it?
That's an interesting question, and I'm not sure I have a good answer for it. For starters, the ball is only fuzzy when we're not making a measurement (ie. not looking at it). Whenever we look at a particle, it stops being fuzzy (the wavefunction collapses), so we'll never actually be able to see the fuzzyness.


Quote:
3) If I understood correctly, graphics you provided showed the possibility of a particle showing at "the exact time" I measure it. But what happens when I want to define the possibility of a particle being "there" for an extended period of time. Is it always in this "fuzzy" zone? This leads me to my next question.
Great questions. Now you're getting into very complicated stuff, and unfortunately (again) I don't have a simple answer, however, consider this:

How do you make an extended measurement?

If we are dealing with an electron, then usually what we do to measure it is shoot some photons (light) at it, and look for one of them to bounce off the electron. If we want to make a single measurement in a single position then we could fire a single photon at that position and see what happens. If we want to make a measurement of multiple positions, we might fire multiple photons at different places.

Now, if we want to make a measurement of a single position over an extended period of time, then we would keep firing photons at the same place over and over.

Let's say we want to make a continuous measurement of an electron in a box, at some position we'll call X. Now, what happens is that every time we fire a photon, there is a probability that it will hit the electron. Say after firing a bunch of photons, our 100th photon reflects back. What this means is that the electron wavefunction has collapsed, so that instead of being spread out across the entire box, it is now localized to point X.

Here's the interesting bit. We have two options:

a) If we stop firing photons, then the wavefunction will slowly spread out so that it occupies the entire space of the box again, not just the point X.

b) If we fire another photon very quickly, then there is still an (almost) 100% chance that the electron is at X, because we just collapsed its wavefunction. So the next photon has a near 100% chance of also hitting the electron, and re-collapsing it to X, where the next photon will hit it, which collapses the wave etc....


What you've asked is a typical exam question at about 2nd-year university quantum mechanics. Because repeated measurements yield the same result, in quantum mechanics we often talk about "ensembles" of systems - multiple identical systems - so that we make a single measurement on each system instead of multiple measurements on one system.

Quote:
4) Let's assume there is a higher beign, entity, whatever which is much larger than us. We are like, I don't know, electrons to it. Let's assume that, as it happens with us and the microscopic realm, that we are "too fast" for this entity. So fast that the story of mankind is for it like a second, for example.
"It" wants to measure "me". It has a probability that It would find me at a certain place the way I could do with an electron, let's suppose my "fuzziness" is all over the world.
So when It decides to measure me, it instantly forces me to "be" at the location It thought would be more likely to find me, i.e. Anctartica.
So in my life, for some reason, I would be "compelled" to go to Anctartica (Hey! I won a cruise to the Southern Pole! Let's go!) and the "Larger Thing" would find me there, in an instant given by It. Would that reasoning be correct, quantum mechanichs involved and all? (Please don't miss the point, this is not a philosophical question, I just want to know if this is correct in the realm of quantum mechanics).
Now, I know you said this wasn't a philosophical question, but it actually is (there's lots of philosophical questions in quantum mechanics).

According to experiments in the last 40 years or so, your description is incorrect (though is similar to what Einstein insisted was the case, so you're not in bad company). In your description, it doesn't matter whether or not the "higher being" is looking at us, we still have a definite position and velocity. In quantum mechanics, however, if the higher being wasn't looking at us, then you would already be at the South Pole, and at the North Pole, and at the Equator - all simultaneously!

Now - there are other interpretations, this is just the most common one. In quantum mechanics, certain things are agreed on - namely, what the outcome of an experiment will be. There are also certain things that aren't agreed on - namely, what the hell is going on when we're not looking. Your question addresses the latter. Wikipedia lists about 15 different interpretations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpr...ntum_mechanics
The one I gave you (and gave in all of this thread, if I remember correctly) is the Copenhagen interpretation.


