The Best and Easiest Reading on Quantum Physics?

[reason1]

A lot of people (even some physicists) make the mistake of confusing Uncertainty (as per Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) with the problem of measurement induced uncertainty (not to be confused with The Measurement Problem ). HUP says there is an inherent uncertainty in various aspects of a particle independent of you trying to measure them. IOW, it's not just my eyesight, things really are fuzzy round the edges...

If I got your post right, I'm not confusing Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle with human measurement, as I know that Heisenberg said that it's just how nature works. But until now I still disagree with his interpretation, as measurement means interaction with other particles, which also means that every electron/photon is measured/observed all the time by other similar particles on earth, and I think this is why there is uncertainty when we hypothetically try to precisely measure the momentum and position of particles at any certain moment, but I think it's just because of the unbalanced interactions.

Prof. Feynman said that if you think you understand QM, you don't. It works, but we don't know how. That makes it entirely different from psychic and paranormal phenomena...

Well, this also applies to my paranormal/unexplainable claim, as we will know that it works but we won't know how at that time .

 

[brobradh77]

My physics rofessor said it best IMO...If you understand quantum physics you really dont understand it at all.

 

[reason1]

My physics rofessor said it best IMO...If you understand quantum physics you really dont understand it at all.

Yeah, this is true, but only if you don't know how to experimentally demonstrate your understanding!.

 

[eirik]

If I got your post right, I'm not confusing Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle with human measurement, as I know that Heisenberg said that it's just how nature works. But until now I still disagree with his interpretation, as measurement means interaction with other particles, which also means that every electron/photon is measured/observed all the time by other similar particles on earth, and I think this is why there is uncertainty when we hypothetically try to precisely measure the momentum and position of particles at any certain moment, but I think it's just because of the unbalanced interactions.

For people reading this- this is just made up.

 

[reason1]

If I got your post right, I'm not confusing Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle with human measurement, as I know that Heisenberg said that it's just how nature works. But until now I still disagree with his interpretation, as measurement means interaction with other particles, which also means that every electron/photon is measured/observed all the time by other similar particles on earth, and I think this is why there is uncertainty when we hypothetically try to precisely measure the momentum and position of particles at any certain moment, but I think it's just because of the unbalanced interactions.

For people reading this- this is just made up.

Which part do you mean ?.

 

[eirik]

"But until now I still disagree with his interpretation, as measurement means interaction with other particles, which also means that every electron/photon is measured/observed all the time by other similar particles on earth"

This.

 

[reason1]

"But until now I still disagree with his interpretation, as measurement means interaction with other particles, which also means that every electron/photon is measured/observed all the time by other similar particles on earth"

This.

OK, let's divide and conquer! . Which part of the following do you mean:
"But until now I still disagree with his interpretation".
", as measurement means interaction with other particles".
"which also means that every electron/photon is measured/observed all the time by other similar particles on earth".

 

[eirik]

Off course I mean the statement:

"which also means that every electron/photon is measured/observed all the time by other similar particles on earth"

I quoted the sentence for context. Your statement that everything is measured/observed all the time doesn't really make sense. Because it's wrong. Unless you define "observe" or "measure" in a very strange and unorthodox way, like for example in your challenge thread.

And your assumption in the following isn't all that logical. Why does one follow the other?

as measurement means interaction with other particles, which also means that every electron/photon is measured/observed all the time by other similar particles on earth

This is what I meant. I just thought it obvious.

 

[AntiTelharsic]

I'm really looking forward to understand it at least at the fundamentals, but unfortunately most references out there are too technical and/or sophisticated for my lay mind.

Then the simple fact is that you're not going to get it. Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model, and as such it is expressed in the language of mathematics. If you do not have the requisite mathematics, then you absolutely will not understand the model.

Is there any online source with I can get to satisfy this need? Something like the idiot's guide to QP, or QP commentaries for dummies, etc?

Repeat after me: "Quantum Mechanics is not for dummies."

