[MD] Quantum Physics

[Laird Bedore]

> [Chin]
> I can’t claim a study in Quantum Physics, as most of what I have 
> gotten has come from word of mouth from folks looking for financial 
> advice who were familiar with it, and as you say, stumbling across a 
> little on the web. 
>
> Some assumptions I have gained;
>
> There is no such thing in quantum physics as solid matter. All solid 
> matter would be probability patterns that are hard to compress. 
>
>   
[Laird]
Yes, strictly speaking. Though probabilistic quanta can emerge as a 
representation we think of as solid matter... quantum collapse into our 
3 dimensions. They're challenging our deterministic yes/no type 
descriptions.

> [Chin]
> The same micro particles which pass through us pass through all of us, 
> the trees and the moon I point at ;),
>
>   
[Laird]
Now this is an interesting one. Is this suggesting that the quanta that 
make up our atomic particles interchange rather freely 
(probabilistically), but the atomic structures we experience remain 
stable (at least to the limit of atomic decay?)


> [Chin]
> The atom is made up of empty space, with nothing we could call solid, 
> as the protons and neutrons are sometimes particles and sometimes 
> waves, and as far as we can know, sometimes nothing. The vastness of 
> this space compared to the size of the proton offers nothing in the 
> way of a material substance. 
>
>   
[Laird]
Oh yes. Even in the classical atomic model there's such an amazingly 
massive void, not only within, but also between attached particles. 
Quantum theory explains this interestingly - Preserving the electron 
energy levels from classic particle physics for the moment (so I can 
explain it), we observe that when two atoms come into contact, their 
outer energy levels cannot cross dimensionally past each other, even if 
only one electron exists in the ridiculously vast surface of the energy 
level. Classical physics sees this as a mystery, sometimes passed-off as 
an electromagnetic force field effect, but with no feasible energy 
source (and not much care for the second law of thermodynamics). Quantum 
theory says that the electron is everywhere across the energy level's 
probabilistic field at the same time, and that only when the surface of 
the energy field is "prodded" by another atom does the electron's 
quantum state collapse into a definitive point in 3D space (conveniently 
at the 'right' point, blocking the unwelcome intrusion).

Interesting that the sci-fi idea of a "force field" is inherent in 
quantum physics!


> [Chin]
> One interesting thought I came across which is a better theory of 
> creation than anything else I have heard. Electrons rubbing together 
> (friction) created gravity, and gravity pulled the gasses into what we 
> now know as planets and stars. With Hawking Radiation from the Black 
> Holes, this may be more re-creation than creation, as the universe can 
> only be described as infinite. 
>   
[Laird]
Entanglement. I haven't read enough yet, but I'm sure somebody somewhere 
has put together a theory describing a "critical mass" of entanglement - 
that once so many quanta become entangled, they eventually freak out, do 
some crazy stuff, and untangle.

So imagine all quanta except one are entangled. That one last straggler 
entangles with the rest. There's only one possible change for the quanta 
to experience, since they're all hooked to everything everywhere. Boom! 
They detangle, and in our 3D (+time) terms we call it the Big Bang. The 
quanta immediately start entangling again in countless little strings 
and webs (patterns!). And in a matter of (a LOT of) time they'll all 
entangle again and go Boom! Recreation, indeed. I like it. VERY much 
Scott Adams' "God's Debris" analogy, but much more palatable as quanta 
than as particles of God.


