# Quantum Physics/Mechanics/Theory



## stevemcqueen (Sep 1, 2011)

I know there is an offical What Are You Reading thread, but I am thinking that there will be more discussion than just this one book because there are so many good books and documentaries on this subject. I am currently reading A Brief History Of Time by Stephen Hawking. To anyone who has not read this book I would highly recommend it. The ideas presented in this book will blow your mind. There are a few things that I don't agree with 100% but I am also a "Christian". I put Christian in parenthases because I don't like the negative connotations that come with saying this. I believe in Jesus as the Son of God but I am also very open minded to a lot of beliefs that most Christians would not like. So I just want to hear other peoples opinions on Quantum theories and such. And I guess I should say, "Flame on!" for all the negative posts towards me for talking about Jesus.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 1, 2011)

*"If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."* - Richard Feynman


----------



## stevemcqueen (Sep 1, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> *"If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."* - Richard Feynman


 Wow, it looks like another intelligent marine that plays something besides 6 string guitars in dropped D. That makes two of us.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 1, 2011)

stevemcqueen said:


> Wow, it looks like another intelligent marine that plays something besides 6 string guitars in dropped D. That makes two of us.


 
HAHAHA... I got my ass absolutely kicked in bootcamp when my DIs found out that I went to Harvard. I got f'd with all the time... "Hey Marine, how long should the hypotenuse be for the fighting hole..." Asshats... lol. I didn't tell anyone or let anyone see that shit in my SRB when I changed comnmands.

My physics prof was awarded a Nobel prize... "for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence." He introduced me to Feynman, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Brian Greene (when he was a nobody lol)... the guest lectures were the best.

Seriously, I'd recommend Brian Greene's or Michio Kaku's books. They have a way of making really complicated shit understandable to mortals.


----------



## stevemcqueen (Sep 1, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> HAHAHA... I got my ass absolutely kicked in bootcamp when my DIs found out that I went to Harvard. I got f'd with all the time... "Hey Marine, how long should the hypotenuse be for the fighting hole..." Asshats... lol. I didn't tell anyone or let anyone see that shit in my SRB when I changed comnmands.
> 
> My physics prof was awarded a Nobel prize... "for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence." He introduced me to Feynman, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Brian Greene (when he was a nobody lol)... the guest lectures were the best.
> 
> Seriously, I'd recommend Brian Greene's or Michio Kaku's books. They have a way of making really complicated shit understandable to mortals.


 
I just bought a couple Brian Greene books online for a dollar each.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 1, 2011)

WTF, I prob paid $25 each!


----------



## Behaving_badly (Sep 1, 2011)

BACK TO THE QUANTUM DISCUSSION
(haha)

I don't know much about it but I've listened to a bit of Robert anton wilson's talks about it and it is really amazing. I talked with a drunk college student studying quantum theory also but it was slightly less amazing.....


----------



## thedonal (Sep 1, 2011)

It took me several attempts to get through A Brief History of Time. I mainly started struggling when it got to the quantum stuff.

I tried to re-read it once- a few years after I'd finally finished the book. I found, more than anything, that getting to quantum stuff the book started annoying me. Not sure why- maybe it is the brain frying stuff.

I do like the idea of quantum uncertainty but am a little perplexed by the dual state theories implied (and demostrated) by quantum physics. It's all a bit above me, sir!

I think that a number of Hawkins' theories have been successfully challenged since that book was published. But I'm not sure what the next level of reading material would be...


----------



## Explorer (Sep 1, 2011)

stevemcqueen said:


> There are a few things that I don't agree with 100% but I am also a "Christian". I put Christian in parenthases because I don't like the negative connotations that come with saying this. I believe in Jesus as the Son of God but I am also very open minded to a lot of beliefs that most Christians would not like.



It was my understanding that the original book, and the 2005 rewrite A Briefer History of Time (with Leonard Mlodinow), present evidence and the theories which have been posited to explain that evidence, as well as the implications of those theories. The 2005 rewrite is because science is willing to examine its conclusions in light of better evidence and theories.

So, with that goal of science noted, and the distinction made between science and dogmatism... what is it that you don't agree with? That there are theories which are proposed to explain the evidence?

I'm just curious as to whether you're proposing that science is a "belief system," which is mistaken. 

Could you clarify?


----------



## skeels (Sep 1, 2011)

BG's The Elegant Universe is a great read, too.
Also, I believe that religion and science should not be diametrically opposed nor are they mutually exclusive. If anything science teaches us that there is always something more to learn and religion teaches us that we cannot learn everything. 
Quantum mechanics seem to demonstrate how we can think we know how things work on one level and yet discover that there are many more levels to reality that we do not fully understand.
Very apt, no?


----------



## Ishan (Sep 2, 2011)

> I put Christian in parenthases because I don't like the negative connotations that come with saying this. I believe in Jesus as the Son of God but I am also very open minded to a lot of beliefs that most Christians would not like.


Spirituality and Science aren't mutually exclusive because if you try to check what happened before 10^-44 seconds (1st Planck time unit after the Big Bang) you can't  if there's a God that's were he is, everything else is beliefs not science.
Science is theory backed up by observations and facts, it's not a belief system as many want it to be.
quite a few fundamental physicists are deist, they believe in God, not in religion. For me they are the true believer as they appreciate the true masterpiece of God in its real form.
I'm not like them as I'm a Cartesian atheist but I can totally relate to them.