Would you expect to be able to find "Neurosurgery For Dummies", and be able to get anything remotely meaningful or useful from it? Why would physics be any different? Do you suppose there's a reason people devote years of study to these subjects, rather than simply getting everything they need to know from an afternoon with Cliffs Notes?

Any picture you get from some layman's resource will not be a picture of Quantum Mechanics; it will be some half-baked collection of bogus analogies, and if you proceed from there all your questions and conclusions will be completely meaningless because you'll be thinking about billiard balls instead of what physicists are actually thinking about. It will do you more harm than good because everything you'll think you understand will bear no resemblance to the truth, and you'll struggle with why all the other things don't make sense because you'll completely lack any of the tools required in order for them to make sense.

I speak from experience, here, because that's exactly what I spent my time doing before I decided to go and get a mathematical education. It was only after I did so that this stuff began to click.

If this sounds harsh, it's not meant to be insulting -- it's only meant to be blunt and honest. There's no royal road to Quantum Mechanics.

 

[H3LL]

I think it's actually very important to stare at the particle.


.

 

[eirik]

I disagree with you here, AntiTelharsic. I am not a physicist myself, but I still commend the OP for wanting to learn more on a subject, even if it is complex. One has to start somewhere

I think it is possible to have some meaningful insights in quantum mechanics without the mathematics, just as a laymans understanding. I also understand at some level what a neurosurgent does, but I wouldn't try it at home.. I recognize that my understanding is overly simplified, but that does not mean it is a total waste. I do often recognize false claims and statements based on QM when I see it, often in woo-adds and used by new agers and so on. The most common error, I would think, is to apply QM principles in the macro world. I have also learned by QM that some strange phenomenas are not not voodoo, but scientifically explainable occurences.

And I find it interesting, in the same way that 'macro' physics and astronomy gives me a better understanding of the world.

Eirik

 

[eirik]

I think it's actually very important to stare at the particle

Yes, staring at the particle will actually collapse the brain function. Then you will have no way of knowing if anything is relevant at all

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Then the simple fact is that you're not going to get it. Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model, and as such it is expressed in the language of mathematics. If you do not have the requisite mathematics, then you absolutely will not understand the model.



Repeat after me: "Quantum Mechanics is not for dummies."

Would you expect to be able to find "Neurosurgery For Dummies", and be able to get anything remotely meaningful or useful from it? Why would physics be any different? Do you suppose there's a reason people devote years of study to these subjects, rather than simply getting everything they need to know from an afternoon with Cliffs Notes?

Any picture you get from some layman's resource will not be a picture of Quantum Mechanics; it will be some half-baked collection of bogus analogies, and if you proceed from there all your questions and conclusions will be completely meaningless because you'll be thinking about billiard balls instead of what physicists are actually thinking about. It will do you more harm than good because everything you'll think you understand will bear no resemblance to the truth, and you'll struggle with why all the other things don't make sense because you'll completely lack any of the tools required in order for them to make sense.

I speak from experience, here, because that's exactly what I spent my time doing before I decided to go and get a mathematical education. It was only after I did so that this stuff began to click.

If this sounds harsh, it's not meant to be insulting -- it's only meant to be blunt and honest. There's no royal road to Quantum Mechanics.

I understand your point, primarily because I don't know enough to be any good at QM and I know I don't know. The Physics community has not done a good job of explaining to the public why such things are not accessible to the unprepared and this seems to hold for QM, relativity, thermodynamics, e&m, ad infinitum.

The problem, I think, is that QM (substitute any of the others) seems to be something we can all talk about and even speculate on, using ordinary language. There's no corrective mechanism that says, "Jeez, you're way over your head!" as there is, for example in Computational Fluid Dynamics (Nobody ever discusses that over a six-pack!), where you realize you've nothing to say after about three words.

I'd welcome some dialogue at the national level on a minimum math preparation for high school graduates and for college graduates. In the meanwhile, your advice to the OP is blunt but not harsh - only helpful.

