Order and Chaos: Someone please help me to understand quantum mechanics

[Textcritic]

I figured that photon could help me out with this, but perhaps there are other scientific geniuses who can resolve my cluelessness.

I have a better grasp of biology than I do physics, but I generally love science, so I try to pay attention. Recently I watched the NOVA documentary The Elegant Universe, and last week one of the professors delivered a lecture in a religions class in which I am involved in about "creation". the lecture specifically pointed to the order and "design" in a mechanistic world for discerning purpose and arguing for a clear model of divine origin and sustenance. In the course of the lecture, I couldn't help but reflect upon the very limited bits of what I have learned regarding frontiers in physics and quantum theory, and how the scientific descriptions of randomness, matters of uncertain probability and chance at the sub-atomic level actually contradict much of what the lecturer was trying to convey. I wrote about it in a discussion forum that I moderate for the students, and received this response from one:

"I would hesitate to say that the world is chaos; while it is obviously more complicated than a microscopic assembly line, there is significant order even at the quantum scale. (Or to be more precise, the sub-nanometer scale)

For example, prior to observation a given electron has no definite position, rather it has a distribution over an area such that the sum of the probability of it being in each given 'spot' adds to exactly 100%. In other words, it is guaranteed to exist. The problem is a conflation of physics and epistemology - it would actually be -wrong- to say that it is in one particular spot but we are simply ignorant of which spot it is, since we have experimental data to show that this is not the case. However once we act to measure the exact position of the particle "the probability distribution collapses" and it does have one distinct location.

A problem (yet unresolved, I believe) inherent in what I have written is my treatment of location. So far I have used a classic treatment of spacetime and it may be that at small enough scales distance is quantized such as to cause a "snap to grid" effect (although in reality there would be no space in between the grid points.)"

My rudimentary grasp of physics in conjunction with his incredibly dense style of writing (he's a philosophy major) have left me scratching my head. I need some help interpreting exactly what he is trying to say, but furthermore, I also need to know:

What do scientists mean when they describe the universe as random and chaotic? What does the above student mean when he says that there is "significant order" at the quantum scale?

[Jayems]

The only thing I know about Quantum mechanics is that apparently you can leap through time and make a TV show about it.... and hell, that may not even be quantum mechanics.

So I guess I'm of no help and probably shouldn't have even bothered to post.

[troutman]

Good thread idea. I have been hearing a lot lately about string theory and M theory, and holographic universes. I am weak in physics.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

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

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any description of quantum mechanics that you get from someone posting on a message board is going to be simplistic and abstact at best, and at worst complete hooey. (that's right I used hooey, don't judge me).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any description of quantum mechanics that you get from someone posting on a message board is going to be simplistic and abstact at best, and at worst complete hooey. (that's right I used hooey, don't judge me).

I understand where this sentiment is coming from, however, I do know for a fact that there are participants on this forum who in fact do know what they are talking about.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I understand where this sentiment is coming from, however, I do know for a fact that there are participants on this forum who in fact do know what they are talking about.

I'm sure that's the case. I've read a few things about it myself, but I wouldn't try to relate that here as I don't think I could do it any justice.

If you're really interested, I highly suggest reading "A Breif History of Time", "A Briefer History of Time", and "The Universe in a Nutshell", all writen by Stephen Hawking.

"Briefer" builds and elaborates on some of the comments on "Brief" and as is pointed out in the foreword, it really should be called "A Less Breif History of Time", and "The Universe.." basically covers the same topics, but in a bit of a different, and probably easier format.

All great books, and written so the average person can read and understand them.

[Thor]

Elegant Universe is such a great documentary, everyone should see it.

Discovery had a 1hr show last night on Hawkins hunt for the theory of everything, its so neat to realize how much we've learned in the last 30 years.

I love physics, I just wish I understood it as deeply as those Physics geniuses do.

[missdpuck]

Pick up something by Michio Kaku Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds are both good and. The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbott is intriging.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any description of quantum mechanics that you get from someone posting on a message board is going to be simplistic and abstact at best, and at worst complete hooey. (that's right I used hooey, don't judge me).

Totally agree with this

I don't pretend to understand all the math behind this stuff, and unless you've got the math chops for quantum stuff I don't think it's possible to talk about it with much authority. At least authority beyond regurgitating what others have said.