----------



## stevemcqueen (Sep 2, 2011)

Explorer said:


> It was my understanding that the original book, and the 2005 rewrite A Briefer History of Time (with Leonard Mlodinow), present evidence and the theories which have been posited to explain that evidence, as well as the implications of those theories. The 2005 rewrite is because science is willing to examine its conclusions in light of better evidence and theories.
> 
> So, with that goal of science noted, and the distinction made between science and dogmatism... what is it that you don't agree with? That there are theories which are proposed to explain the evidence?
> 
> ...


 
Only Stephen Hawkings beliefs in a higher being. I believe 100% in a higher being, he doesn't.


Ishan said:


> Spirituality and Science aren't mutually exclusive because if you try to check what happened before 10^-44 seconds (1st Planck time unit after the Big Bang) you can't  if there's a God that's were he is, everything else is beliefs not science.
> Science is theory backed up by observations and facts, it's not a belief system as many want it to be.
> quite a few fundamental physicists are deist, they believe in God, not in religion. For me they are the true believer as they appreciate the true masterpiece of God in its real form.
> I'm not like them as I'm a Cartesian atheist but I can totally relate to them.


 
I don't consider myself religious. Being religious, in my opinion (IMO!) involves a bunch of rules and regulations that I am not going to bind myself to. I believe in Jesus being the Son of God and the only way to God. Jesus only taught love, not rules.


----------



## Prydogga (Sep 2, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> HAHAHA... I got my ass absolutely kicked in bootcamp when my DIs found out that I went to Harvard. I got f'd with all the time... "Hey Marine, how long should the hypotenuse be for the fighting hole..." Asshats... lol. I didn't tell anyone or let anyone see that shit in my SRB when I changed comnmands.
> 
> My physics prof was awarded a Nobel prize... "for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence." He introduced me to Feynman, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Brian Greene (when he was a nobody lol)... the guest lectures were the best.
> 
> Seriously, I'd recommend Brian Greene's or Michio Kaku's books. They have a way of making really complicated shit understandable to mortals.



You've met James Randi? Awesome!


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 6, 2011)

James Randi is hilarious in person... most people don't expect old scientists to be funny... kind of caught some of us off guard actually. 

And Dan Dennett was one of my professors! I forgot about him lol. He began his first lecture about consciousness, god, and religion by showing a slide that was a quote by someone saying that "Dan Dennet is the devil" lol... at least he knows he's hated and he owns it. I must admit, I own a lot of his books and I haven't made it through one yet! It was the first time I read something and felt it was completely over my head. I prefer quantum mechanics lol.

But my favorite professor was Dr Shelly Carson... (she's one of the leading proponents of the positive correlation between psycopathy and creativity). She was teaching us about PTSD and told us a story about when she was a stewardess way back in the day and was kidnapped at gunpoint in Spain... we were all like WTF?! Then I was watching CNN at like 2am and she was on talking about how she had suffered from sleep paralysis/night terrors too.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 6, 2011)

^ Sorry for the tangent... Slightly more on topic and IMO:

One thing I was taught regarding science vs religion, is that science makes claims about only what is testable and falsifiable (since very little is actually "verifiable"). Religion makes no claims which are testable or falsififiable (hence faith), thus science can have no comment either way. 

I think you could make a claim for empiricism by stating that you can go out and observe miracles (just ask ICP), but then since you couldn't replicate, falsify, or test them, they are again outside the scientific realm. Basically the concept of evidence with respect to science is very different than what the religious community deems acceptable. (Not saying this 'negatively', just stressing the incompatability)

Also, the human mind tends to look for verification (i.e confirmation bias) and not falsification; thus, we have trouble dealing conceptually with topics such as fate, luck, and religion. 

e.g. Wason Test - The Famous Four Card Task

Regarding quantum mechanics... There's some intense _faith_ going on there too lol... Concepts like how quantum gravity becomes comparable to the other forces at planck length, and how Einstein might have been right about a unified force, but that it only exists at the planck length level... which is below the scanning level of photons or electrons, and thus untestable with current technology... which is also where unidimensional vibrating strings may also exist as the fundamental indivisible unit of matter. I guess a quantum mechanics text book probably sounds as crazy to a Christian fundamentalist as the Bible sounds to me...


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 6, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> ^ Sorry for the tangent... Slightly more on topic and IMO:
> 
> One thing I was taught regarding science vs religion, is that science makes claims about only what is testable and falsifiable (since very little is actually "verifiable"). Religion makes no claims which are testable or falsififiable (hence faith), thus science can have no comment either way.
> 
> ...



I've always found something Dawkins said interesting...I can't put it in the exact words he did, but he said that while a supernatural force by definition would be outside of what we could measure or quantify, if it interacted with our world, it would have to have observable effects, and thus could be measured. God talking to someone, for instance, would make their brain waves react in a different way then someone talking to themselves, and we'd be able to measure that. 

Quantum mechanics sounds crazy to anyone not familiar with physics...like myself .


