Abra does not understand the topic and got caught. The more exposed his lack of understanding of the topic became, the more rhetoric was generated to defend a defenseless position.

I don't think these threads exist for trashing anyone and technically this comment should be pulled. I wish more people were interested in science as I think the knowledge is useful in many ways.

QM is counterintuitive in many ways. However, the wave functions are necessary to design electronic devices that act on a very small scale. QM serves a purpose in physics to explain how some processes operated at the quantum level, but that's about it. It has no real significance at scales above that level and a lot of physics today is trying to read below that level.

Had I caught this thread early I probably would have offered a brief explanation of QM in lay terms and exited when the rancor started. It is a little late for that.

Exactly, especially when the 'trashing' it nothing more than a subjective opinion that doesn't hold any truth.

All these people who claim that science can explain quantum behavior are spreading false information.

Even they recognize the words of Dr. Richard Feynman who won the Nobel Prize for his work in Quantum Physics.

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Dr. Richard P. Feynman

The real truth, as it stands today, is that science cannot explain quantum behavior. All they have so far is mathematics and observations that show that quantum behavior does things that cannot be explained. And even Richard Feynman is warning people to not even try to explain it because it's that impossible.

By definition quantum events are indeed paranormal because science cannot explain them.

This is just the honest truth.

People keep denying this fact, and some of them are even trying to claim that quantum mechanics support Newtonaian physics.

But in truth, those are the lies. This sould be perfectly clear from Dr. Feynman's quote above.

This is where science stands today. And if this is to ever change, you're not going to hear about from wannabe scientists on a dating forum. It's going to be on every newspaper and CNN headline around the world.



This is an outright lie.

It's a fact that quantum mechanics cannot be explained in terms of classical physics.

To claim that I don't understand this is baloney.

Also for those who continue to claim that Quantum Mechanics actually supports classical physics is also a lie. If that could truly show that they would be the next Albert Einstein.

These people are desperate to believe things that aren't true. So much so that they are willing to trash the reputation of an individual to support their delusions.

It's easy to just trash a person with false accuations.

Try actually explaining Quantum Behavior in classical terms and see how far you get.

Untill someone can get up on CNN to accept their Nobel Prize for explaining quantum behavior, all of their accusations about me are nothing but empty hot air.

Because all I'm saying is that quantum behavior can't be explained.

And clearly Richard Feynman (a Nobel Prize winner in Quantum Mechanics Himself) is in total agreement with this conclusion.

This is where science stands today.

Anyone who claims otherwise is spreading falsehoods.



It's never too late.

If you have an explanation for QM go ahead and post it.

Show us that Richard Feynman was mistaken and we'll all be looking forward to seeing you accept your Nobel Prize on CNN.

More power to you!

Let's hear your explantion.

Talk's cheap. And so is false slander.

I'll go you one better than that. I'll take a couple of your posts and point out where you prove that you don't know anything about what you are talking about. If you knew anything about statistics you would know that someone, sooner or later, was going to see your posts that actually knew about the subject. This entire method you have, which is typical of writers, of gathering up quotes from the internet to prove your "point" when you don't even understand the topic, leaves you making broad statements which are simply absurd.

But you are correct, talk is cheap.... and you should know.

Perhaps I shouldn't have posted this thread. I really wanted to understand this Quantum Mechanics, but in the end it is over my head and will just leave it to the scientists

Look Abra,

I do not think anyone wants to trash anyone else here, at least not I, Jeremy, metalwing, and most others. I will try to attempt to clear a few things up.

We all agree that QM shows wierd things at that sub-atomic scale.

QM depends on the mathematics prior to it to even be able to exist. Heisenberg's, Dirac's, Shrodinger's, and all of the other QM equations use classical ones within themselves. That clearly shows that QM has not done away with classical mechanics. Probability(statistical equations) is/are entirely Newtonian based. It is not as if all we thought we knew is wrong.

You continue to extrapolate upon QM as if it is nature, itself, when it clearly is not. You are the one using it as if you understand it. My own objections to your interpretations are based in the very words of the authors and scientists from whom you so often quote.

