"...fundamentally new in Physics."

When has there been neutrality between someone watching and what is being watched? When doesn't the observer effect the observed and vice versa?

If I look at a river, I'm effecting the river and it is effecting me. Without me, it is not "River." It has no name. Without an observer, it cannot be wet, it cannot be cold or warm, it cannot be. Likewise, the river effects me. Its sounds, its wetness, its depth all effect me. This is the simplist possible relationship I can think of between two things. Observer, observed. And yet these scientists are talking about this concept being new.

What am I missing?

Click to expand...

I wont try to pretend I am able to explain this gobble-de-gook, other than, I’ve often thought about it in it’s simplest form and excepted the gobble-de-gook (As oh hum, okay) as something to think about at a later time when I feel like dreaming. And, when I’ve thought about it more, I wonder if I’m a crackpot and don’t know nottin about it, which is most likely true.

The gobble-de-gook:

---------------------------------------------------

In physics, quantum theory is a term that may be used to refer to several related types of theories which make use of quanta:

Old quantum theory under the Bohr model, early attempts to derive results from quantization of action

Quantum mechanics, a term used to refer to all theories using quanta, or specifically to the non-relativistic quantum theory.

Quantum field theory, a generic type of relativistic quantum theory, which includes:

Quantum electrodynamics
Quantum chromodynamics
Electroweak interaction

Quantum gravity, a general term for theories intended to quantize general relativity.

For a general introduction to the subject, see introduction to quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_theory

---------------------------------------------------

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) refers to an indivisible entity of energy. For instance, a photon, being a unit of light, is a “light quantum.” In combinations like “quantum mechanics”, “quantum optics”, etc., it distinguishes a more specialized field of study.

The word comes from the Latin “quantus,” for “how much.”

Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be “quantized”, referred to as "quantization". This means that the magnitude can take on only certain numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. For example, the energy of an electron bound to an atom (at rest) is quantized. This accounts for the stability of atoms, and matter in general

An entirely new conceptual framework was developed around this idea, during the first half of the 1900s. Usually referred to as quantum “mechanics”, it is regarded by virtually every professional physicist as the most fundamental framework we have for understanding and describing nature, for the very practical reason that it works. It is “in the nature of things”, not a more or less arbitrary human preference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum

---------------------------------------------------

As an arbitrary human preference, we look into the heavens at night and see as far as our eyes can see, or with a tellescope, as far as it can see. We may measure the veiw in relation to where we stand (In time) from it. The object we may be looking at could be a Nebula that measures hundreds, or thousands of light years in size from end to end. It’s placement is refrenced in time from the “Big Boom’ and so are we. This is quontom events.

It gets real hairy when you break it down into the quantum mathematics so to theorize it, measure it, or think about it.

I don’t even hope this will help you anymore than those books studied and I’m probably wrong in my thoughts about it too. I don’t know.

I’ve studied math to its extent and I loved it, but I’ve never got into this Gobble-de-gook. I wish I had.

I could then understand the wonders of the Universe, such as this:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp...31206183753.photo00.photo.default-317x512.jpg

A photo released 11 December 2006 by the European Space Agency (ESA) showing observations from the Hubble telescope which shed light on the real mass of a star previously believed to be amongst the heaviest known in the Milky Way. The star cluster Pismis 24 lies in the core of the large emission nebula NGC 6357 that extends one degree on the sky in the arm of the Sagittarius constellation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Crab_Nebula.jpg/603px-Crab_Nebula.jpg
The Crab Nebula, the shattered remnants of a star which exploded as a supernova almost 1000 years ago.

Bart -

If you really want to understand this -

Drink the Kool-Aid.

Have you read The Elegant Universe by Brain Greene? It's a "user friendly" book about string theory, hidden dimensions, and quantum mechanics.

Even trying to get a handle on quantum physics requires letting go of what you think of as common sense.

Good luck.

"The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done, is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us."

Or as my old pal Pedro says, 'There is nothing new under the sun.'

Bartholomew said:

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html



The math in physics boggles my mind. I have always respected physicists for their ability to reduce something complicated to its fundamental blocks.

But this is absurd. How can this be new to them? My incredulity expands as I read further.



When has there been neutrality between someone watching and what is being watched? When doesn't the observer effect the observed and vice versa?

If I look at a river, I'm effecting the river and it is effecting me. Without me, it is not "River." It has no name. Without an observer, it cannot be wet, it cannot be cold or warm, it cannot be. Likewise, the river effects me. Its sounds, its wetness, its depth all effect me. This is the simplist possible relationship I can think of between two things. Observer, observed. And yet these scientists are talking about this concept being new.

What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Think of a painting. Once you become part of the painting, the painting changes. You can no longer interpret the painting objectively - with an exterior point of view - if you are in immersed in it: if it is your dimension so to speak. Your actually presence in the painting affects the design, the colors, the scheme, the texture; it's totality. In other words, it's a different painting without you, but how can you see it if you are part of it?