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 6, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I've always found something Dawkins said interesting...I can't put it in the exact words he did, but he said that while a supernatural force by definition would be outside of what we could measure or quantify, if it interacted with our world, it would have to have observable effects, and thus could be measured. God talking to someone, for instance, would make their brain waves react in a different way then someone talking to themselves, and we'd be able to measure that.
> 
> Quantum mechanics sounds crazy to anyone not familiar with physics...like myself .


 
Yeah, I LOVE "The God Delusion"... and you're 100% right Dawkins does NOT believe they are mutually exclusive. He makes that exact argument that it would leave some kind of testable/measurable effect and basically dares anyone to show him any such evidence. So does James Randi for that matter... and he put a $1 million prize/reward up to anyone that can demonstrate anything supernatural/paranormal/pseudoscientific, such as religion, levitation, telepathy, psychics, etc... (James Randi Challenge) 

About James Randi

And thanks Rev... I was "trying" to be impartial for once and not get any neg rep!


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 20, 2011)

consciousness itself is enough to blow my mind. what is it? where does it come from and where does it go?

and if that is possible, then imo anything is.

&#8220;There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.&#8221;

and re quantum gravity and stuff. i don't think i'm ever really going to be able get a grasp of it, because i suck so bad at math. the theories are awesome, but how the great minds came to prove those theories... brutal.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 20, 2011)

Ancestor said:


> consciousness itself is enough to blow my mind. what is it? where does it come from and where does it go?


 
Read "Cosciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett... you can borrow my copy... then explain it to me lol.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 20, 2011)

There is one big difference between Faith and Science , and that is ?
In Religion, the answer to all your questions begins with "because God", and not important what comes after, it is unquestionable.
The science OTOH, tends so question everything, even it's own facts, rules, theories... Everything in Science is about questioning. 

That's the reason why I can't trust religious scientists. They try so hard to "explain" god in science, which totally misses the point of doing science anyways.
Science = ?
Religion = Yes


----------



## Diggy (Sep 20, 2011)

great discussion topic.. if we talk about it, then its rite here.. If we dont talk about it, does it even exist?


----------



## Sephael (Sep 20, 2011)

Diggy said:


> great discussion topic.. if we talk about it, then its rite here.. If we dont talk about it, does it even exist?


 according to quautum physics it would exist is more places if we didn't


----------



## Diggy (Sep 20, 2011)

lol.. I was reading Michio the other day.. the idea is that if we view something in our realm, then it exists here.. if we dont view it, whether its here in our realm or not, it doesnt exist to us because we are the ones creating the info we view.

just inter-dimensional-"what constitutes existence to us" stuff


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 20, 2011)

Diggy said:


> lol.. I was reading Michio the other day.. the idea is that if we view something in our realm, then it exists here.. if we dont view it, whether its here in our realm or not, it doesnt exist to us because we are the ones creating the info we view.
> 
> just inter-dimensional-"what constitutes existence to us" stuff



Like god excists because we create him/her. Or UFOs


----------



## Diggy (Sep 20, 2011)

the mind is a terrible thing to waste


----------



## Diggy (Sep 20, 2011)

Christian Religion vs. Science..

When people pray/request interaction, are they praying to God?.. or, thanx to the quantum world, are they praying to inter-connected particles that are not here or there.. but everywhere at the same time? 

Lift a stone and I will be there...


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 20, 2011)

"Consciousness is one of the great problems facing science. Some have claimed to have "explained" consciousness. But actually, most scientists cannot even define it, let alone explain it.
Consciousness enters quantum physics because of the Schrodinger cat problem, perhaps the greatest paradox in all of science. If we put a cat in a box, and point a gun at the cat, which in turn is connected to a geiger counter sitting next to uranium, then we physicists describe the system as the sum of two wave functions. In one wave function, the cat is dead. In the other, the cat is alive. So, before we open the box, the cat is neither dead nor alive, but exists in a nether state. Once an observation is made, the cat suddenly "chooses" one state or the other, and we can then see that the cat is dead or alive (but not both).
(Most people find this paradox silly, but it troubled Einstein for decades. He would ask his guests at night: does the moon exist because a mouse looks at it?)
There are several ways to resolve this puzzle. The standard theory is to say that observation determines existence. So opening the box and making the measurement collapses the wave function and determines the state of the cat. This assumes that the sub-atomic world is different from the macroscopic world, that there is a "wall" separating the two. In the microworld, electrons can be two places at the same time, disappearing and reappearing all the time. But in the macroworld, cats are either dead or alive. (Lately, this standard picture has fallen into disfavor because, in nanotechnology, we can smoothly go from the macroworld and microworld and we do not encounter any wall.
Another way, pioneered by Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, is to assume that consiousness is the key factor. Only conscious observers can make observations, and hence consciousness causes the wave function to collapse. But how do we know that we are alive and not dead? Hence, we need a third person to observe us to collapse our wave function. But then we need a fourth person to observe the third person and collapse his wave function. Eventually, we need an infinite chain of observers, each watching the other. Wigner implied that this chain was a cosmic consciousness or even God.
There is a third way, which is gaining popularity among physicists. And this is that the universe splits in half everytime an observation is made. In one universe, the cat is dead. In the other universe, the cat is alive. The beauty of this approach is that we do not have to introduce any "wall" or "collapsed waves." The wave function merrily splits continually, creating infinite numbers of parallel universes. (We don't see all these parallel universes surrounding us, because we have "decohered" from them. Our wave function is no longer vibrating in unison with these other universes, so we cannot easily interact with them. Otherwise, we would bump into versions of ourselves where we made different choices in life, or bump into universes where people how have died in our universe are still alive.)"

