For those who have never had the opportunity or privilige to see what Quantum Mechanics is all about then here is a small introductory. Of course I am no expert or even a beginner! I am just a traveler with a curious mind. Those who have knowledge in the area then please share your knowledge in a easy language (if possible)about the subject.

and so we begin....

According to Niels Bohr, the father of the orthodox 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum physics, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it". As seen by a layman, quantum mechanics appears to be more like a bizarre phenomenon or science fantasy flick, full of jargons and complicated mathematical equations. However, it is easier to take a look at the basics of quantum mechanics, provided one isn't baffled by the fact that every electron is a particle, as well as a wave at the same time.

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics which deals with the study of particles to the extent of atomic and sub-atomic level.

The term 'Quantum Mechanics' was given by Max Born in 1924.

With the discovery of electron, by J.J. Thomson, in the year 1932, the whole idea of classical physics was shown to be inapplicable at the atomic level.

Classical physics which was governed by the Newton's laws of motion and Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, was used to define and predict the motion of particles.

But this theory was not able to explain the following three critical and world famous experiments:

1.Black Body Radiations: According to the classical theory, a black body would emit infinite amount of energy, which was not true. Max Plank developed an equation and came up with Plank's constant (h) for energy radiated in black body emission.

2.The Photoelectric Effect: The phenomena of photoelectric effect occurs when electrons are released from certain metals, by the action of light. The electromagnetic theory of light predicts different results than what is recorded experimentally. Using the Plank's constant 'h', Einstein worked out a formula for the energy of electrons emitted in the photoelectric effect in the year 1905.

3.Optical Line Spectra: Neils Bohr conducted an experiment to study the optical line spectra and gave the famous Bohr's model of atom.
All the formulations by these three scientists laid ground for the Old Quantum Theory. It was further amended by scientists like W. Heisenberg and E. Schrodinger to form the New Quantum Theory.

Basics of Quantum Mechanics

Following are some of the basic points for understanding quantum mechanics:

Schrodinger's 'cat in the box' experiment: This is a hypothetical experiment in which we put a cat inside a box with some equipment which releases poisonous gas on detection of electrons.

In this case, after an hour, one would say that he doesn't know whether the cat is dead or alive, and this can be known only by looking inside the box.

But according to quantum theory, it is better to say the cat is half dead or half alive, until we check on it.

Confused! Smiless surely is!

Actually it is based on the basic assumption of probability and not the fact. Fact comes in picture when we actually see inside the box, till then it's all about probability.

•Energy is quantized i.e. it is in form of 'quanta' or small packets. Sounds illogical, but this is the very basic principle followed by scientists working in the field of quantum mechanics.

•Moving objects don't have a well defined position. We can just graphically represent the probability of the existence of that object with respect to time.

•Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: It states that, the more precisely the energy of an object is known, lesser is certainty in calculation of its position in time, and vice versa. This is also applicable for the position and momentum of an object.

•Quantum mechanics allows one to think of interactions between correlated objects, at a pace faster than the speed of light. It also lays down the foundation of the advanced Theory of Relativity.

•The empirical properties of light cannot be explained if it is considered to be a wave or particle. It can be explained only when light is considered to be both.

At the initial stage, one might find his brain circuits getting fused, while reading about the basics of quantum mechanics.

But as he goes deeper into the intricacies and complexities of equations, and sees the application in real life, he is bound to be fascinated.

The world is not just what is seen by naked eyes, but something which is far beyond our comprehension.

Quantum mechanics has revolutionized the study of physics, and opened the gateway to see new horizons.

ok

Pretty scary to meet one of those that is for sure!

Although I struggle to grasp much of it, quantum mechanics is fun to read about. I have a good book at home... I'll can't remember the name right now, that tries (sometimes in vain) to put it in layman's terms. I'll have to find that and post the title. It's incredibly fascinating.

Watch.."What the bleep do we know..down the rabbit hole."
Fascinating!

Nice encapsulation. Though I was unaware that "quantum mechanics allows one to think of interactions between correlated objects, at a pace faster than the speed of light."

Last I checked, the EPR conjecture was never fully resolved.

Also, can you elaborate on how quantum theory has laid the foundation of an advanced Theory of Relativity? I was under the impression that field theorists were at an impasse vis a vis the melding of Relativity with Quantum Theory.

Personally, I think physicists will never find their theoretical graviton - a shortcoming that'll eventually spawn a more complete theoretical view of the universe that's even more bizarre than Quantum Theory (similar to the way Newtonian motion/gravity was eclipsed by Einstein's far wackier spacetime portrait of motion/gravity).

It seems the adage is true - the universe is not just stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.

Your correct.

I however disagree and think we will certainly have a much better understanding of the graviton before humanities existence ends.

Trying to make any epistemological claims to what we will know and when is useless, but I like to stay positive.

That depends on what you mean by 'resolved'.