Quote:
5) I want to expand question #3 a bit more. If I have an electron, for example, which is travelling far away (from a galaxy to another, whatever) and I want to measure when it will pass through a certain point in space, I would have a very definite "momentum" since I know speed and direction. But a graphic of probabilities doesn't show a "time frame" if I understood correctly. It only shows the probability of something being on a particular place on the exact time I "measure" it. What happens if I want to know the probability of this particle being there on an extended period of time (it's like your graphic says "This is the probability of a particle being there on the moment I will measure i, for example 12:12:12,000 AM or whatever other time I choose to; and I want a graphic that shows me the probability of this particle on an extended period of time, for example IF I measure it from 12:12:12,000 AM to 12:12:12,400 AM at ANY time of this given timeframe).
At first glance this seems the same situation, but for some reason I believe that if I give a "timeframe" to this probabilities would be different.
Sorry if this is confusing and for my lack of "academic language" but I'm working really hard to make things in my head as understandable as possible in english!

I see this is an old topic, I hope you still answer my questions!
I think when I was doing this thread, I mostly stuck to time-independant explanations for simplicity. Once you introduce things that change with time, it becomes harder to explain in simple words, but the mathematics is still well defined.

A wavefunction can change over time. So the probability of you measuring it at any particular time depends on how it is changing. If you wanted to know the chance of measuring it within some time interval, then it would depend on how often you are making a measurement.

For example, you may start out with a 1% chance of measuring the electron at time 12:00:00, so every time you take a look, you have a 1% chance of observing it. By 12:30:00, the probability is up to 50%, so every time you take a look there's a 50% chance, and by 13:00:00 the probability is back to 1%.

Now, the chance of you observing it in the interval 12:00 - 13:00 depends on two things - how often you are making a measurement, and at what time you are making a measurement.

Basically, these extended-time type questions need to be broken down into a long series of near-instantaneous measurements. This is because any real interaction between an electron and a measuring apparatus happens between two individual particles over a very short time frame.



Hope I've answered your questions. Feel free to ask me to clarify any of the bits that I've explained poorly.

Reply With Quote

  #117  
Old 11-30-2009, 06:50 AM
notimportant notimportant is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Thanks for your reply! I will read it thoroughly when I have the time, but from what I've seen so far I'm sure this will (unfortunately for you ) lead to more questions!

Reply With Quote

  #118  
Old 12-01-2009, 01:45 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by notimportant View Post
Thanks for your reply! I will read it thoroughly when I have the time, but from what I've seen so far I'm sure this will (unfortunately for you ) lead to more questions!
No worries, ask away.

I should add a disclaimer to my replies however (I'm not sure if I did this earlier in the thread). Trying to explain quantum mechanics in English is not easy, which is why we normally use maths. I've tried to give the best explanation in English that I can, but it should be considered a rough guide, not a literal outlining of quantum mechanics. If you look hard enough, I've probably contradicted myself multiple times, and probably said things that are completely wrong at others. It all comes with trying to convert maths into english.

Reply With Quote

  #119  
Old 12-07-2009, 09:31 AM
notimportant notimportant is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Well that's really surprising. I wasn't familiar with Einstein's ideas about this, but I understood why my posture was "quantum mechanically" incorrect.
I may think the same way I did with the ball, however. Maybe as a bridge between Einstein and Quantum Mechanics:
Maybe I am "too fast" for this entity to observe me, so fast that it thinks I am in a fuzzy zone when, in reality, I am in a definite position in a given time, just there is no way for it to follow me at its current technological level (or maybe never will).
So I travel a lot in my life, I am in the North/South Pole, Equator... its probability waves are correct, but it just can't know when I'm at a specific location, the only way he can is to force me to "go" (to its astonishment) where he considers it's more mathematically plausible for me to be with its measuring equipments. But maybe it's really because I'm too damn fast, so fast I will "always" be there for his relatively "slow speed of measuring". Maybe even faster than the speed of light of "its perception of the Universe", but that's a whole different discussion and I imagine Einstein would not like it!