> [Chin]
> Quantum physics is complicated, but more so, it questions what I have 
> called our predetermined prejudices, and one of the predetermined 
> prejudices it questions is SOM, such as in A cannot be both B and not 
> B (shortened) – something cannot come from nothing – and there must be 
> a cause. 
>
>   
[Laird]
It's interesting seeing the myriad different approaches that scientists 
are taking to quantum physics. They're all seeing the world in a 
slightly different way, and all catching a sideways glance of something 
kinda missing, and all trying different approaches to resolve it. 
Slowly, all of our assumptions are being questioned, especially SOM. The 
fundamental concepts of quantum theory not only dismiss SOM, but (to use 
SOM's own determinism) "prove" SOM incomplete and flawed. But 
mass-understanding and acceptance is a long way off. Just look at all 
the "Children of Abraham" for an idea on timescales. :)


> [Chin]
> What we think we know, we may not. Einstein said, “Common sense is the 
> collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen,” but then when it 
> came to making something out of nothing, the instruments he and Bohr 
> were using appeared to be measuring themselves, it seems his own 
> common sense got in the way. 
>
> But, when Bohr brought his findings to the US, they seemed to work, 
> and Hiroshima would be proof. I don’t know science is value free, at 
> least not the scientists, because all two of the physicists I have had 
> the honor to meet were quite concerned with how their work would be 
> used. Saying politics is value free might fit a bit better. ;o)
>
>   
[Laird]
Ah, SOM is value-free. Science can, is, and will continue to slowly 
transcend SOM, as quantum theory has shown. Since ideas have not yet 
evolved to self-sustaining, self-changing states (they're still a bit 
dependent on us to 'think'), we'll see the SOM evacuation start with the 
scientists. :)

Politics are ALL value, it's just such a huge melting-pot of value that 
nothing but brown sludge can come out. :P  But it's too easy for us to 
piss on politics (largely a social endeavor) when 'looking down' on it 
from the intellectual level.


> [Chin]
> I know, such brilliance has probably left you speechless. I tried to 
> tone it down some, but it’s hard to get something this complicated 
> down to a Tenth Grade Level (most definitely pun intended;) 
>   
[Laird]
 From the sudden pause of messages on the list, it looks like it left a 
lot of people speechless! ;o) Hell, it's hard to think through these 
ideas... abstractions of abstractions of abstractions of ab..... Some 
dumbing down helps us keep perspective of how our discussions can 
connect with the 'real world' around us.


> [Chin]
> Will Rogers once said something to the nature of the most ignorant 
> individual is an educated man outside the field in which he was 
> educated. I may resemble that remark ;),
>
>
>   
[Laird]
And that's why I still scream play calls at the television on Sundays. 
Nobody can hear me but the neighbors, and I'm sure my play calls would 
be crap (but they can't be any worse than what the Buccaneers coaches 
are calling)... We have a relentless desire to expand our experience and 
I can't fault anybody for trying, even if no one else notices. :)

-Laird

>   
>> [Laird]
>> I found the intro link I was looking for. It's an attempt to 
>> describe 
>> Hilbert space in terms a non-quantum-physicist can grasp. Despite 
>> the 
>> title, it still requires a fairly strong command of mathematic 
>> principles.
>> http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/hilberts.html
>>
>> After I read this the first time, I stared at the ceiling for 
>> quite some 
>> time. As my imagination wandered, I got the sensation that some 
>> 'crystallization' was taking place. First I was imagining the 
>> orthogonal 
>> dimensions of Hilbert space unfolding into a 3D (euclidian) visual 
>> representations, then further into nonlinear dimension morphing. 
>> Excited, I tried to write down something describing my imaginings, 
>> but 
>> nothing intelligible came out.
>>
>> The link is actually a portion of a larger quantum mechanics 
>> discussion 
>> circa 1996 (http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq.html). It sounds 
>> really 
>> interesting, but it's way over my head. I'm currently searching 
>> for a 
>> normal-person-friendly definition of "quantum collapse", but it's 
>> evading me. These Q-people are ruthless with their lingo!
>>
>> Skipping ahead to page 3 
>> (http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq3.html) it 
>> looks like they're discussing quantum interaction between ideas 
>> and the 
>> physical brain. Lots of mention of William James too. My head 
>> hurts just 
>> glancing over it, but it sounds intriguing. Anybody have any 
>> insight on 
>> this stuff?
>>
>> -Laird
>>
>>
>>