Trying to understand quantum physics questions

[Space Lynx]

So I am rather bored tonight, and I was thinking... if photons from a light source hit a particle - that particle moves because of the light correct? So why does quantum physics make it more complicated than it really is? It's still deterministic in the sense object A hit Object B and now its at an unknown location because its so tiny we don't have the toolset to measure it precisely yet.

but the way quantum physicists explain it is that, "particle A vanishes then randomly reappears somewhere else, and you have to think differently to understand it" or they will use the Schrodinger Cat example... which I also don't agree with. It doesn't matter if I can observe the cat or not, it doesn't change the laws of physics that when an organism is determined to be dead, it will therefore be dead at the time. So if the cat is brain dead and truly dead, it does not matter if I can observe the cat or not to know the answer, the Cosmos still holds the answer even if I do not, because the Cosmos follows laws of physics.

So why the mystery and magic of confusing people with quantum physics talk? Our act of observing a particle, causes the particle to move somewhere else due its tiny nature being effected by the observation pre-requisite (in this example it would be light photons hitting the particle), just because it is so tiny and we lack the precision to study its movement in real time, does not make it some magical object that randomly reappears somewhere else, its probably not random at all, we just lack the toolset to measure photons of light at precise angles when it hits particle a or particle b.

I don't get the whole mystery nonsense behind all of it, and I don't get Schrodinger's Cat either. Any takers on helping me understand?

@lexluthermiester @Drone

If Einstein said God does not play dice in relation to quantum physics, well that may still hold true for even quantum physics, as he is referencing the solid predictability of physics at its core base. Just because we lack the toolset needed does not make it untrue...

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Many of us are in the same boat as you.

So have you looked up quantum computing?

I found this:

Quantum information science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

just started reading it

 

[Shrek]

Quantum physics, as we know it, is not deterministic and a particle is not always local (the wave function).

Heisenberg didn't get the interpretation right when arguing it was the act of observation that disturbs the particle, but the Heisenberg principle still holds.

If quantum physics was deterministic then one has no free will (all is determined); despite the quote, Einstein was not as stuck on this idea as people sometimes make out.

Schrodinger's cat was Schrodinger's way of saying quantum superposition is ridiculous for large objects; the Diosi-Penrose model is a possible solution.
Diósi–Penrose model - Wikipedia

Quantum superposition has been seen for small objects as has quantum entanglement and the resultant 'faster than light' connection; i.e. quantum physics does not make things more complicated than they need to be, they are seen to be that way.

 

[claes]

You’re looking for quantum superposition. It’s not that the cat is either dead or alive, it’s that we don’t know when reality produces one situation or the other.

Edit: Andy beat me to it!

 

[Space Lynx]

Quantum physics, as we know it, is not deterministic and a particle is not always local (the wave function).

Heisenberg didn't get the interpretation right when arguing it was the act of observation that disturbs the particle, but the Heisenberg principle still holds.

If quantum physics was deterministic then one has no free will (all is determined); despite the quote, Einstein was not as stuck on this idea as people sometimes make out.

Schrodinger's cat was Schrodinger's way of saying quantum superposition can't happen for large objects; the Diosi-Penrose model is a possible solution.
Diósi–Penrose model - Wikipedia

Quantum superposition has been seen for small objects as has quantum entanglement and the resultant 'faster than light' connection; i.e. quantum physics does not make things more complicated than they need to be.

particle once it moves does not have to be local? that's precisely my point. we simply may just not have the toolset to measure it cause its too small, but just because you can't measure it or explain why it is no longer local does not mean you can automatically rule out it was deterministic - unless there is some hard evidence I am not understanding.

I disagree with the notion of quantum physics if it was deterministic then free will would not exist. I mean technically speaking we can't even agree on a definition of free will in academia without even bringing quantum physics into it, (tabula rasa theory, etc etc)... if you want to go there though, I would argue once you put a lot of straight forward deterministic things in action they can still create a complex non-deterministic whole (aka the brain) perhaps this is what it truly means when Carl Sagan said We exist so the Cosmos can know itself - in the sense survival has led to bigger and bigger brains, capable of more and more self-awareness and thought over time. The process would be deterministic in the sense it was inevitable, but also once fully formed, even though the individual processes of the brain may be run by deterministic principles, when working together in unison in the trillions, they ascend to something else that is not defined by determinism.

I don't know. Just my thoughts.

 

[Shrek]

Two slit interference cannot be explained by keeping particles local (Bohm aside)

Determined means just that, your next choice only seems a choice, it is actually pre-determined (free will becomes an illusion).

 

[lexluthermiester]

One thing you need to keep in mind, one important idea while pondering Quantum physics: It all about probabilities. Few(very) things are certain in Quantum Math.

if photons from a light source hit a particle - that particle moves because of the light correct?

Correct. One baryonic particle, regardless of type, will always interact with another baryonic particle upon contact. Only non-baryonic particles(such as neutrinos) will not interact with baryonic particles.

