I have an idea.

There are two ways to approach these kinds of questions. (Questions like Jeremy just asked about electrons and how they interact with electric and magnetic 'fields')

One way to approach these questions is from an intuitive point of view. Meaning that we are seeking explanations that satisfy our "intuitive sense" of understanding.

I put forth that this approach is a purely philosophical approach and does indeed constitute Philosophy.

The second way to approach these questions is from a mathematical point of view. Meaning that we are seeking explanations that we can describe using mathematical equations or relationships.

I put forth that this approach is a purely scientific approach and is does indeed constitute Science (along with the scientific method of observation and experiment of course).

But ultimately science is seeking mathematical descriptions, whilst philosophers are seeking an intuitive understanding.

Can these two diverse methods be compatible? Well sometimes they can, and sometimes they can't. And that's simply because there exists mathematical descriptions that we can intuitively understand, and there exists mathematical descriptions that we can't intuitively understand.

And this is always true. By 'always true' I simply mean that it's even true with respect to pure mathematics. Take the real world out of the picture altogether and just look at pure mathematics and we find things that can be described mathematically yet not be understood intuitively (like Gabrial's Horn, for example). Or like the mere fact that current modern mathematical formalism demands that infinity comes in different cardinalities! There's no way that makes any intuitive sense!

So we already have a pure mathematical formalism that is already non-intuitive before we even enter the realm of physics and science.

My following comment is far beyond the scope of this post but I'd like to share it just the same:

"I believe that our current mathematical formalism is all wrong, and that it is indeed perfectly possible to define a far more intuitive mathematical formalism. One in which there is only one size of infinity (namely one that describes the endlessness of an unbound condition)."

In any case, I'm not even about to go there in this thread.

Let's get back to the main point:

There are two things that we as humans are seeking. We are seeking answers to questions that are philosophical in nature and we are seeking answers to questions that are scientific (or mathematical) in nature.

Philosophical questions take the form of, "I wanna know what the hell is going on!"

Scientific questions take the form of, "Can you describe this mathematically?"

With this in mind there are two ways to look at Quantum Mechanics.

You can look at it and say, "I wanna know what the hell is going on!"

Or you can look at the actual mathematical theory that is named "Quantum Mechanics" and simply ask, "What is it mathematically describing?"

If you do the former you will "Go down the drain." as Richard Feynman puts it, "No one understands how it can be like that."

However, if you're truly interested in what Quantum Mechanics is actually saying mathematically, that can indeed be understood in terms of mathematics.

If you can't understand the math, then it's not the physics you're not understanding, it's the math.

And if you're having intuitive problems with "Gabrial's Horn" or with the abstract mathematical declaration that infinity comes in many different cardinal sizes, then it's no wonder that you're having problems intuitively understanding the mathematics of QM.

So if you ask me if I understand QM - "The mathematical model". My answer is YES! I understand it perfectly.

If you ask me if I understand the mathematics intuitively, then my answer is NO! But then so what? We already know that even pure mathematical formalism can't be understood intuitively as it is currently defined!

I understand QM as well as our current mathematical formalism allows.

The only way to understand QM better is to fix up our mathematical formalism until IT makes perfect intuitive sense.

If we can't even do that, then we may as well throw our hands up in the air and confess that we truly don't know anything at all really, including mathematics. And we never really did know anything, we just thought we did.

To be perfectly honest about it I believe I know what's going on. I believe I know what is wrong with our mathematical formalism. QM is perfectly correct. It's our basic mathematical formalism that's wrong.

In fact, I'll even share the crux of the problem.

The universe is digital. It's discrete. It's not based on a continuum.

Our current formal mathematics is indeed based on the ideology of a continuum.

This is what leads to paradoxical things like "Gabrial's Horn" and the idea that infinity comes in different cardinal sizes.

Take that wrong idea away, and build a mathematical formalism based on Zeno's principle that the universe cannot be a continuum, and all of a sudden "Gabrial's Horn" is no longer a paradox. A mathematics based on a digital discrete approach also produces only one concept of infinity, not an infinity of different sized infinities. All of a sudden QM makes perfect intuitive sense!

