Quantum mechanics

[abrakamowse]

45 minutes ago, Viking said:

if you ask for the technicalities, quantum mechanics operates using 3 basic axioms. people just came up with that stuff to explain experimental data. it mainly uses linear algebra i.e. matrices and vectors to represent ultimately the probability of having a certain measurement.

That's awesome. Niels Bohr always say that talking about "atoms" make no sense.

Quote

"When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images." --- Niels Bohr

 

[abrakamowse]

16 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Thought. 

No matter what the observer invites time “thought”... can’t be separated actually. 

Right? 

Thats why time “the observer” is relevant?

 

That's why "thought" cannot touch it. We can't make images or mathematical representations, but we can't know the real thing with reasoning, logic or thoughts.

[Faceless]

4 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

That's why "thought" cannot touch it. We can't make images or mathematical representations, but we can't know the real thing with reasoning, logic or thoughts.

Right. Thought inevitably can’t touch it. Which implies our point of reference within the field of thought is to limited. 

Just like with truth/reality.

Cant understand the whole “truth or reality” with the “part/fragment” thought.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

Like I said I don’t know QM but I know the limitations of thought. 

Thought inevitably limits all measurement based studies/investigations such as sciences and so on. 

Thought specializes only on parts of the whole. But not THE WHOLE. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Faceless

[RichardY]

As a thought experiment, "I"(thought) thought of the idea of a perfect circle or sphere. Would either the centre of each them be infintensimally small as to not even exist, or the edges so smooth as not match with physical reality. (Maybe like the movie the Sphere) One reason I think Objectivism is incorrect, as it emphasises the intellectual instead of the actual. At some point the inconsitency must be resolved, I would say this occurs in consciousness. 

Or a line, at some point the line ends, it is or it is not. End of the Line.....

Although if someone manages to rip a hole into another dimension with their QM course. Good Job. Other than space flight (and then not even then mostly) why do QM, something to BS about I guess.

Edited May 1, 2018 by RichardY

[Faceless]

It cannot calture the whole, it can help in our attitude towards the whole. ?

 

[Viking]

53 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Thought. 

No matter what the observer invites time “thought”... can’t be separated actually. 

Right? 

Thats why time “the observer” is relevant?

 

haha, the whole of physics relies on observations.

41 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

"When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images." --- Niels Bohr

beautiful 

[Faceless]

@Viking

[sarapr]

3 hours ago, Viking said:

I study physics, quantum mechanics is a course I take right now. 

"time" in physics is much different than time we normally talk about. it's all in the equations, you dont have the intuitive level of understanding which would allow you to understand what's REALLY described here. when people describe a physical experiment they dont use the same meaning of the words which most people use.

Also, time is explained by general relativity, and general relativity doesnt go well with quantum mechanics as you might know. since we're talking about quantum mechanics here that stuff has nearly no meaning, because the theoretical framework upon which all of this is built is somewhere false.

They think of time like space time continuum ?

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't go together? I didn't know that. So what basically backes quantum mechanics? Because I've heard general relativity is backed up by a lot of proof 

Edited May 1, 2018 by sarapr

[Viking]

13 minutes ago, sarapr said:

They think of time like space time continuum ?

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't go together? I didn't know that. So what basically backes quantum mechanics? Because I've heard general relativity is backed up by a lot of proof 

The thing is that both quantum mechanics and general relativity are both extremely well tested theories, while one works with very large objects and the other one works with very small objects. because of that there are a bunch of problems when you apply general relativity to small scales, for example you mightve heared of the "singularity", the center of a blackhole. according to general relativity it is infinitely small, but quantum mechanics says there cant be anything smaller than a certain size.

with that in mind, "time" is explained by general relativity, as you said, spacetime and stuff. The big picture is that time is not "time" but just a property of the geometry of that "spacetime" thing, i.e. how it curves. i know, doesnt make sense much, my guess is that einstein was growing some special weeds. 

the point is that the ideas "time" travel, "energy", "electron" are not well defined, its just a theoretical framework to predict experimental results. not only that, but it contradicts itself. our minds get fascinated by ideas, which are inherently false because the map is not the territory. it's just a playground in our mind. with that said, it doesnt mean that we shouldnt play, but we should be aware that it's a playground and in reality there's no such thing as "time", "levels of energy" or "electron".

thats why im skeptical of all the new age stuff that connects its ideas to physics and such, because they might not understand the actual physics but draw conclusions, thats a thing to look out for. ultimately the uses of physics are mental masturbation (doenst have to be negative, just an appropriate term) and inventing stuff, lol.

[abrakamowse]

On 4/29/2018 at 2:49 PM, sarapr said:

You know how electrons are allowed to have quantised amounts of energy in each energy level that they're currently at and if they get enough energy they can move to the next level, right? But they can't move between the two levels, not like real movement but even that process of getting from the energy level that they're at to the energy level where they want to be, they can't go through that procces because then it would mean obtaining an amount of energy which they're not allowed to have so what they do is that they travel through time !!

Did you watch "What the Bleep do we know?"

[sarapr]

@Viking so correct in saying we get fascinated by false ideas that's exactly the case 

[sarapr]

7 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

Did you watch "What the Bleep do we know?"

No.

The thing I said about quantized levels of energy was from our school book but the other thing about time travel, my brother had told me and I've never looked deeper into it cause it just made sense 

Edited May 1, 2018 by sarapr

[abrakamowse]

1 hour ago, sarapr said:

No.

The thing I said about quantized levels of energy was from our school book but the other thing about time travel, my brother had told me and I've never looked deeper into it cause it just made sense 

Oh, Ok... it is in Netflix, it explain that too... it's interesting to watch. I thought that maybe you saw it there. hehehe... just guessing.

One thing that I understood about the particle thing, that it appears and disappears in different places (like time travel). What I understood is that the particle is in every posible position potentially, until is observed. 

There's a mathematical formula where you can "predict" the position called "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Edited May 1, 2018 by abrakamowse