On a personal level, you've probably experienced this dilemma. When you are trying to understand your place in a social situation, especially if you get a reaction you are not expecting, you try to distance yourself from yourself, to analyze why you got the reaction you did.

Probably not doing a very good job at interpretation this morning.

Oh. it was the catch 22 in it that was considered new and radical. As you can see, it would have huge iimplications if you cannot observe objectively.

Bartholomew said:

So you're agreeing with me that this isn't a new thing? Whew. I'm glad I wasn't being dense.

Click to expand...

Bart. it is/was radical if you apply it to physics, because it departs from the long accepted standard of being able to objectively test/observe the observable world. What can I say?

By the way, we're talking early twentieth century here.

You're kind of doing an apples and oranges types of thing, Bart. And yeah, I think you're missing their point somewhat. That's not a criticism . . . their point is extremely hard to gasp (trust me, I don't "get" all of it). That's why I asked whether you'd read The Elegant Universe, or something like it. Still, you're basically right in your premise (if not your examples); the observer often affects the experiment, and that's been accepted for a long time.

It's gets so complex and philosophical when dealing with these things that it's often hard to debate them without misunderstandings. I hope I haven't confused the issue more than helping.

Bartholomew said:

I'll take your word for it, then, until I read one of these books. I've never encountered something completely out of the reach of my understanding before. It would be humbling, if I believed it. How egotistical does that sound?

Click to expand...

I didn't mean it that way. I only meant it takes a bit of time to get familiar with some of the new theories (and I didn't go back and read the article you linked). They still haven't quite figured out how Einstein's theories ("big things") and quantum theories ("very small things") apply at the same time, but they're coming closer.

And the last word on physics hasn't been written. No doubt a hundred years from now the current theories will be outdated (assuming the world hasn't blown itself up by then).

By the way, I'm definitely not an expert. I know just enough to be dangerous.

And now, I'm off to do grocery shopping. I understand that theory . . . get in, get out, as quickly as possible.

Talk to you later.

This is the part I remember:

"According to quantum mechanics, electrons can be represented by wavefunctions, from which a calculated probabilistic electron density can be determined. The orbital of each electron in an atom can be described by a wavefunction. Based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the exact momentum and position of the actual electron cannot be simultaneously determined. This is a limitation which, in this instance, simply states that the more accurately we know a particle's position, the less accurately we can know its momentum, and vice versa.''

Which basically says by the time you know where it is - it's not there any more. What I take away from the article you linked to is the observation in itself influences the behavior of what's being observed. YMMV.

The whole basis of quantum mechanics is that if left alone, light reacts as a wave, if you attempt to measure it, light acts as a particle. This, of course, gave birth to the idea that the very act of observing scientific events can change the course of the event, even if only on a subatomic level. I think the reason this more suprising to scientists then to philosophers is that its the first time there's concrete proof even science isn't as cut and dry as the scientists would have you believe.

Yeah, this is a scandal. I'd like to know what the government are doing about it. I'll tell you what - nothing, that's what. There's some major problems in the quantin thingy and our relation to a river or a painting or whatever and no one is doing a damned thing.

Os.

Bartholomew said:

I'll take your word for it, then, until I read one of these books. I've never encountered something completely out of the reach of my understanding before. It would be humbling, if I believed it. How egotistical does that sound?

Click to expand...

Just keep in mind that many of the theories that were prevalent even a few decades ago are no longer worth the paper they were printed on. We now have technologies that allow us to observe things the early guys were not able to, which has spawned its own series of observational theory.

Much of the uncertainty aspect arose because of postulations that could not be 100% proven and (even more important) demonstrable. In many ways it was a backwards movement, because it sometimes called into question accepted theories based on nothing more than questions about observational objectivity.

Today, those who strive to quantify the Universe know they are dealing with a chaotic subject, and they must employ multiple approaches to determine the size of a star, its age, its relative distance to Earth, whether it has any satellites and, if so, what is their distance and orbital track in relation to their star, etc.

They also know that sometimes the term probable is the best you can hope to achieve, and to keep moving forward from there.

One time, I saw a cat with stripes.





The stripes were brown.

Bartholomew said:

I'm not sitting here trying to wrap my mind around some massively new concept. I'm trying to figure out why they think its new. My common sense knew this before they reported it. Either I'm missing their point, or they're very dense. I'd like to think its the former.

Click to expand...

Or neither. Physicists have been grappling with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle since he dropped that particular bomb.

The bit you quoted is just poorly worded. That's all.

alleycat said:

Have you read The Elegant Universe by Brain Greene? It's a "user friendly" book about string theory, hidden dimensions, and quantum mechanics.

Even trying to get a handle on quantum phyics requires letting go of what you think of as common sense.

Good luck.

Click to expand...

His 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' is equally user friendly.

I predict that such theories will be accepted fact in the next few hundred years - and scientists won't have to worry about the Inquisition stringing them up this time around.

String Theory. Pffffft.

robeiae said:

String Theory. Pffffft.

Click to expand...

Which one? There's about 500 of them.

robeiae said:

String Theory. Pffffft.

Click to expand...

Which one? There're about 500 of them.