It was indeed resolved with respect to the original argument. This was resolved by John Stewart Bell in a mathematical theorem (not a theory). A mathematical theorem is a proof, not a mere speculation. Bell's theorem proved that Einstein's argument could not be supported and that Neils Bohr's argument had to be accepted as true.

So the EPR conjecture has been fully resolved in that sense.

But now if you're saying that quantum entanglement has never been understood or 'resolved' in terms of cause and effect, then no, of course it hasn't been. That was Niels Bohr's position. Neils Bohr was arguing that no cause and effect explanation can be given. Unless we accept the truth of quantum complementarity (or superposition). In other words Niels Bohr is simply suggesting that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is indeed correct. In that case then it has been "resolved" because that is the answer.

The only reason it might appear to be 'unresolved' to some people is because they don't understand Niels Bohr's position and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles and so they are still holding out for a 'cause and effect' explanation.

Niels Bohr is simpley saying that "superposition" is the "cause" and therefore it's also the explanation.



I'm on board with you on this one. I don't believe in the graviton either. I think General Relativity makes far more sense in terms of warped spacetime just as it stands.



I also believe that this is true too.

Yet there are many people who refuse to consider this possibility. They are still holding out for nice neat Newtonian cause-and-effect relationships that describe the whole universe is just a huge deterministic billiard ball table.

Dont listen to abra, he makes ultimate conclusions from incomplete data.

I was going to report your post Jeremy but I chose not to. Not because it's not breaking the forum rules, it most certainly is. It's a direct judgment and slander of another member.

But instead of reporting you I've chosen to just give you the warning unoffically myself.

Say what you will about my position. But when you stoop to trying to discredit someone you're clearly displaying your own inability to make a case for your own positions.

I stand by everything I say, and if you disagree with my views more power to you. But making totally unwarranted personal attacks on me in the hopes of swaying other members to discredit me only shows your own desperation in being unable to come back with genuinely intelligent counterpoints.

Clearly you feel that you cannot make a good counterpoint to my position. So you take the backdoor approach of trying to discredit me on a personal basis.

Shame on you.

I'd like to ask something, I'm no expert about this stuff but my question would be this, I seem to remember something about the mere observance of something changes it, my question is this, if this it true, and things at that level such as string theory, How do we know it changes it by observing.. how do we say just because we saw it, it's now different. We have no idea what it was like before we saw it, so how do we know it changed?

I'll be glad to offer you my personal opinions on this one.

My first personal opinion is that it's actaully incorrect to say that something had 'changed'. In a sense that implies that it had previously existed in a particular state and changed from that particular state into another particular state.

It is my understanding that what Quantum Mechanics is actually stating mathematically is that before a quantum phenomenon has been 'observed' (become manifest in the physical macro realm) it has no definite state at all. All that can be said is that some specific state of physical manifestation springs up from a perviously unmanifest well of potentiality often refered to as a 'state of superpositions' (i.e. a superposition of possible configurations of manifestation for the quantum event in question).

So from my understanding of the mathematics of QM, there is no definite initial state to change from. All that exists (if it could be said to exist at all) is a well of infinite posiblities commonly referred to as a 'superposition' of possible states.

The second thing that I would offer is that there is much ambiguity with the term "observation". Observation implies that a conscious mind must be involved. However, from the purely mathematical point of view of QM there is no requirement that any such thing as consciouness even exist much less be required to be involved in the process.

In pure mathematical terms an 'observsation' is simply any interaction between the unmanifest world of quantum superposition and the manifest world of a 'measurable observerable'.

That's probably where the 'observation' part comes in. Physicists speak about the macro events in the universe as 'observables'. Things that we can actually measure and detect in practice.

Therefore any quantum event that becomes manifest in the macro universe in a way that is 'measurable' then qualifies as a 'measurble observable' whether any conscious mind is aware of it or not.

So this is where that kind of 'observer-created' reality comes from.

However, even philosophers who recognize this precise mathematical description will argue that we cannot know anything that we haven't observed.

I mean that's a given is it not?

If we haven't observed it, how can we know that it exists?

Therefore they argue that there can be no such thing as an unobserved event. Or more to the point we could never know that such a thing as an unobserved event had ever existed because the only way we could know of it is to observe it.

So at that point it becomes a philosophical debate that can go on for all of eternity and never be resolved.

Hope this helps.

Thanks thats what I was getting at.. and yes it helps... but one thing, if something does not exsist, and then it does exsist it could never not exsist again correct. thus the idea that something created from nothing actually is true, but on the flipside you can never completely destroy anything.

No not really. Energy is always conserved in the process. So in that sense no energy is being created or destroyed.

A better way to think of it is in terms of information.

A quantum event usually doesn't just pop into existence out of nowhere (unless it pops into existence as a matter/anti-matter pair) which then either quickly annihilate one another, or continue to exist with energy still being conserved because of the existence of the antimatter particle (which will ultimately eventually annihilate with some matter particle at some point in time taking that matter particle with it when it goes).

So there is never a violation of creating matter or energy that didn't already exist.