For instance, this quote from you, which is typical of your stance in general...



That Feynman quote says nothing either way regarding classical Newtonian physics, yet you are claiming that your statement is supported by Feynman. It is not. Below is a quote from Werner Heisenberg which supports the classical connection and dependence of QM on Newtonian mechanics which you continue to erroneously claim does not exist. It furthermore supports the claim that quantum mechanics is not acausal.



So when you are calling others negative and insulting names because we recognize the connection between classical and QM, I hope you remember this post and how it effectly refutes your words with the scientists' own. In other words...

Your are arguing with Heisenberg also.

I am trying to do this in the most noble and honorable way James.

You're confusing mathematics with Classical Physics here. Yes, QM is based on a lot of relationships that came from Classical Physics, but it also points to a totally different conclusions. And that's what's important.



I have never claimed that QM has done away with classical mechanics.

Classical mechanics is still valid in the macro world.

All I'm saying is that the mathematics of QM denies a classical explanation for quantum behavior. And clearly this is Feynman's stance as well.



No they aren't. They are based on pure abstract mathematics. They aren't based on physics at all.

You keep confusing physics with mathematics. Newtonain physics uses mathematics, it doesn't define mathematics.



I have never suggested or implied any such thing. That's entirely a fabrication of your own imagination. All we thought we new was based on the macro world. And apparent all of that still holds for the macro world. So no one is suggesting that any of that is wrong for the macro description of the world.



Not at all. I totally accept the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

This is a totally empty claim that came out of nowhere with no support whatsoever.



Do what?

Prove that I'm wrong and you're right?

If you believe that you can explain QM in terms of Classical physics then do it, grab your Nobel Prize and proudly show me that you've proven your speculations.

Until then, all you have is speculation that is not backed up by science.

So don't be claiming that I'm misrepresenting science. All of my claims are claims about precisely where QM stands today.

Your claims, on the other hand, are nothing more than wishful thinking.

You're trying to claim that QM supports classical physics which is totally bogus. It totally refuses any classical explanation.

And that's the TRUTH of where science stands today.

And that's all I'm saying.

I'm not trying to claim that QM can never fall. I'm just saying that as it currenly stands it denies a classical explantion. And even Feynman (a Nobel Prize winner in this very field) clearly takes this stance as well.

How can you deny that?

So all of these claims that "Abra doesn't know what he's talking about" are totally false and bogus claims. I'm just in complete agreement with Dr. Feynman.

Yet I put to you that your claim that QM actually supports classical physics is indeed a bogus claim.

You'd have to show a classical explantion for QM to support that claim. But if you could do that, then we'd all be quoting your famous words because you'd be the next Dr. Feynman!

Until then you've got things totally backwards.

And I say that as respectfully as I possibly can.

You're just leading people astray when you tell them that QM supports classical physics. It most certainly does not.

You can't even explain QM in terms of classical physics, how can you claim that it supports something that can't even be used to explain it?

That's absurd.

Must you insist on the rhetoric and insults?



That is Heisenberg.

Your confusing what you think I know with what I know.

What conclusion James?

QM offers none, only statictical probability... which is entirely Newtonian-based.

Your arguing with Heisenberg...



QM does not do away with determinism, according to this quote which belongs to Heisenberg. Furthermore, he directly correlates QM with the above, which as anyone can clearly see, is Newtonian-based. There is the support which you erroneously claim does not exist. It obviously does.



Now let us logically use Heisenberg's words to show the support which you claim does not exist.

1.) Statistical mechanics are Newtonian-based, and spring from incomplete knowledge which do not renounce determinism.

2.) Quantum theoretical laws must be of a statistical kind.

Is that not clear enough?

There were no insults in anything I said Michael. Apparently you just view anyone who disagrees with you to be insulting you.

Look, if you're that bent on preaching absolute determinism by my guest.

I don't truly care anymore. It isn't worth it.