 

[reason1]

Your statement that everything is measured/observed all the time doesn't really make sense. Because it's wrong...And your assumption in the following isn't all that logical. Why does one follow the other?

I meant that, when you're (even hypothetically) measuring/observing a particle like an electron, you must be interacting with it at the same time too, as Heisenberg was arguing using the imaginary microscope which somewhat resembles the finger in my argument.
And you know that particles are interacting with each other all the time on earth, and observation/measurement is just abstract of interaction. You have to open your mind when discussing quantum mechanics because if you don't, your mind might explode! .

Unless you define "observe" or "measure" in a very strange and unorthodox way, like for example in your challenge thread.

Are you kidding me, according to quantum mechanics, it's all about the unorthodox way, but as Heisenberg said that's just how nature works, and I also claim that in regard to my experiences (although I don't think that my definitions are strange or unorthodox).

This is what I meant. I just thought it obvious.

I know, I'm sorry I had to ask you, as you quoted the whole part as being made up the first time when I didn't think so, Also recall the smiley:

OK, let's divide and conquer! .

I think it's actually very important to stare at the particle.

Hi H3LL, where have you been!, I missed your avatar, really!. I wonder why you and most of your gang have gone away since my thread has been moderated. Are you going to derail this one too, I'm counting on you .

 

[eirik]

And you know that particles are interacting with each other all the time on earth, and observation/measurement is just abstract of interaction

No, I don't know that. I know that according to Heisenberg, measuring will interact with an object. But to turn that around and say that all interaction is the same as measurement/observation is just not correct.

That is the same as saying that talking is really just airwaves producing sound. Therefore all airwaves are speech. Not good reasoning, and a formal fallacy I'm sure. If this is where you disagree with Heisenberg, I think I'll stick with the old man on this one.

But the context is also a fairly new appoach as far as I'm familiar with the subject:

But until now I still disagree with his interpretation, as measurement means interaction with other particles, which also means that every electron/photon is measured/observed all the time by other similar particles on earth, and I think this is why there is uncertainty when we hypothetically try to precisely measure the momentum and position of particles at any certain moment, but I think it's just because of the unbalanced interactions.

What exactly is an unbalanced interaction? And can we solve the Heisenberg problem once and for all if we understand the term?

 

[eirik]

where did everybody go?

 

[Ashles]

Not forgetting, of course, that the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is that if you try to extend quantum phenomena to the macroscopic scale, you get results that are absurd.

Now I posted something similar to that a while back and got corrected on it by another poster here who several others appeared to agree with.

He stated that in theory those subatomic effects (indeterminacy etc.) could be scaled up so you could in fact have a real superpositioned cat (if you had some pretty specific circumstances).

I asked if in theory a cat could be fired through a macroscopic version of the double-slit experiment and yield the same results as the subatomic results and he said yes.

So that pretty much confused me about the micro/macro scaling issues.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Quantum Physics

Is there any online source with I can get to satisfy this need? Something like the idiot's guide to QP, or QP commentaries for dummies, etc?

I guess it depends on how much of an idiot/dummy you think you are

It's funny that you started this thread here rather in the science sub-forum ... I guess you're like me interested in the interpretation

I don't think you can separate the interpretation from depth of knowledge. A person well versed in the physics & mathematics of quantum physics is bound to have a different interpretation from a person whose knowledge is limited to an heuristic or layman level. So it all goes back to my question, meant to be both humorous & serious. Do you know any math at all? High school algebra? College calculus? More or less? Have you ever seen a physics or science class at any level? Are you interested in reading about the science of quantum physics or the philosophy of quantum physics? I can perhaps help with the former, but not much with the latter.

I was a philosophy major before I became a physics major, in which field I eventually graduated (BS, 1978; MS, 1985) & worked (retired last november). I found philosophy as a field to be rather less interesting from the inside than it looked from the outside, and I ran screaming in terror from philosophers. Thank heaven for physics.

As for online sources, these look decent to me.