Moreover, General Relativity would instantly become compatible with QM because it would no longer be mathematically based on a continuum. As soon as mathematics is corrected to properly reflect the digital discrete nature of the universe, then Einstein's General Relativity automatically becomes a 'quantum theory' by simple default. The mathematics that describes it has been changed to demand that all of its mathematical descriptions must become digital (i.e. quantized).

All the problems that we are having stem from the fact that mathematical formalism is based on the ideology that the world is a continuum, when in fact the world is digital (i.e. quantized), just like Quantum Mechanics demands.

Zeno of Elea from ancient Greece was right all along.

He nailed it. He was the greatest philosopher who ever lived.

~~~

You may now return to your normal delusions of an intuitive continuum.

(Please note: The above comment was aimed at all of humanity in general and at no one individual in particular)

James mentions,

If we can't even do that, then we may as well throw our hands up in the air and confess that we truly don't know anything at all really, including mathematics. And we never really did know anything, we just thought we did.


I say:

Okay I throw my hands up and don't know anything really. Believe it or not, I am fine with that!


But I will read about Zeno and see why he would be one of the greatest philosophers that existed in the world out of .... what else .... CURIOUSITY!

You're not going to see anything obvious just from reading about Zeno.

On the contrary Zeno's paradoxes of motion are probably the most misunderstood paradoxes in all of history.

Mathematicians believe that they have 'solved' Zeno's paradoxes via calculus. But it's not true. The didn't truly address Zeno's deepest philosophical concern.

In fact, the very definition of the Calculus Limit (formally defined by Karl Weierstrass) forbids the very conclusions that mathematicians claim to be making.

So the whole Zeno thing has been thoroughly misunderstood even by mathematicians. And Calculus does not solve Zeno's fundamental objections. Although I can assure you that every mathematician in the world will deny this and the whole of the mathematical community will claim that I'm wrong. I am 'wrong' based on what they hold to be true.

But so what? I'm also claiming that all of mathematical formalism is wrong. So isn't that what I had said?

So no, you won't discover what I'm saying from reading about Zeno because Zeno has been misrepresented all through history and is still being misrepresented today.

If he had been understood and properly represented then we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in today.

That's my view.

Jeremy mentions:

We live in an electronic universe, the interactions of electrons and the EM field give rise to IMHO 90+% of the daily phenomena we observe.

I say:

This reminds me of a old 80s movie called Tron. Everything looked very different on this world in a electronic vision indeed.

And the ironic thing about it is that the producers probably have recognized this in real life to come up with such a movie later on.

It is interesting what you mention for it does raise a eyebrow indeed.

Light is just a vibration of the EM field. Light IS the field waving.

This feels like a episode of "Clash with the Titans" or something in here.

I guess I could install the commercials if you like.

We interrupt this program with a important message:

Regardless of how Quantum Mechanics looks and is for anyone don't forget to have a cup of tea and some snack food before going back to the program. We want you healthy for the next scene in

CLASH OF THE TITANS


And now back to the program

I can't imagine how it is like with scientists debating on such subjects. It just seems like alot of hot air always happens.

I mean could it be possible that there are many ways to identify quantum mechanics useage or is there only one radical way in seeing all of this.

Of course I wonder why there are such disagreements in general.

I see that Metalwing had shown his reasons why he didn't agree with one view you offer, creative showed one view, and you had a chance to respond.

If anything we could all just respectfully disagree, but not get to the point where we act like we are going to lose half of the population of the planet because of it. Okay exxagerated I know! lol

I mean it is only a discussion. In the end we all have to study and discover for ourselves what is right or wrong if we are interested in the subject.

I think it would be fair if everyone would give a solid reason why a conclusion is wrong without insulting the effort of anyone posting in here and I think it is beneficial if we also answer in this manner.

It is not a light subject for anyone and most of us don't understand. The reason being is that most of us don't use quantum mechanics. At least not knowingly.


And who says that something new cannot be discovered. Perhaps something unique can be found. That is where the imagination is available to us and that is how other scientists of the days came to their conclusions of course with the knowledge they studied for endless hours to go with it.