Try Eisberg - Fundamentals of Modern Physics

Abra,

You make some very interesting claims about the difference between light traveling in vacuum and light traveling through matter. I do not discount the possibility that 'the best way' to think it is - as you say - that light is traveling is 'always at C, but sometimes matter makes it appear otherwise', in fact, I vaguely recall equations from which I concluded something similar, however, I don't accept this as an explanation:

QUOTE:

actually happening is that light (photons or quantums of energy), are jumping from one atom to the next (at the SPEED OF LIGHT in a vacuum), those atoms absorb the light energy (the photon or quantum of energy), become 'excited' for a while (a delay), and then re-emit the light energy (photon or quantum of energy) to the next atom over at the SPEED OF LIGHT.


Are you speaking of the excitation of electrons surround the atom? This process, of course, does happen - under other circumstances. When it does happen, the direction of emission is generally not the direction light was traveling when absorbed. When we observe light being slowed down (so to speak) when traveling through matter, the overall direction of the lights traveling is not changed in the same way that it is when the light energy is absorbed and re-emitted in the process which (i think) you are describing.


The whole thing falls under the principle of conservation of momentum.

In a material (even a gas), you can't treat each atom as an isolated system. The macro environment and it's overall property of inertia and momentum must be conserved.

When a photo of energy interacts with an atom within a substance like this, we really need to view the atom as a 'macro' object.

The neighboring atoms are having an affect on the electron cloud configuration of all the neighboring atoms.

So when the atom absorbs and re-emits a photon the emission is not exactly random. In fact, it can actually be calculated in terms of probablities via the equations of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics).

The MACRO environment, inertia and momentum cannot be ignored.

Therefore, the overall probability is that the newly emitted photon will indeed be emitted in the 'opposite direction' from whence it was absorbed.

Of course, there is also a probability that it will go the other way. And sometimes it does thus slowing down the overall propagation according to the probabilities assoicated with the atomic structure of that particular substance.

The quantum physicists have it all covered. bigsmile

Quantum mechanics WORKS.

It explains why light continues to propagate in the direction that it does from a MACRO perspective, even though on a quantum level there is probability going on.

The MACRO WORLD AFFECTS the probablity curves. bigsmile

It's not exactly totally random. It's random, but not without some dependency on the macro world around the quantum events in question.

QED has it down pat.

Richard Feynman (who worked on this) along with others, did not win a Nobel Prize for their looks. wink

They have it down pat.

At least as pat as it can be.

Clearly there is randomness involved at the quantum level but that doesn't mean that everything is totally random. Far from it!

The macro environment still COUNTS. flowerforyou

It affects the probability distributions.

In fact this is one of the basic themes behind the notion of an 'observer-created' universe.

We (being macro participants in this universe) can directly affect the probablities of the sea of random potentiality.

We can affect and guide the randomness. Thus the notion of 'observer-created' or 'free will reality' takes hold.

bigsmile



The above is the worst explanation of "why light travels slower in a medium than in a vacuum" in history. It proves the writer has no formal education in physics. It proves the writer has no concept of what "quantum mechanics" is all about. It proves a total lack of understanding of the duality of matter at quantum levels and there is one absolute undeniable fact...

FACT

Anyone who gave this explanation on a college exam on the subject would get an "F"

Not to mention the obvious conflicts with posts on this thread.

These forums have deteriorated into a cesspool of nothing more than totally unwarranted and unsupported personal attacks now.

Have people become bored with addressing the actual topics?

from the wiki....

"At the microscale, an electromagnetic wave's phase velocity is slowed in a material because the electric field creates a disturbance in the charges of each atom (primarily the electrons) proportional to the permittivity of the medium. The charges will, in general, oscillate slightly out of phase with respect to the driving electric field. The charges thus radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency but with a phase delay. The macroscopic sum of all such contributions in the material is a wave with the same frequency but shorter wavelength than the original, leading to a slowing of the wave's phase velocity. Most of the radiation from oscillating material charges will modify the incoming wave, changing its velocity. However, some net energy will be radiated in other directions (see scattering)."