Wikipedia - Introduction to quantum mechanics
Wikipedia - Quantum Mechanics
The introduction is less rigorous in content than the main article, which contains considerable mathematics. Both look correct to me, though as a general rule one must approach Wikipedia with some caution (i.e., their Scientific Method Page has been locked due to vandalism).

Usenet Physics FAQ
Scroll down to the "Quantum Physics" section. The few entries are all non-mathematical, so you should be able to read them with no math background at all. The host for the archive & author of some/much of the material is John Baez, a well known theoretical physicist.

Grains of Mystique: Quantum Physics for the Layman
Looks reasonable to me. The authors are both computer scientists and the material was vetted through the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup.

Quantum Physics
From the University of Winnipeg, Canada. Brief but hits the high points. You will need to be able to read algebraic equations.

History of Quantum Mechanics
A brief but accurate history of how quantum physics came to be, from the MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St. Andrew, Scotland.

Personal and Historical Perspectives of Hans Bethe
Hans Bethe (1906-2005) was one of the great names in physics for most of a century. This page links to 3 videos (in Quicktime format) of lectures Bethe gave, at the age of 93, at the Kendal Retirement Home in Ithaca, New York. "Intended for an audience of Professor Bethe's neighbors at Kendal, the lectures hold appeal for experts and non-experts alike. The presentation makes use of limited mathematics while focusing on the personal and historical perspectives of one of the principal architects of quantum theory whose career in physics spans 75 years."

There are other reliable online sources, but they require increasing amounts of familiarity with prerequisites in physics & math and are mostly not for non science audiences. Knowing no more than I do about what you really want to accomplish and at what level, that's the best I can do for now.

 

[reason1]

No, I don't know that. I know that according to Heisenberg, measuring will interact with an object. But to turn that around and say that all interaction is the same as measurement/observation is just not correct.

That is the same as saying that talking is really just airwaves producing sound. Therefore all airwaves are speech. Not good reasoning, and a formal fallacy I'm sure. If this is where you disagree with Heisenberg, I think I'll stick with the old man on this one.

Well, check the following post:

This is a very good question. It varies from entity to entity, and also it depends on the level of abstraction of the stimulus, for example :
Questions consist of words , which consist of letters, which consist of sounds , which consist of waves that have frequency and amplitude.
If an entity can memorize and recall certain number of waves as a sound , it's conscious in regard to hearing.
If an entity can memorize and recall certain number of sounds as a letter, it's conscious in regard to language.
If an entity can memorize and recall certain number of letters as a word of certain language, it's conscious in regard to this particular language.
If an entity can memorize and recall certain number of words as a question, it's conscious in regard to grammar.
And so on, the more a stimulus is abstract, the more is the delay to construct a unit for it before it can be memorized in the area which is reserved for this particular stimulus kind.
And then after a unit of stimulus is recalled, comes the appropriate response, which can be internal (e.g.: more abstraction) or external (e.g.: replying to the question).

But the context is also a fairly new appoach as far as I'm familiar with the subject:


What exactly is an unbalanced interaction? And can we solve the Heisenberg problem once and for all if we understand the term?

I'm very close to violating Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, very close than you've ever imagined!.

 

[eirik]

Now I posted something similar to that a while back and got corrected on it by another poster here who several others appeared to agree with.

He stated that in theory those subatomic effects (indeterminacy etc.) could be scaled up so you could in fact have a real superpositioned cat (if you had some pretty specific circumstances).

I asked if in theory a cat could be fired through a macroscopic version of the double-slit experiment and yield the same results as the subatomic results and he said yes.

So that pretty much confused me about the micro/macro scaling issues.

It's possible I don't understand your post here, but my understanding is that the a Schroedinger's box is a thought experiment(but possible) that shows how quantum physics can interact on a macro scale. I don't see how the double split experiment has anything to do with cats.. except that they are made of atoms.

The S-box has a quantum mechanical trigger, a radiation source who randomly and unpredictively shoots electrons on a detection device, which at some point releases a deadly gas, killing the cat. Did I miss anything?