Now, the other stuff you said is really intriguing. If I fire multiple photons at very short intervals, they have a near 100% chance of finding it, so I'm practically "stopping" it. Actually, since it has a near 100% chance of finding it, I assume what I'm doing is slowing it down a lot, because it just keeps reappearing when I keep firing. If this is correct, couldn't you predict its momentum by just keeping firing photons and watching where/when it "fades" (since it's near 100% and not 100%), and then get an exact position/momentum? Or am I getting it completely wrong?

Reply With Quote

  #120  
Old 12-07-2009, 09:35 AM
notimportant notimportant is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazza View Post
No worries, ask away.

I should add a disclaimer to my replies however (I'm not sure if I did this earlier in the thread). Trying to explain quantum mechanics in English is not easy, which is why we normally use maths. I've tried to give the best explanation in English that I can, but it should be considered a rough guide, not a literal outlining of quantum mechanics. If you look hard enough, I've probably contradicted myself multiple times, and probably said things that are completely wrong at others. It all comes with trying to convert maths into english.
Of course, I can imagine this fitting perfectly in math and being difficult in any other language. I appreciate your efforts to translate this stuff and take it as a general guide! (Hate math BTW)

Reply With Quote

  #121  
Old 12-07-2009, 01:10 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by notimportant View Post
Well that's really surprising. I wasn't familiar with Einstein's ideas about this, but I understood why my posture was "quantum mechanically" incorrect.
I may think the same way I did with the ball, however. Maybe as a bridge between Einstein and Quantum Mechanics:
Maybe I am "too fast" for this entity to observe me, so fast that it thinks I am in a fuzzy zone when, in reality, I am in a definite position in a given time, just there is no way for it to follow me at its current technological level (or maybe never will).
So I travel a lot in my life, I am in the North/South Pole, Equator... its probability waves are correct, but it just can't know when I'm at a specific location, the only way he can is to force me to "go" (to its astonishment) where he considers it's more mathematically plausible for me to be with its measuring equipments. But maybe it's really because I'm too damn fast, so fast I will "always" be there for his relatively "slow speed of measuring". Maybe even faster than the speed of light of "its perception of the Universe", but that's a whole different discussion and I imagine Einstein would not like it!
You're thinking along the lines of some of the great minds, here. What you're suggesting now is similar to the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Brog...%93Bohm_theory
I'm not sure whether or not this is consistent with all the experimental data, but it might be. I remember reading an article about it a few years ago in regards to some experiment that had been done, but I can't remember what it was saying.

Quote:
Now, the other stuff you said is really intriguing. If I fire multiple photons at very short intervals, they have a near 100% chance of finding it, so I'm practically "stopping" it. Actually, since it has a near 100% chance of finding it, I assume what I'm doing is slowing it down a lot, because it just keeps reappearing when I keep firing. If this is correct, couldn't you predict its momentum by just keeping firing photons and watching where/when it "fades" (since it's near 100% and not 100%), and then get an exact position/momentum? Or am I getting it completely wrong?
Not wrong, but I've oversimplified.

So you fire your photon at the electron. The photon bounces back, and by observing the photon, you know where the electron is.

Now, to work out the electrons position, you need to know very preciselywhen the photon has arrived in your detector. To work out the electron's momentum, you need to know very precisely the energy of the photon. It turns out that these two measurements have an uncertainty principle associated with them as well. If you know the energy of the photon very well, then you can't measure when it strikes your detector very accurately, and vice versa. So the photon that you use for measurement can only be used to measure one kind of quantity.

There are other ways that you could set up your experiment so that you're not measuring energy and time, but you always have to make at least 2 measurements, and it always turns out that you can't know both of those things at the same time. There are lots of these pairs of variables in quantum mechanics, and they're known as "conjugate variables".


A more physical way of thinking about this:

Photons have a wavelength, and this determines how accurate a picture you can get with them. Your eyes use visible light, which has a wavelength shorter than everyday objects, so you can see things clearly using it. On the other hand, if you were to build a radio-wave detector, you would get very fuzzy pictures of things around you, because radio-waves have a wavelength of several meters. Also, if you use sound-waves then you can only get a fuzzy picture of things, beause most sound waves have a long wave-length.