"Recent research has also demonstrated the existence of negative refractive index which can occur if the real parts of both εr and μr are simultaneously negative, although such is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Not thought to occur naturally, this can be achieved with so-called metamaterials and offers the possibility of perfect lenses and other exotic phenomena such as a reversal of Snell's law.[2][3]"

I can only speak for myself here. I have become frustrated with the blatent personal remarks from none other than you James. Then to play the role of a victim, is truly insulting and accusatory of everyone else. It is truly ironic in one sense, and very problematic in another. Let me explain, starting with just today...



Please James, do not continue this misconstruction of events here.



Disagreement itself is not insulting.

That is the very kind of unsupported and personal statement that you regularly make which leads into problems James.

That is insulting.

To say that apparently I view anyone who disagrees with me to be insulting me is wrongly put. It presupposes negative qualites of my character which you cannot presuppose. Disagreement is fine without insult. Your presupposition of negative character - such as what would be necessary for your statement to be true - is wrong.

That is insulting.

It would be more accurate to say that when someone claims that I am writing lies, as you have done today, I expect that claim to be supported by something other than their subjective opinion, which you have not done today.

That is insulting.

The fact that you talk about the author more than the subject at hand is evident in most every conversation that you have had with me. Then to back up and claim victim state after insulting people's intelligence and shot-gunning the argument, all the while making wrongful conclusions for someone else is anti-intellectual.

That is insulting.

The fact that you so often ignore the objective evidence put forth in lieu of shotgun-style personal remarks just like you have done today stifles objective understanding.

That is insulting.

Then when you say this...



After saying these things...



We obviously have different ideas of what insulting means.

I backed up everything I have said today with Heisenberg's own words. These things you have ignored, all the while you made claims for me and about me without any logical support.

That is insulting.

Then you say this???



If you equate giving a sound argument and putting up objective evidence in the form of Heisenberg's own words to reasonably show a connection and dependence of QM to/on Newtonian mechanics 'preaching absolute determinism', then what should we call an entire argument such as your own which has been given no logical support?

In the face of Heisenberg's words you deny what they say.

That is insulting.

You were quick to claim you were being slandered. You were angry. You challenged me to prove you were wrong on matters of this topic. I proved it. Now you claim a cesspool.

Poser.

You proved something?

That's news to me.

Looks to me like all you did was give a totally empty and unsupported opinion.

I give you an "F" on your opinion.

How's that?

You people are too much.

Besides that particular post of mine was merely an explanation that I gave for another member who was interested in the topic of how light could travel at different speeds. It was only given in the spirit of food for thought because I found it quite helpful when I was studying physics.

It's not even my idea, I got it from a physics textbook.

So if you're passing out an "F" I guess you'll have to send it to the textbook publisher. Unfortuanely I don't recall which textbook it was, I've read so many of them I can't keep track of them all. I had read that particular description several decades ago.

I thought it was a good explanation. I personally found it quite helpful and this is why I shared it.

Besides, if you're going to try to deny that the macro environment affects probability distributions then you'd have to deny the Schodinger Equation.

Not to mention deying the difference between the quantum behavior in the single-slit and double-slit experiements since the only thing that has changed in those experiments was the macro environment, yet clearly the quantum probabilities have changed.

So what was it exactly that you are claiming to have proved?

I'm afraid I don't even see your specific objection to anything I said much less a proof for it.

All you did was proclaim that it was the worst description you ever heard. But you never gave a reason why.

I believe that you said the following:



That would be totally correct for an isolated individual atom. But in materials atoms aren't isolated. They are bonded to other atoms, so you can't just look at a single atom at a time. If that's your supposed refutation it doesn't hold.

Besides, like I say, this wasn't my own hypothesis this was a description that I read in a textbook and I personally felt that it made a whole lot of sense. I don't even think they were claiming that this was necessarily the case, I think they were offering it up simply as a plausible explanation that was compatible with all the math. And I agree, it is compatible with all the math and does sound like a plausible explanation.

I don't see the basis of your objection to it.

Sorry.

I mean, clearly at the very end I stated my own personal views on how this might be applied to an observer-created reality.