It gets difficult too because in what you gave the student wrote Textcritic the first question that pops into mind is "what's order" and "what's chaos."

In the context of the lecture (sermon?) about order and design, I think deterministic is maybe a better word.. things appear deterministic and on a macro scale they are for the most part, but at a quantum level things aren't deterministic. Something like what Bell's Theorem says.

So what the student wrote, I'm not quite sure the point he's making either.

At the quantum scale there is "order", in that things occur according to the laws of the universe as they exist (our incomplete understanding notwithstanding). Then he goes on to talk about a probability cloud for the position of an electron and when you measure it the wave function collapses (which is just one interpretation of QM). So I think he's making the point that that is still "order". That we can't accurately predict the exact location (or even know certain pairs of attributes) of the electron doesn't represent chaos (meaning anything can happen?), just isn't deterministic.

So I think when scientists say the universe is random and chaotic, I think they mean that outcomes can't always be predicted. In a radioactive sample I don't know which atoms are going to decay, but I know how many will decay over a specific period of time.

[Cheese]

The Physics geniuses at the Perimeter Institute have great programs on QP and many other things.

Heres one on the Introduction to quantum technologies: quantum computers, quantum teleporters & quantum cryptography


Heres a few more lectures.

6 Toughest Questions on Modern Physics

[firebug]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/b...rcollider.html

This may help.

(For some reason my wife really likes this video).

~Firebug

[BlackEleven]

From my recollection of my University days this all started when some guy named Schrodinger put his cat in a box with some poision.

The poison may or may not kill the cat, so if you want to put the poor creature's life in chart form at some point you end up with some simultanously alive and dead feline.

And that, my friends, is how you expain the universe.

Or in more familiar form:

1) Put cat in box. Add poison
2) ???
3) Understand quantum mechanics and universe.

[RougeUnderoos]

The Elegant Universe is available at your local library.

It's a great show but it did hollowify my head while I was watching. Me too dubm. So I took it back to the library and got a book about Einstein that was written for teenagers and that was more my speed (since I'm a teenager).

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

From my recollection of my University days this all started when some guy named Schrodinger put his cat in a box with some poision.

The poison may or may not kill the cat, so if you want to put the poor creature's life in chart form at some point you end up with some simultanously alive and dead feline.

Actually, it wasn't poison, it was a Nitrogen-13 atom, and the cat would be on the cusp of living/death as it reached it's half-life of decay.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Actually, it wasn't poison, it was a Nitrogen-13 atom, and the cat would be on the cusp of living/death as it reached it's half-life of decay.

Well if we really to get all technical it was a poison and a nitrogen-13 atom and a geiger counter that would activate a hammer and smash the flask of poison open if it detected radiation. But I just skipped all that and got straight to the good bit about poisoning the cat.

[evman150]

"It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

Richard Feynman.

[LChoy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q4_nl0ICao

As explained by "Dr. Quantum" - in cartoon form
Only watch the experiment, but ignore the stuff when he starts theorizing about the observer. Explains one of the mysteries of quantum mechanics

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q4_nl0ICao

As explained by "Dr. Quantum" - in cartoon form
Only watch the experiment, but ignore the stuff when he starts theorizing about the observer. Explains one of the mysteries of quantum mechanics

Isn't "Dr. Quantum" a sort of quasi-religious nut in the same mould as L. Ron Hubbard?

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Isn't "Dr. Quantum" a sort of quasi-religious nut in the same mould as L. Ron Hubbard?

Yup, sheer crazy

But the experiment was explained properly after some discussion on CP
I originally posted it before when I didn't know the organization behind it. I do now when someone replied to that post

It's a good video to explain to demonstrate the double slit experiement and the uncertainty principle. Where things go nutty is when Dr. Quantum starts talking about their belief in an all knowing entity behind how all things work.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Or in more familiar form:

1) Put cat in box. Add poison
2) ???
3) Understand quantum mechanics and universe.

That pretty much sums it up.

I got an A in quantum mechanics and I still don't understand it at all.

but I was told a Heisenberg uncertainty priciple joke and laughed and laughed about it... then that made me sad.