- Michio Kaku - Impossible Science | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History


----------



## Diggy (Sep 20, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> "Consciousness is one of the great problems facing science. Some have claimed to have "explained" consciousness. But actually, most scientists cannot even define it, let alone explain it.
> Consciousness enters quantum physics because of the Schrodinger cat problem, perhaps the greatest paradox in all of science. If we put a cat in a box, and point a gun at the cat, which in turn is connected to a geiger counter sitting next to uranium, then we physicists describe the system as the sum of two wave functions. In one wave function, the cat is dead. In the other, the cat is alive. So, before we open the box, the cat is neither dead nor alive, but exists in a nether state. Once an observation is made, the cat suddenly "chooses" one state or the other, and we can then see that the cat is dead or alive (but not both).
> (Most people find this paradox silly, but it troubled Einstein for decades. He would ask his guests at night: does the moon exist because a mouse looks at it?)
> There are several ways to resolve this puzzle. The standard theory is to say that observation determines existence. So opening the box and making the measurement collapses the wave function and determines the state of the cat. This assumes that the sub-atomic world is different from the macroscopic world, that there is a "wall" separating the two. In the microworld, electrons can be two places at the same time, disappearing and reappearing all the time. But in the macroworld, cats are either dead or alive. (Lately, this standard picture has fallen into disfavor because, in nanotechnology, we can smoothly go from the macroworld and microworld and we do not encounter any wall.
> ...



the cat is alive AND dead


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 20, 2011)

Coincidence that I saw this earlier today?


----------



## Explorer (Sep 20, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> "Consciousness is one of the great problems facing science. Some have claimed to have "explained" consciousness. But actually, most scientists cannot even define it, let alone explain it.
> 
> (Regarding Schrödinger's Cat) The standard theory is to say that observation determines existence.



Some interesting ideas, but ultimately trying to be more cosmic than is necessary for the situation.

Although one might ask how the phenomenon of self awareness is created, there isn't any doubt about *what* creates it: brain activity. There is a great deal of research over the decades and centuries showing that consciousness is rooted in the meat of the brain. That's why observational studies of those with brain damage have demonstrated that such damage causes changes in personality; the brain itself is altered, so the mind arising from the operation of that brain is changed. 

To me, the most interesting studies of the brain are those of patients who have the bridge between the hemispheres split/cut, and thereby have two consciousnesses which are not always in agreement. 

Now, of course, there are great studies and observations regarding what parts of the brain are involved in all kinds of conscious activity. I suspect that, like genetics, there will be more and more discovered about how things work, and less and less mystery involved.

Unless, of course, the brain will prove to be unlike all other areas of science, and producing no further explanations from today onward. What a curious thing, though, that today would mark the end of all new learning. Curious... and unlikely.

----

The explanations given for Schrödinger's Cat somehow failed to list one more: that the cat is in whatever its state would be, but that those outside didn't know. It's not as dramatic and mystical as the other possibilities outlined, but imperfect knowledge doesn't need a mystical explanation. 

There was an interesting study of autistic children. A puppet places a ball into a box on the left of a puppet stage, then exits. A second puppet removes the ball from the box on the left, and places it into the box on the right. The second puppet leaves, and the first puppet returns.

Now the question is asked, what box does the first puppet think the ball is in?

Normal children state that the first puppet thinks the ball is in the box into which it was first placed. They can imagine the first puppet's viewpoint.

Autistic children state that the puppet thinks the ball is in the box to which it was moved. They cannot imagine a viewpoint other than their own.

That excerpt posted seemed to me like a text version of the Puppet's Dilemma.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 20, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Some interesting ideas, but ultimately trying to be more cosmic than is necessary for the situation.
> 
> Although one might ask how the phenomenon of self awareness is created, there isn't any doubt about *what* creates it: brain activity. There is a great deal of research over the decades and centuries showing that consciousness is rooted in the meat of the brain. That's why observational studies of those with brain damage have demonstrated that such damage causes changes in personality; the brain itself is altered, so the mind arising from the operation of that brain is changed.
> 
> ...



This.

The Schrodinger's Cat thing was a thought experiment to describe how electrons behave, and Michio (although I love him) and others have let it run wild. It's not the same as the idea of every possibility being realized, which is what they sandwich it into, especially on the Science, History, and Discovery channels. Saying that consciousness determines existence also not only invalidates the majority of science, but the majority of the universe's existence.