That part wasn't in the physics textbook. I said that this was one of the 'basic themes' behind the notion of 'observer-created' universe.

I never meant to imply that it proved it. At that point I was just sharing a personal observation of how things that we have observed about QM could potentially support these other ideas.

I'm not out to 'prove' anything.

All I'm doing is offering FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

If you think that I'm trying to claim that QM proves an observer-created reality you are totally mistaken. I neither claim that nor believe it myself. It doesn't 'prove' any such thing.

Just the same, I personally feel that it offers up various plausible mechanisms for it. And that I have yet to see disproved.

Though I may not agree with Abra's explanation on the light matter, in the 'spirit' of good debating techniques, I would have to agree with Abra concerning the 'proof' that was offered against his claims regarding it.

Saying it is 'so' does not make it 'so'.

The above is the worst explanation of "why light travels slower in a medium than in a vacuum" in history. It proves the writer has no formal education in physics. It proves the writer has no concept of what "quantum mechanics" is all about. It proves a total lack of understanding of the duality of matter at quantum levels and there is one absolute undeniable fact...

FACT

Anyone who gave this explanation on a college exam on the subject would get an "F"

Not to mention the obvious conflicts with posts on this thread.





I just wondered if anyone could pick up on the "basics".

The most fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is the "duality" of matter. At quantum scale, most of the properties of matter become purely those of waves. Most quantum functions of any meaning deal with wave functions. Abra uses particles.

The most studied topic in physics is optics, the study of light passing through a medium. (the term optics was never used here). The most fundamental aspect of light through a medium is that it acts purely as a wave. There are three types of matter that apply, opaque, reflective, and transparent. In opaque matter the light is absorbed, in reflective it is reflected, and in transparent it passes through. The key point is that it passes through as a wave exhibiting wave properties. It is not absorbed as Abra stated. It is not re radiated as abra stated. And it most definately does not act as a particle as Abra stated.

Abra did prove that he does not understand that the speed of light actually does reduce in a medium. He also proved no understanding of optics or wave behavior. Game over.

The wave functions in denser material change increasing frequency of the wave. Since higher frequency indicated higher energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed, the speed of light slows down to conserve momentum. If you cannot see the difference between this concept and what Abra wrote, you should not be in this conversation. Look up Snell's law or refractive Index.

I do not believe any textbook teaches the garbage that Abra presented to explain the above. It is funny how quickly ideas and understanding jump from his to some obscure textbook.

Quantum mechanics is, by definition, mechanics that occur at a quantum level. At a macro level they are called simply "mechanics" or "mechanics of solids" as the case my be. A field where I have a great deal of expertise.

Abra's other statements about the macro effects don't mean anything so they are hard to refute. The part about the "macro level" affecting the (or affected by the) probability distributions is so meaningless as to be clownish. At the macro level everything that happens on the quantum level cancels out. There may be a billion atoms wiggling to the left and a billion and one wiggling to the right for one trillionth of a second, but in the macro world, it sums up to nothing every time.

Optics is pretty good about being dependable every time. Wave functions are highly uniform and predictable. The "uncertainty" and "probability" functions in QM have nothing to do with optics.(as opposed to what is stated above) They deal with the probability locations of the electron in the shell of an atom, which for the most part does not mean anything either. You can stand in the ocean and point to a wave as it goes by. Did you point at it's center? Knowing an electron's position and momentum is a function of how the formula is structured. If you know one you can't know the other because it makes the formula invalid. I could post a set of eigenvalues but I are already getting too technical.

The wave properties of matter are what QM is all about. Abra gets a zero. His statements are false and indefensible. Light actually slows down in a medium. Look it up. And the fact is, if you don't understand wave functions in QM, you don't understand QM.

What would interest me and perhaps for the majority of us here on Mingle2 is where would one start first on studies before even getting to quantum mechanics?

Would one just have to start with basic physics and really have a solid understanding of it before buildling up to quantum mechanics?

This questions is posed on everyone who has already posted on this thread concerning the subject.

Thank you for the time and effort in answering this for us basic Mingler crowd who have curious minds