Oh no I know that you are not the only one disagreeing. That is why I posted three of the main contributors to this thread asking what exactly is misunderstood or not agreed upon.

I ask this also so I don't have to scroll back to look for it. I am sure everyone can come up with a sentence explaining what they don't agree with now to keep all of us in perspective.

I mean perhaps there is a conjunction to it all and perhaps a solution to the problem if we work on it together. Scientists may disagree on certain elements, but they always try to work it out regardless of disagreements. I mean that is how we discover new things in life.

I am sure there is a way that we can all respectfully continue to discuss quantum mechanics together. What is important is we keep a open mind to different possibilities no matter how bizzare it might get.

Perhaps I am asking for too much, but in the end would anyone care to give a quantum mechanics introduction for beginners in laymen terms. There are many who come in here to just have a glimpse of what it is.

As you can see there are different idealogies that people pertain in all of the subjects in life. What is important is that we keep an open mind. Of course we don't have to agree with them and be 100% sure about it, but we can still act like adults and just respectfully disagree.

And if it is really so bad, we just ignore each others posts all together but continue to enjoy the topic at its best.

In the end each individual has to make a decision of what they believe to be true or not.

I hope for the sake of this science forum that the few who do post (and it isn't that many) will find ways to communicate with each other no matter how bizarre or different the idealogies may be.

James your view is not supported by some members. You can respect that can't you.

I mean in the end everyone can have their own opinion respectfully right.

Some prefer to see quantum mechanics worked differently no matter how certain it is for others.

It is just a part of life that we all view things differently.

I think what is going on is you believe they are rejecting quantum mechanics and they believe they are not rejecting it but actually explaining it in their view.

So here is the problem.

There are two different idealogies going on.

You are saying they are using a older version or something. Sorry I don't have the proper word useage here and that you are using the current version of a quantum mechanic system.


They are saying well you are not using it at all right.


So it is just a matter of opinion with a misunderstanding of how this mechanics work altogether.

I am sure whatever the case is we can just reply,I respectfully disagree, and that is it.

And I can imagine that Jeremy, Michael, and Joe can also say well that is not how I use it or believe to be true and just say I respectfully disagree for I see and use it differently.


And there you go I can continue to pass the mash potatoes around at the dinner table.

James mention also:

They are pretending to have accepted Quantum Mechanics when all they are truly doing is rejecting QM and trying to hold for classical explanations.

Why can't they just confess that this is what they are doing?


I think this would be a better answer in a open forum:

They believe in a different way of using Quantum Mechanics that doesn't fit in on how I use it.

It is just different idealogies going on that is all.

I think what is discussed in the last 5 pages is way beyond the basic introductory of Quantum Mechanics anyway. I was hoping to get laymen terms for the majority of us who are just curious about it.

but instead I got Quantum experts talking about it on a intermediate level.


I will just buy a book in the end and try to understand it, which I doubt it will ever happen, but you can't blame me for not trying.

Well thank you everyone for your time and effort in posting in this thread. I hope it stays alive in a healthy manner. I just realized this is not a light subject and it can become quiet sensitive at that.

I will refrain from this thread and move on to Galaxy 3 Sector 5.9 Dash 6

No one proposed a classical interpretation.

That is FACT. What abra is talking abour only abra knows.

I asked a simple question.

When light passes through a material is the phenomena always an absorbsion/ emission interaction? Is it ALWAYS in this way? For every material?Answer the question with YES, or NO.



YES OR NO and we can get to the bottom of this threads train wreck.

yanno what's funny?

I mostly know this stuff and I have no idea what ya'll are saying

I have no problem with that.

One ideology is to hold out for a classical explanation for QM.

Fine, why not just say so?

That's all I ask.

If I answer this question according to quantum theory the answer must be YES.

Especially if there is an 'observed' change in the light (like if it slowed down).

If I answer it as a human being my answer has to be, "I have no frigging clue!"

So when someone has an x ray every quanta of energy is adsorbed and remitted?


Just making sure you know what your saying . . .