Think of it in terms of the universe changing form in a 'quantum' way.

A quantum event is one where some preexisting form of matter or energy changes instantaneously into a different form of matter or energy. What Quantum mechanics is ultimately saying is that this process is indeed quantized and not a continuum.

In other words, the information is in one state at one moment, and then in no state (or a superposition of all states) however you care to think of it, and then it reappears in another state.

So all it's really saying is that the process of transformation is 'quantized' rather than continuous. (.i.e. this is why it's called "Quantum Mechanics).

There cannot be a continuous change. It must be abrupt and discrete.

Therefore during the transition period it can't be said to have an intermediate state.

It has nothing to do with any violation of energy conservation or anything like that. It's just describing transformations of states of existing energy from one form of information into another form of information and saying that this process must necessarily be abrupt and discontinuous (i.e. it must be quantized).

It's a mathematical theory that says that reality is quantized and not continuous. Quantum Mechanics.

And it puts forth that Planck's Constant is the value of this quanta.

Again, I hope this helps.

This is the part that is important.

When you say, "all that can be said", you are making an epistemic statement on what we know. This should be a big clue.

When we label what actually happens we are detailing an ontological happening (at best we can label what we see happening given our methods of detection, so this becomes representational as well), an epistemic interpretation is then twice removed from reality and representational of the ontological representation at best.

Mathematical statements are representative of the ontological happening but do not necessitate an epistemic conclusion, which is what abra is doing.

He is concluding that we are at the limits of our understanding, that nothing else can be known(knowledge = epistemic) about this ontological system.

Its correct to say that all that can be said is what is happening (given the interactions within the given system and our detection methods for detailing those interactions), its incorrect to say that is all that can EVER be said about what is happening, or about the possible knowledge of what is happening, that is a fallacy on any topic QM or otherwise. If our math allowed us to make every calculation from first principles via quantum mechanics then that would quell this debate entirely, it does not and thus supports the idea that we are missing tools.

I will make a thread about this issue and how many people fool themselves into such conclusions based on less then ideal ontological data. Fool is the key word.

You are correct GRIFFIN_LIZZARD when you said that no resolution has been made in relation to ERP, nor quantum phenomena.

The uncertainty principle simple states the ontological state of affairs, not the ultimate nature of knowledge.

You are the one who is jumping to conclusions about me Jeremy.

All I ever have spoken to is "Quantum Mechanics" period.

Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical description. Period.

You are the one who's been going off into la la land of jumping to epistemological speculations that have absolutely nothing to do with the mathematics of QM.



Fine.

The uncertainy principle is part of the mathematics of QM.

So I'm just sticking to speaking about what QM is actually stating mathematically.

You're the one who's jumping off the deep end of epistemology making all sorts of speculations about what we might actually be able to know outside of what QM might be saying mathematically.

I'm glad you've finally cleared this up for everyone.

I've never claimed at any point that QM necessarily must be true, or that it will never be shown to be false, or any such thing.

All I'm saying is that based on the mathematical model of QM nothing more can be said about the sate of quantum events.

All you are saying is "Well maybe QM could be wrong!"

I'm not trying to claim that QM can never be proved to be wrong.

I'm just elaborating on what the mathematics of QM actually states.

So you're the epistemologist around here. Not me!

Ok, so stop making ultimate conclusions. All we can say about QM is that its weird, makes accurate calculations, and is troubling for modern physics.

We need new maths to actually explain these things, your idea of if that will ever happen is pure speculation.

Thanx indeed, James.
Your straight-forward ("beautiful") explanations enable my perceiving the essence of QM much better than those of smiless -- though I'm greatful for his efforts in educating the masses!
Nevertheless, while your's actually describes some laws/rules, his explanation really resembles the following:

Though, I hope he will not stop at that...

P.S.
As I stated in one of the earlier posts,

(by no means do I imply that smiless is "ugly"!)

I’d like to chime in on the ontic.vs.epsitemic issue.

Put simply, (and yes, possibly oversimplified – but I believe accurate enough for practical use within the current context) …

epsitemic = “what we know” or “knowledge” or “understanding”.
ontic = “what is” or “reality” or “demonstrable fact”

To me, something that is ontic (real), is of no use at all if it is not also epistemic (known). I have no use for an unknown reality.

If I have no knowledge of a thing, then it doesn’t matter to me if it’s real or not. I can’t use it or affect it in any way – at least not purposefully.

So to me, something that is ontic, but not epsitemic, is meaningless, superflous, irrelevant and useless.

Example: If I lived in the 15th century, the fact that the world was spherical would be utterly and completely useless to me.

On the other hand, something that is epistemic but not ontic can be of use.

Example: My own personal Philosophy is extremely useful to me in understanding and dealing with people and the world around me.

So to me, epsitemology is of primary importance, whereas ontology is all but insignificant.

ON the other hand, I do recognize the fact that the exact opposite is true for some people.

So what I wish for is that we can all accept that there are different viewpoints and avoid intellectual bigotry.

JMHO