----------



## Sephael (Sep 20, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Discovery channels.


speaking of which, I watched their Curiosity show on multiple dimensions the other day and I wanted to smack one of the guys. His explanation for the origin of our universe was we are the white hole (receiving end of a black hole), and this was how black holes worked. However using that as an explanation for the creation of the universe means that the other universe would have to be infinitely larger than our own (we are after all just the junk that fell into just one of its black holes). Assuming that it is even close to how our universe is, then we are only one of hundreds of thousands sub-universes. And the existence of that source universe would require something exponentially larger to create it. And each of the sub-universes, including our own, would have hundreds of thousands of sub-sub-universes.


----------



## Cadavuh (Sep 21, 2011)

USMarine75, you claim to have taken a course taught by Daniel Dennett and also claim to having attended Harvard. Dan Dennett has been a professor at Tufts for his entire career IIRC. Also, Have you studied quantum mechanics in a classroom setting? Just curious.


----------



## Edika (Sep 21, 2011)

Somehow the discussion from quantum mechanics shifted to anything but that! What people don't understand about science is that it is an attempt by humans to explain and exploit nature. What we cal laws of physics are not exactly laws and by that I mean that scientist always have (or should have) in the back of their minds that there could be some evidence in the future that would improve our view of nature. For example Newtonian physics may explain everyday phenomena but can't explain relativistic incidents or incidents in the atomic and subatomic level (hence quantum theory as well as the ideas of a universe made of more than 4 dimensions). While these theories are more complicated to understand if they are applied in every day life the results from these complicated equations have miniscule deviation from the Newtonian formalism that there is no reason to use more complicated formulas.

In my point of view and in most scientists point of view religion stays out of the lab or the theoretical work they do. You can believe in whatever deity you want but when working on science there is no "this can't be because it is against god". It is what the equations, your imagination and the experiments to prove the theory show you. If the experiments say it's not true, it's not true (but it is interesting also why it's not true). Even if you have positive results then it should be reproducible by other scientist and thus accepted by your peers.

And for the religious people, even if you don't understand some more complicated theories it doesn't mean they don't apply or are not true, it's just that you don't understand them (you should try to open your mind more and try harder though). If you accept that nature is a creation of god it doesn't mean it can't be as complicated or even more complicated than scientists say it is. If god is as powerful and all knowing as think he/she/it is then you should understand that the creation of nature should be more than you comprehend (at the moment at least). That means that you believe that you know more than your deity, which is what the priests of each religion claim. Priests in general are not to be believed in matters concerning nature and science, spiritualism maybe but not for the above.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 21, 2011)

Cadavuh said:


> USMarine75, you claim to have taken a course taught by Daniel Dennett and also claim to having attended Harvard. Dan Dennett has been a professor at Tufts for his entire career IIRC. Also, Have you studied quantum mechanics in a classroom setting? Just curious.


 
Wow... passive aggressive way of calling me a liar. You could at least contribute to the thread (i.e. Trolling?) instead of just calling me out... here's my curriculum vitae:

I went to Harvard for three years, was in the USMC for 8, and then graduated from Tufts with a BS in Biopsychology (concentrations in Cognitive and Brain Science/neuropsych areas) with a minor in physics and tons of post-grad credits. I work for the US gov't and I'm currently applying for MD programs. 

My professor/advisor and wrote me a letter of recommendation that more than likely got me accepted to Tufts: Harvard Physics Faculty: Roy Glauber

Physics classes... 1 year general physics, quantum optics (Prob Glauber's class... no longer offered), Mechanics and Relativity, quantum mechanics 1, and Time seminar (not offered anymore)... I originally wanted to be a physicist before I discovered neuroscience.

And yes, I actually took a class from Dennett (cog sci) so I'm aware of where he teaches... I also took a classes from Prof Ray Jackendoff (Tufts, famous for his linguistics work), Dr Klaus Miczek (Tufts, famous for his psychopharmacology research), Dr Shelley Carson (Harvard, Creativity and Psychopathy leading researcher), neuro (Harvard, Dr Shawn Murphy), etc... 

[Although I think a lot of the reputation of Ivy league schools is BS (I don't think my education was any "better" than a lot of state schools), I think the things they offer that others can't are guest lectures and superior research ability (even for undergrads). And in some cases I think the education is worse because a lot of the profs only teach because they have to and are really only interested in their research (I have horror stories about gen chem and biochem for another thread/PM).]

Anyways, I thought maybe because I had taken classes in the area in question I could offer some insight to the OP. *I apologize for going OT and if I read intent where there was none...*

TLDR... Back on topic... I only posted Michiu's rant for anyone that wasn't familiar with it because it was brought up and I thought it was interesting... for my money he's a great guy, funny, makes complicated shit understandable (Sagan, Greene, Tyson, et al)... but he sometimes gets more OT and convoluted than my rant here... and when it comes to "cosciousness" everyone is just positing theories anyways...


----------



## Cadavuh (Sep 21, 2011)

Jbroll post incoming,

Not trying to be passive-aggressive, I was honestly just curious. There is a lot of pseudo-sciencey talk in the OT subforums and it is nice to see that someone who I see posting actually has experience in how science is conducted. I am not trying to sound condescending here. I think people should be picking up and reading real physics textbooks if they are interested, rather than reading these layman books written by famous physicists. 

