The advertisements above do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog, its authors, or host.

Curious Quantum Questions

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Curious Quantum Questions”.

7 comments to Curious Quantum Questions

  • Hellooooooooo…………

    Echooooooooo………….

    :-(

  • Jim Shaver

    You don’t get a lot of comments here these days, huh, Bob? (I almost forgot my password.) Still, for whatever quantum of cheering-up it’s worth, I for one do still check in frequently.

    Also, I studied QM a little in college (undergraduate level), and I still don’t really get it. I much prefer the macro world anyway, especially certain soft, female parts of it.

    Keep on keepin’ on, Bob!

  • DLC

    But, what about the Star Trek Transporter device!? and all that cool quantum bollocks that’s supposed to cure every illness I ever had or will have ? Do you mean it doesn’t — can’t GASP! work ? You mean I’ll have to go back to Coral Calcium and Colon Cleanses ?
    Damn You! ! ! 11ty one!

  • mikekoz68

    So there is no discrete 3D model of a wave? (water waves are an abstract example?) The more I read about QM the more questions I have although the second emailer’s question actually helps to understand why the particle “interferes” with itself-its just completing the wave that it was/is a part of.

  • Drum Billet

    DLC, I hope this answers your question about transporters (lifted from wiki):

    In the science fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation, the fictional transporters used to “beam” characters to different locations overcame the sampling limitations due to the Uncertainty Principle with the use of “Heisenberg compensators.” When asked, “How does a Heisenberg compensator work?” by Time magazine on 28 November 1994, Michael Okuda, technical advisor on Star Trek, famously responded, “It works very well, thank you.”

  • The Blind Watchmaker

    Robert Lanza in Discover Magazine this year proposed a “radical new” idea to explain the wave-particle duality, the slit experiment and seemingly everything. He has a long-winded, sciency sounding argument that boils down to the idea that reality only exhists in the eye of the observer. Since things seem to be happening with consistancy, there must be an ultimate observer. If he did not use such round about sciency arguments, his article would be the poster for the Intelligent Design crowd.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos

  • woodle

    I Am Not A Quantum Physicist etc but I’ve read a lot about it over the years and I can’t let this one pass.

    The 3D wave picture you show is actually more relevant to Maxwell’s description of electromagnetic radiation, which is entirely classical and as such is not really relevant to a quantum explanation (at a high level at least).

    What “waves” in the quantum world is actually the probability of getting a particular answer for the measurement of some property of the “particle”, such as its position (strictly speaking it’s the probability amplitude that is wave-ish). I can kind of visualize it by thinking of variations in air pressure throughout a room, although mathematically that’s not really very close.

    There’s a great series of lectures by the great Leonard Susskind that might help, but they are long and don’t shy away from the maths – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhlfbWBuQ8&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=84C10A9CB1D13841

Leave a Reply