So that's why if you want to get an accurate position of the electron, you need to use short wavelength photons. However, photons also have an energy and a momentum. Short wavelength photons have high energy, and long wavelength photons have low energy (which is why X-rays hurt you, but not radio waves).

If you want to know the position of the electron very accurately, then you need to use high energy photons. But if you use high energy photons, then when the photon reflects off the electron, the electron is going to recoil. The higher energy the photon, the more the electron is going to recoil, and because of that recoil, you no longer know it's momentum very well.



This is actually one of the coolest parts of quantum mechanics. If you do all the maths behind it, it's amazing how everything works out. You can keep trying to find ways to measure the electron, and nature keeps finding ways of outsmarting you. This is precisely what the Einstein-Bohr letters were all about. Einstein kept trying to find ways to measure both the position and momentum of the electron, and Bohr kept working out the details and showing that it wouldn't work.


Last edited by kazza : 12-07-2009 at 01:12 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #122  
Old 05-22-2010, 03:17 PM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Excellent thread. As somebody who does have a reasonable grasp of QM, I can say that you've handled the exaplanations really well. There are a couple of things that could be tighter, but they're minor.

The first is 'spin', which is really a description of what a particle looks like from different directions. There's a really simple way to explain this. If a particle has spin 1, then it will look the same only after it's been rotated through a full 360 degrees. If it has spin 2, then it will look the same after half a rotation and a full rotation. If a particle has spin 1/2, then it looks the same only after two full rotations. So higher spin numbers mean that they look the same after fewer rotations.

The other thing I wanted to pick up on was Feynmann's 'sum over histories' or 'path integral formulation', which you described as 'many-worlds'. This isn't correct, although it's a simple error and not a glaring one. The path integral states that a particle travels all possible paths, and that observation collapses the wave-function, thereby defining the actual path. It is very similar to Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation, but not the same. Many-worlds is the 'trousers of time' variation, in which he says that for every possible path taken by the particle, there is a universe in which each one of them is seen, but our observation collapsing the wave-function defines which path is taken in this universe.

Minor nits, but important ones, I think. In any event, excellent thread, and really good solid explanations of what is most definitely very difficult material to deal with. Good work.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell



Reply With Quote

  #123  
Old 12-24-2010, 05:56 AM
zinadinpeterson zinadinpeterson is offline
I am new at Scam.com
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics is a special part of physics that studies the behavior of subatomic particles and their interactions at first sight. However, it is much more than the dip and the main issue is a matter as we know it, and a microscopic part of its composition.
__________________
micro sd cards

Reply With Quote

  #124  
Old 01-04-2011, 10:47 AM
rodin's Avatar
rodin rodin is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 339
Re: Quantum Mechanics

If you ask me QM looks a lot like resonance effect. Think sound waves, you get progressions of harmonics in all sorts if ways including (if you have 2 oscillators or more) sub-harmonics much lower than the fundamentals of the oscillators. We use such 'beats' when tuning say a twelve string guitar.

And all this complexity arises from a one dimensional oscillator vibrating in 2D. I would say quantum levels are 3D resonances and not some kind of ju ju magic we cannot relate to the world we live in.

Just my 2p + 20% VAT
__________________
WWIIIKILIKE PRODUCTIONS
Judeo Christian is an oxymoron

Reply With Quote

  #125  
Old 04-18-2011, 06:14 AM
NONNYMOUSE NONNYMOUSE is offline
I am new at Scam.com
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1
Re: Quantum Mechanics