Anyways, I just want to note that there is a difference between a mathematical model(theory) and an ontological interpretation of that model. We have a mathematical theory that can model quantum behavior(which, I might add, has been rigorously tested and offers a plethora of technological applications i.e. lasers and transistors), this model is open different interpretations. These interpretations can be said to be merely a matter of opinion.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 21, 2011)

Cadavuh said:


> Jbroll post incoming,
> 
> Not trying to be passive-aggressive, I was honestly just curious. There is a lot of pseudo-sciencey talk in the OT subforums and it is nice to see that someone who I see posting actually has experience in how science is conducted. I am not trying to sound condescending here. I think people should be picking up and reading real physics textbooks if they are interested, rather than reading these layman books written by famous physicists.
> 
> Anyways, I just want to note that there is a difference between a mathematical model(theory) and an ontological interpretation of that model. We have a mathematical theory that can model quantum behavior(which, I might add, has been rigorously tested and offers a plethora of technological applications i.e. lasers and transistors), this model is open different interpretations. These interpretations can be said to be merely a matter of opinion.


 




But I do love guys like Greene, Hawking, and Sagan that bring science to the masses. Even though people can't do the higher order math, they should be able to appreciate the concepts. And Greene is really good about footnoting his math, so that dilligent readers can delve further if they choose... 

Plus I like to think of guys like Greene as being the gate-way drug for future physicists.

Oliver Sacks was my gate-way drug to neurology!


----------



## Edika (Sep 21, 2011)

Cadavuh said:


> Jbroll post incoming,
> 
> Not trying to be passive-aggressive, I was honestly just curious. There is a lot of pseudo-sciencey talk in the OT subforums and it is nice to see that someone who I see posting actually has experience in how science is conducted. I am not trying to sound condescending here. I think people should be picking up and reading real physics textbooks if they are interested, rather than reading these layman books written by famous physicists.
> 
> Anyways, I just want to note that there is a difference between a mathematical model(theory) and an ontological interpretation of that model. We have a mathematical theory that can model quantum behavior(which, I might add, has been rigorously tested and offers a plethora of technological applications i.e. lasers and transistors), this model is open different interpretations. These interpretations can be said to be merely a matter of opinion.



Of course the best way to learn and understand physics is by reading physics textbooks. But the layman books can spark the imagination as most textbooks, physic textbooks are usually dry (the higher the level the dryer the textbook). Reading the layman books or having good teachers can give you a larger picture of physics and keep you motivated when reading the real deal. But I think I understand to which people yo are referring to. People that read a simplified book and then discuss about the topics as though they are experts until they realize to whom they are talking to (I have met quite a few).

And I agree, math is math. It is mostly a physicists job to use math to try and interpret physical phenomena.One example is imaginary numbers as a mathematical creation and it's applications to quantum, nuclear, astrophysics, solid state physics and so on. Even though some theoretical models are well formulated and accepted by their peers, only rigorous experimental work can prove if they are just intellectual creations or closer to "reality".


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 21, 2011)

Cadavuh said:


> Jbroll post incoming,
> 
> Not trying to be passive-aggressive, I was honestly just curious. There is a lot of pseudo-sciencey talk in the OT subforums and it is nice to see that someone who I see posting actually has experience in how science is conducted. I am not trying to sound condescending here. I think people should be picking up and reading real physics textbooks if they are interested, rather than reading these layman books written by famous physicists.
> 
> Anyways, I just want to note that there is a difference between a mathematical model(theory) and an ontological interpretation of that model. We have a mathematical theory that can model quantum behavior(which, I might add, has been rigorously tested and offers a plethora of technological applications i.e. lasers and transistors), this model is open different interpretations. These interpretations can be said to be merely a matter of opinion.



Dude, I have to disagree on every level imaginable with your first paragraph. There are tons of educated people posting on this site, moreso than any forum I've encountered, at least. Also, some of us haven't taken the prerequisite courses necessary to even grasping the slightest details of higher-level physics. Self-teaching yourself only goes so far, and requires an innate talent for the field that most of the very researchers in the field don't possess. Making generalizations is dangerous, man.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 22, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> There are tons of educated people posting on this site, moreso than any forum I've encountered, at least.



I think that if I were to judge based on the huge proportion of conspiracy threads (9/11, Apollo missions) and the like (ancient astronaut/pyramid construction, etc.), I might draw some conclusions about who really represents the status quo here. *chuckle*

I think we're fortunate in that the mods hold us to a higher standard of discourse here than other sites might attempt, and that imposition of more polite behavior makes it more likely that a reasonable viewpoint will develop consensus. 



Edika said:


> People that read a simplified book and then discuss about the topics as though they are experts until they realize to whom they are talking to (I have met quite a few).



I've been to too many presentations, open to the public, where the overconfident "expert" argues with those who work with phenomena every day. It's interesting and scary to see the blazing eyes of fervent and misunderstanding belief blazing out at you....


----------



## Cadavuh (Sep 24, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Also, some of us haven't taken the prerequisite courses necessary to even grasping the slightest details of higher-level physics.



Actually, a textbook like this one,

Amazon.com: University Physics with Modern Physics (12th Edition) (9780321501219): Hugh D. Young, Roger A. Freedman, Lewis Ford: Books

contains most, if not all, of the material that is taught the first 4 semesters of study in physics; mechanics, thermo/optics, E&M, and intro to modern. A read through this would significantly enhance and add depth to any sort of understanding one would obtain from reading layman books on string theory, general relativity, etc.. and it only requires some calculus(that is, if you are only doing a casual "read-through").



