Crisis

Blogs on quantum physics philosophy, update

Posted in Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, quantum physics theory, Science by e1saman on October 10, 2010

New addition to the list of blogs that are realted to quantum physics philosophy;

The Event Horizon

After Bohr, physics is no more the study of the essence of things, but of the relationships among them

George’s Home Blog

George Putnam

Advertisements

Is quantum physics weird?

 

quantum physics wierd

quantum

Why quantum physics is believed to be so weird? Can we understand it without reading tons of scientific formalism? The answer depends on the incentive behind the question;

What people mean by saying that quantum physics is weird? Let’s see some possible reasons;

Formalism

Is it because you cannot understand the formalism? The formalism itself is not weird; maybe it is hard besause you are not so familiar with the mathematics behind it.

Insight

Is it because you cannot get the physical insight behind it? Then welcome to physics; the hardest part in any physics discipline is not to use the mathematics, but to develop an intuitive understanding by grasping the insight of the theory. This ability is very hard to be taught.

Uncertainty

Is it because you cannot accept the philosophical implications of quantum physics? Then we have you have to clarify a little more; What do you mean by philosophical implications? Is it that you are worried that the famous cat cannot be both dead and alive in the same time¹? Which means that you don’t like the innate uncertainty that quantum physics is introducing? In this case you assume that classical physics does not lead to any cats that they are dead and alive in the same time. But is this really true?

Classical physics

Classical physics is a study of how things, like stellar objects and planets, can move relative to one another in a regular fashion. In the language of classical physics, in order that we can have a theory about a certain subject matter we must presuppose that we already have two things in place;

a) We must have a kinematical framework in which we can define how the things to be studied might be distributed in space and time

b) We must have a dynamical understanding of the powers and properties that might successively occupy specific places in space.

The first framework is provided by the Cartesian analytic geometry. The second framework is provided by Newtonian laws, which they describe the evolution of things in space and time.

quantum physics wierdClassical physics offers a very important promise; if we know the initial state parameters of a system, theoretically, we can solve the equations that describe the dynamics of the system and  know the full behavior of the system in the past and the future. In simple worlds it means that if your cat is missing then if you put all the parameters of the system in a super computer that solves the dynamics of the world that you live in, you can find out with 100% certainty if your cat is dead or alive. The cat cannot be both dead and alive in the same time.

But there are some objections there;

1. Chaos: Even if a system is deterministic it cannot be 100% predictable, and that is because you can not measure the initial state parameters with infinite accuracy.

2. Complexity: Let’s assume that we don’t care about chaos, because we  have found a way to measure with infinite accuracy. Then we face some problems that they derive form computer science; How long will it take for this super computer to decide if the cat is dead or alive? If it takes more that a cat’s life time then we don’t need to perform the calculation because the cat is 100% dead. The problems is now transformed from pure physics to pure computational complexity.

3. Let’s assume now that we are lucky and the complexity of the calculations is not a problem (we have a super computer, and the equations of the dynamics of the world is an easy problem). Even in the situation that we can we really solve the equations for the whole universe and find out the position and speed of every single elementary particle of the world at any given time, can we really sort this kind of information? Imagine that we are talking about all the elementary particles of the world, even for a single snapshot you have a problem of storage; since the unit of storage cannot be smaller than one elementary particle! You cannot even describe a single snapshot of the universe , which means that there are points in the universe that you are uncertain of their properties. Maybe you can calculate if the cat is alive but then you cannot know what is the situation of all the cats in the universe!

So uncertainty can’t be the reason that quantum physics is considered weird.

Can the weirdness of quantum mechanics make you well, or make you wealthy?

quantum mechanics

quantum mechanics

I was doing a search on twitter about quantum mechanics and in the results I saw a lot of tweets about products that use quantum mechanics to change your life! Apparently some people believe that quantum mechanics can make you wealthier and healthier.  Can someone really use a physics theory (which is very hard to understand) in order to change his life? If you really don’t have an answer on that you can start your quest for an answer by reading the following post in Cosmic Log;

How to spot quantum quackery

This is an interview with Lawrence Krauss the writer of “The Physics of Start Trek”.

People want to believe that they can easily change everything without effort, but physics is all about understanding limitations;

The quantum world does pervade everything around us, but as Richard Feynman liked to say, “Scientific creativity is imagination in a straitjacket.” Not everything is possible. That’s what makes the world so interesting.

Maybe we don’t know everything about Science and quantum mechanics, but that is also the beauty of it; we are working hard in order to understand more, and to create more.

With quantum mechanics, there’s a notion that observers affect the things that they’re observing. That’s not always true, but it’s often true. That’s one of the very strange properties of quantum mechanics. Therefore people get the notion that there’s no objective reality, and that you can literally impact on the external world just by doing things internally. That’s not the case. If you want to affect something in the external world, you have to do something to it. You can’t just hope for the best. You can’t bring good things to you by thinking about them.

Knowledge has its scope and limitations, we have to understand that;

Quantum mechanics is often quoted as the explanation for many things, because it’s so weird that people latch onto it as a hope, to explain everything that they would like to believe about the universe.

Magic is linked to the belief that everything is possible with little or no effort; that is not the case with Science

There are lots of things in quantum mechanics that sound like magic. But sounding like magic and being magic are two different things.

Is quantum mechanics a new fashion?

Often, people who are trying to sell whatever it is they’re trying to sell try to justify it on the basis of science. Everyone knows quantum mechanics is weird, so why not use that to justify it? … I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people say, “Oh, I love quantum mechanics because I’m really into meditation, or I love the spiritual benefits that it brings me.” But quantum mechanics, for better or worse, doesn’t bring any more spiritual benefits than gravity does.

Quantum computing marketing or true?

Posted in Change in Science, Computer Science, Physics, quantum physics theory, Science by e1saman on September 18, 2010
quantum computing propaganda

quantum computing propaganda?

There are a lot of publications recently, about quantum computing. Quantum computing is a catchy subject, but science is different than marketing. According to this post quantum PCs can be a reality in five years time from now.

MELBOURNE: A new type of silicon chip that works on light instead of electricity could lead to the first ultra-fast quantum computer within five years, say Brit scientists.
.
I was watching recently a presentation which I enjoyed very much (I hope that I can do a post specifically for that) and one of the key points was that it is very difficult to construct a general purpose quantum computer similar to the ones that we use now.
.
So, the question is;
is it true that we can really construct quantum computer of general purpose within a decade’s time or this is just another marketing propaganda about quantum computing industry?