I have been reading through this forum with great interest as my mate told me about a bloke called Mitch Behan operating a sort of self improvement seminar that he advertises on google. He tried to get me to go with him to join the seminars in Perth and was telling me that this guy teaches based on quantum physics and quantum mechanics. I thought, now that's a rather peculiar subject to be telling people that he is educating them based on the universal laws that govern humanity. I am no science buff, but totally enjoyed professor Julius Sumner Millers "Why is it so" series on tv. many years ago and applied a lot of the basic physics I learnt from the tv show, to assist me in life. Ie shove big nails (conducters) into spuds before roasting, to speed up the cooking, using a lever and fulcrum to shift heavy objects that I would normally need at least 3 men to help me move. This bloke tries to tell me that Mitch Behan claims if people have a quantum collapse http://www.scam.com/images/smilies/boom.gif then they are ready to Equilibrate. Seems someone is taking big liberties with the english language and labelling some sort of hocus pocus B.S. pseudo psychology with words borrowed from a science journal to confuse and impress people that he is some sort of highly intelligent educator. My mate showed me some scribblings about wave particles and wave theory and claimed that this Mitch behan explained it all at one of the seminars. After him forking out more than a weeks pay, for a Friday night to Sunday night marathon of this junk, Mitch Behan told my mate that he was now vibrating at a higher frequency.http://www.scam.com/images/smilies/errr.gif He reckons he is now a light bearer for humanity http://www.scam.com/images/smilies/smileyb.gif I think the poor bugger should go to an altzheimer clinic LOL. Bleeding Hades what a joke, anyone else want to part with their money to get the good vibrations LOL Why pay all that money when you can read about waves and particles as clearly described in the posts done by kazza? Am I improved? have i learnt something about the laws that govern humanity? I think I now understand a bit about quantum physics and quantum mechanics thanks to kazza and he didnt fleece me of a weeks pay. Thanks kazza!

Reply With Quote

  #126  
Old 04-18-2011, 11:39 AM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by NONNYMOUSE View Post
I have been reading through this forum with great interest as my mate told me about a bloke called Mitch Behan operating a sort of self improvement seminar that he advertises on google. He tried to get me to go with him to join the seminars in Perth and was telling me that this guy teaches based on quantum physics and quantum mechanics. I thought, now that's a rather peculiar subject to be telling people that he is educating them based on the universal laws that govern humanity. I am no science buff, but totally enjoyed professor Julius Sumner Millers "Why is it so" series on tv. many years ago and applied a lot of the basic physics I learnt from the tv show, to assist me in life. Ie shove big nails (conducters) into spuds before roasting, to speed up the cooking, using a lever and fulcrum to shift heavy objects that I would normally need at least 3 men to help me move. This bloke tries to tell me that Mitch Behan claims if people have a quantum collapse http://www.scam.com/images/smilies/boom.gif then they are ready to Equilibrate. Seems someone is taking big liberties with the english language and labelling some sort of hocus pocus B.S. pseudo psychology with words borrowed from a science journal to confuse and impress people that he is some sort of highly intelligent educator. My mate showed me some scribblings about wave particles and wave theory and claimed that this Mitch behan explained it all at one of the seminars. After him forking out more than a weeks pay, for a Friday night to Sunday night marathon of this junk, Mitch Behan told my mate that he was now vibrating at a higher frequency.http://www.scam.com/images/smilies/errr.gif He reckons he is now a light bearer for humanity http://www.scam.com/images/smilies/smileyb.gif I think the poor bugger should go to an altzheimer clinic LOL. Bleeding Hades what a joke, anyone else want to part with their money to get the good vibrations LOL Why pay all that money when you can read about waves and particles as clearly described in the posts done by kazza? Am I improved? have i learnt something about the laws that govern humanity? I think I now understand a bit about quantum physics and quantum mechanics thanks to kazza and he didnt fleece me of a weeks pay. Thanks kazza!
Thanks mate. You're welcome.


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quantum Computer mumbles Science Scams 1 04-17-2012 03:26 AM
quantum investments white_summer Internet Scams 1 05-14-2010 05:14 PM
Quantum...religion...? ejpseudo Religious Scams 20 03-27-2010 08:44 PM
MECHANICS & WOMEN - funny stuff! Connecticut Victim Political Chat 5 10-21-2006 10:47 AM
Mechanics question Apathy Investment Scams 5 08-12-2006 06:26 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the Userís own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 AM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.