The Reverend said:


> Self-teaching yourself only goes so far, and requires an innate talent for the field that most of the very researchers in the field don't possess.



Making generalizations is dangerous, man.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 25, 2011)

Cadavuh said:


> Actually, a textbook like this one,
> 
> Amazon.com: University Physics with Modern Physics (12th Edition) (9780321501219): Hugh D. Young, Roger A. Freedman, Lewis Ford: Books
> 
> ...



Because the average layman rocks at calculus . 
And yeah, to the best of my knowledge (and a backup Googling) every physicist I'm aware of is positively dripping with degrees from places I will never step foot in. I don't think they got there by sitting in a bedroom reading textbooks, teaching themselves whatever unholy math goes on at those levels, with no guidance.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 25, 2011)




----------



## flo (Sep 25, 2011)

I find it remarkable that people who aren't physics students actually go and read physics books! Too bad one can't take a look into the book cadavuh has read, so I can't say anything about it. 
I'm in my third year of studying physics. When I think of quantum mechanics I think of the maths, and this is what my courses and books are about, it's maybe 90% about maths and 10% about the concepts. And, at least in my courses, there was no discussion whatsoever about what this "means" from a philosophical viewpoint. I find the discussion on here quite interesting. 
And thumbs up to everyone who is interested in this stuff!


----------



## Explorer (Sep 25, 2011)

The math behind quantum mechanics/physics is really what it means. If you take away the reliance on the math, you enable those who want to twist the 10% remaning to whatever their philosophy/sophistry may be in order to sell books. *laugh*

The problem with most internet discussion regarding quantum phenomena is that it's difficult to gather those who might know about it without either excluding those who don't, or those who don't overwhelm the others through sheer numbers. "We all agree that there's nothing without observation! How do your numbers explain *that*... keeping in mind that we don't know the numbers to begin with?!" *laugh*

----

I couldn't find anything on the Khan Academy dealing with this topic. Explorer search fail....


----------



## Ckackley (Sep 25, 2011)

First off, I don't agree with everything he says but Michio Kaku has an amazing way of explaining things and having them make sense. I'm reading a book of his now and have watched a TON of youtube video's and he's just awesome. 
I'm a big String Theory fan, as just reading about it a huge mind fuck. lol


----------



## Cadavuh (Sep 25, 2011)

Explorer said:


> The math behind quantum mechanics/physics is really what it means. If you take away the reliance on the math, you enable those who want to twist the 10% remaning to whatever their philosophy/sophistry may be in order to sell books. *laugh*




This is exactly what I was explaining in my post.


----------



## Cadavuh (Sep 25, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I couldn't find anything on the Khan Academy dealing with this topic. Explorer search fail....



, Khan Academy only covers the freshman, maybe first semester sophomore level of any subject that it offers lessons in. Physics majors don't reach quantum until at least junior, if not senior year.


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 27, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> "Consciousness is one of the great problems facing science. Some have claimed to have "explained" consciousness. But actually, most scientists cannot even define it, let alone explain it.
> Consciousness enters quantum physics because of the Schrodinger cat problem, perhaps the greatest paradox in all of science. If we put a cat in a box, and point a gun at the cat, which in turn is connected to a geiger counter sitting next to uranium, then we physicists describe the system as the sum of two wave functions. In one wave function, the cat is dead. In the other, the cat is alive. So, before we open the box, the cat is neither dead nor alive, but exists in a nether state. Once an observation is made, the cat suddenly "chooses" one state or the other, and we can then see that the cat is dead or alive (but not both).
> (Most people find this paradox silly, but it troubled Einstein for decades. He would ask his guests at night: does the moon exist because a mouse looks at it?)
> There are several ways to resolve this puzzle. The standard theory is to say that observation determines existence. So opening the box and making the measurement collapses the wave function and determines the state of the cat. This assumes that the sub-atomic world is different from the macroscopic world, that there is a "wall" separating the two. In the microworld, electrons can be two places at the same time, disappearing and reappearing all the time. But in the macroworld, cats are either dead or alive. (Lately, this standard picture has fallen into disfavor because, in nanotechnology, we can smoothly go from the macroworld and microworld and we do not encounter any wall.
> ...



i'm familiar with the third one. and it makes sense to me that all possibilities would have to exist, because it seems like the way we perceive time is wrong. we think of it sequentially when it actually extends in both directions infinitely and therefore has to happen instantly and last forever. the holy moment.

with that in mind. this container, which is basically infinity, must encompass everything. everything would have to include not only all matter and energy but also actions. because matter is actually composed of and defined by movement and action. so all those actions have to exist somewhere.


