What does the Uncertainty Principle tell us?

At 10/20/2011 6:43:05 PM, Lasagna wrote:

At 10/20/2011 2:15:50 PM, Raisor wrote:

At 10/20/2011 10:33:22 AM, Lasagna wrote:

At 10/20/2011 9:48:07 AM, Raisor wrote:
Ive taken two university level classes on quantum mechanics- math intensive physics courses required for my engineering degree.

The biggest thing I took away from those classes was that almost everyone who has not had formal physics training or has not read at least read a book written by a reputable physicist will misunderstand or misrepresent QM.

This is doubly true when someone tries to import results from QM into philosophy. People almost always interpret QM in whatever way best falls in line with their philosophical viewpoints, despite having a generally poor understanding of the intricacies of the science.

All of that being said, I think QM does have philosophical implications and I think it is worth looking at so long as you are committed to actually studying what physicists have to say. Honestly the jury is still out on a lot of the implications of QM or even how to interpret some of the physical results of QM

... in which case you put down the mathbooks and just listen to what the physics greats have concluded from their work. Taking the conglomerate of these opinions and sorting them out is a worthy cause.

Except the math behind QM is often the best description of it. There is a reason physics is described in terms of mathematics. The Uncertainty Principle itself is a mathematical expression- if you dont understand the inequality as it is expressed mathematically, you wont understand it properly.

It is true that you must interpret mathematics to find the truth, but one of the primary goals of science is to translate complexities into simple terms. "Theories" cannot become "laws," for instance, until they meet a standard of simplicity (even if they are as sound as can possibly be in their complex forms). Conclusions can be drawn by the experts and translated into relatively simple terms for us to comprehend.

FALSE the goal of physics is to understand how the universe works. Theories (mathematical equations or statements) cannot become laws until they are proven. Simplicity isn't the goal it's just a by product to understand the universe better

Anyways, Ive never heard any of the "physics greats" express anything like what your OP contained. I can hardly imagine Born saying "You reduce the speed of time until nearly 0, at which point matter becomes a sea of chaos."

As time approaches zero, particles no longer have well defined positions - it is pure chaos. If you stopped time, people wouldn't just stand motionless - they would disappear into a haze of chaotic possibilities.

FALSE we are not moved by time and time does not have an effect on our capabilities of motion. Time is just a construct made up to help count 'when' something is happening. And to better understand when something would be achieved.

At 10/21/2011 12:50:32 AM, Raisor wrote:

At 10/21/2011 12:30:36 AM, sadolite wrote:

At 10/20/2011 11:37:36 PM, Raisor wrote:

At 10/20/2011 11:31:12 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 10/20/2011 9:48:07 AM, Raisor wrote:
I've taken two university level classes on quantum mechanics- math intensive physics courses required for my engineering degree.

The biggest thing I took away from those classes was that almost everyone who has not had formal physics training or has not read at least read a book written by a reputable physicist will misunderstand or misrepresent QM.

This is doubly true when someone tries to import results from QM into philosophy. People almost always interpret QM in whatever way best falls in line with their philosophical viewpoints, despite having a generally poor understanding of the intricacies of the science.

All of that being said, I think QM does have philosophical implications and I think it is worth looking at so long as you are committed to actually studying what physicists have to say. Honestly the jury is still out on a lot of the implications of QM or even how to interpret some of the physical results of QM

"Honestly the jury is still out on a lot of the implications of QM or even how to interpret some of the physical results of QM"

Not when it comes to getting more govt funding to conduct more QM experiments. Then everything is possible and wild beyond your dreams breakthroughs have been made or will be made.

I'm just going to take a stab at this and guess that you have no idea how NSF operates or what the grant rate is for the field of QM.

Also going to guess that you have no idea what the practical applications of QM are or that a good deal of QM research is privately funded.

There are no practical applications other than the transistor 50 years ago a more accurate clock 40 years ago a more accurate thermometer 40 years ago and a couple other non profitable unviable theories and last but not least "teleportation". QM is a horrible investment other than the manufactures of the toys used to conduct the experiments. Could not find any data on private vs public funding. QM has stalled and pretty much offered all it has to offer. I'm not against science, I am against research that does not produce profitable results over a reasonable period of time at my expense, The tax payer. Tax payer money should be used on other things that will improve living standards. IF QM was a good bet it would not need public funding just like solar power (Solyndra)

FYI Solyndra declared bankruptcy and is being investigated for a whole number of things. Totally random but I just learned that today from an engineering buddy of mine.

Also, QM is used in developing MRI methods- e.g. improving resolution. Heard this from a PhD electrical engineer doing research on that very topic (likely with NSF/govt. money). QM is also needed for the design of electron microscopes. QM has applications in computing- yes quantum computing is pie in the sky now but you have to do the research to find out if it is feasible. QM also has applications in cryptography- e.g. internet security. Also - and Im going to apologize in advance for this- electrical engineer friend is working on a research project involving signal resolution or something and apparently QM is needed for it- I honestly just didnt understand it when he explained it over a year ago.

I dont mean this in an antagonistic way Sadolite but you are quite simply wrong that QM has no cutting edge applications.

Also Im pretty sure all NSF grant info is publicly available. You can at least see recently granted awards, idk where you might find analysis of grants but Im sure CBO or someone has info on it.

I never said QM had no cutting edge applications. I said it isn't producing any now. All the things you list are 30 year old technologies. Improvements on something already discovered is not new technology or cutting edge. Seems to me that when anybody even dares to question the use of tax payer funds for science. The academia crowd gets it panties all in a bunch. If a university or private firm is going to take money from me by force. Then I want results. Otherwise if your research is so great get someone from the private sector to fund your non results and pie in the sky theories.