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 27, 2011)

Explorer said:


> The math behind quantum mechanics/physics is really what it means. If you take away the reliance on the math, you enable those who want to twist the 10% remaning to whatever their philosophy/sophistry may be in order to sell books. *laugh*
> 
> The problem with most internet discussion regarding quantum phenomena is that it's difficult to gather those who might know about it without either excluding those who don't, or those who don't overwhelm the others through sheer numbers. "We all agree that there's nothing without observation! How do your numbers explain *that*... keeping in mind that we don't know the numbers to begin with?!" *laugh*
> 
> ...



right, but remember also that math is used as a way to support these hypotheses. einstein was not so primarily concerned with math until he needed it to investigate his ideas.

and i think that's where science kind of breaks down. it's a system of measurement, but we're finding out that the more closely we observe something in trying to quantify it, the more ethereal it becomes.

and then again... ha!... we wouldn't have these questions in front of us if it weren't for trying to take a closer look in the first place.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 27, 2011)

Ancestor said:


> ...einstein was not so primarily concerned with math until he needed it to investigate his ideas.
> 
> and i think that's where science kind of breaks down. it's a system of measurement, but we're finding out that the more closely we observe something in trying to quantify it, the more ethereal it becomes.



Science isn't a system of measurement. Science is the search for the best explanation for the evidence, and then development and search for more evidence and explanation. It does use measurement, and measurement gets better and better as time goes on. 

Science doesn't "break down." I suspect that the break down occurs when people who don't know the science, and the evidence (and math!) behind it, don't understand what is going on, and insist on the truth of things based on their lack of understanding. 

The idea that the math was just an afterthought to Einstein is an interesting assertion. It's almost like leveling the playing field between relativity and stoned college dorm hypotheses about the atoms in one's thumbnail being a complete universe... except that one has more rigor and, yes, evidence (thanks in part to math to evaluate that evidence).


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 27, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Science isn't a system of measurement. Science is the search for the best explanation for the evidence, and then development and search for more evidence and explanation. It does use measurement, and measurement gets better and better as time goes on.
> 
> Science doesn't "break down." I suspect that the break down occurs when people who don't know the science, and the evidence (and math!) behind it, don't understand what is going on, and insist on the truth of things based on their lack of understanding.
> 
> The idea that the math was just an afterthought to Einstein is an interesting assertion. It's almost like leveling the playing field between relativity and stoned college dorm hypotheses about the atoms in one's thumbnail being a complete universe... except that one has more rigor and, yes, evidence (thanks in part to math to evaluate that evidence).



science isn't measurement? are you sure?

and i never said it was an afterthought. i said it didn't become his overriding concern until later.  he says he wasn't good at math, but his idea of what was good was "relative" if you will.  he was obviously swinging a pretty big bat in that category.


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 27, 2011)

look, i suck at math. i'll be the first to admit it. all i'm saying is that math isn't the alpha and omega.

if it is, then use math to explain what thought is? math comes from thought and not the other way around.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 27, 2011)

Philosophy of science argument going on here? lol

With respect to the "break down" argument... science generally works in the following method: 

general--> specific --> general 

(same way you write research papers and journal articles)

As far as math is concerned, math is the language, as well as the evidence/proof, of many of the sciences. Upper level physics classes were mostly math oriented. Einstein was famous for thought experiments, as were many of his contemporaries, but it was largely due to the fact that you could not test many of their theories with the equipment of their day. e.g. We can't test many of the aspects of string or M-theory today, because instrumentation can't currently test at or below (or even near) planck length.

FWIW... the Scientific Method, at least with respect to the physical sciences, focuses on: empiricism, testing, measurement, and replication. 

And math was very important to Einstein (as it is to all physicists)... although his skills were subpar to many of his contemporaries, that was due to him being a genius theoretical physicist as opposed to strictly being a mathematician... and the fact that he was innovating leaves some room for error, as opposed to his followers that are only proofing his work (he did make a lot of silly errors that some harp on).

Back OT... 

Either way, _I'm_ excited... this doesn't invalidate anything Einstein did... this simply reaffirms his genius and his work, or it will take it to another exciting level. Although light speed being a constant is a central tenet of his theory of invariance (change name to _semi_-variance?), there are many other aspects that are still held up. Perhaps there _are_ multi dimensions (10, 11, etc) and since Einstein was only working with spacetime (4d), he didn't allow for that deviance from _c_. Just a thought... but it would certainly explain why there could be unaccounted for variance from the current constant.

Faster Than Light Neutrinos Do Not Time Travel To Spoil Your Date 

And can I just say... I never thought I'd be discussing this type of stuff on a guitar forum! Maybe if you guys spent half as much time practicing your sweeps you wouldn't suck as much as I do at guitar...


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 27, 2011)

Even better article:

Neutrinos CAN Go Faster Than Light Without Violating Relativity


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 27, 2011)

"The pedagogic extra dimension example was mentioned because it is so very intuitive; lay people can plainly &#8216;see&#8217; how faster than light propagation does not kill Einstein&#8217;s relativity. Let us investigate this today without extra dimensions. Just to remark quickly on the current relevance of all this: If, as was reported [1], neutrinos actually went faster than light from CERN to OPERA in Italy&#8217;s Gran Sasso, which I hold unlikely, they can do so without violating relativity or causality not only in case something jumps into extra dimensions but also if everything stays inside our usual three dimensional space."

there you have it.


----------



## Cadavuh (Sep 29, 2011)

Gents, I give you the great Richard Feynman.


----------