So why does quantum physics make it more complicated than it really is?

Because Quantum Physics is trying to find explanations for observations about the Universe that General & Special Relativity(G&SR) fail to predict or even contradict.

but the way quantum physicists explain it is that, "particle A vanishes then randomly reappears somewhere else, and you have to think differently to understand it" or they will use the Schrodinger Cat example...

That is not a theory and has not been proven and is very unlikely to be.

which I also don't agree with.

Good, because it is just a thought experiment.

It doesn't matter if I can observe the cat or not, it doesn't change the laws of physics that when an organism is determined to be dead, it will therefore be dead at the time.

True. But that is not the thought experiment. The thought experiment is meant to make you think about the uncertainty principle. It's not actually referring to a real cat because anyone knows that if you put a live cat in a box, that cat will stay alive as long as we don't seal it in and leave it there.

So why the mystery and magic of confusing people with quantum physics talk?

Again, Quantum Physics exists in an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Quantum Theory is just theory. Nothing more, but also nothing less. Even Quantum Computers only work because super-positioning is a real atomic state at near absolute zero temps. But no one actually understands why matter does this, even though they can make it work. But they only arrived at those results through trial & error.

Schrodinger's cat was Schrodinger's way of saying quantum superposition can't happen for large objects; the Diosi-Penrose model is a possible solution.
Diósi–Penrose model - Wikipedia

While that looks impressive. It's actually just silliness. The reason particles "pop" out of existence and back again is actually very simple. Particles that appear to "super-position" are actually just dropping out of one energy state and into another that does not interact with baryonic matter. It then absorbs enough energy to transition back into a baryonic state. But this transition only applies to a single particle. Groups of particles have too much mass and thus have enough static energy to prevent energy state drop-out.

For the same reason, Hawking's theory about black-holes loosing mass by radiating subatomic particles is wrong, which is one reason why he could never finish that theory and provide proofs. Any work based on G&SR will fail to accurately predict certain aspects of certain physics principles as it fails to predict where our Universe came from, why the big bang happened, how the big bang happened, why the Universe seems FAR more massive than we can account for in observable "stuff" and why the Universe continues to expand, and accelerate in that expansion.

 

[Space Lynx]

If anyone is on the Patreon for any famous youtube astronomers, share this thread with them. I want to see what they have to say in regards to some of the common mistakes I may have made in my thought process, etc lol

It seems to me, that some of the logical traps I fell into with photons, etc is widely accepted, but not explained further. Though I suppose if they shared everything on youtube we would all be eligible for PhD's... so... LOL

 

[lexluthermiester]

If anyone is on the Patreon for any famous youtube astronomers, share this thread with them. I want to see what they have to say in regards to some of the common mistakes I may have made in my thought process, etc lol

It seems to me, that some of the logical traps I fell into with photons, etc is widely accepted, but not explained further. Though I suppose if they shared everything on youtube we would all be eligible for PhD's... so... LOL

I would LOVE for John Michael Godier to hop in here. We have been debating the "Roasting Earth" theory for the better part of two years in the comment section of his channel. He keeps throwing it out in his videos and I keep telling him the Earth will not roast but will instead freeze.

 

[Space Lynx]

I would LOVE for John Michael Godier to hop in here. We have been debating the "Roasting Earth" theory for the better part of two years in the comment section of his channel. He keeps throwing it out in his videos and I keep telling him the Earth will not roast but will instead freeze.

Are you talking about the theory that as the sun gets bigger eventually it will boil Earth? He mentions that one a lot I noticed. What is your logic on the freeze one? I know Venus is hotter than Mercury cause of the greenhouse runaway effect even though Mercury is closer to sun, and I imagine that is the same path the Earth is on, regardless, so its a double whammy. Why would it freeze?

 

[W1zzard]

we simply may just not have the toolset to measure it cause its too small

Look up "hidden variables"

 

[Shrek]

Even hidden variable theories must be non-local, which means influences travel at faster-than-light.

But one still doesn't have the 'toolset to measure', that is why they are called 'hidden'.

 

[lexluthermiester]

What is your logic on the freeze one? I know Venus is hotter than Mercury cause of the greenhouse runaway effect even though Mercury is closer to sun, and I imagine that is the same path the Earth is on, regardless, so its a double whammy. Why would it freeze?

The idea is very simple in concept but often perplexes people. The Sun is always radiating waste EMR(from the fusion reactions in it's core) in massive amounts, but there are also CMEs, frequent and powerful which eject mass that never returns to the Sun. The Sun is brighter than it once was, but it's also smaller and less massive. As the Sun continues to eject mass, it's total mass is reduced. And what happens when the mass of any given object is reduced? It's gravity well also is reduced. So as the Sun ages and continues to expel mass, it's gravity reduces also. So what happens to the objects in orbit around the Sun as a result? They move further away from the Sun, gradually, but at a the same rate as the reduction of solar mass. The theory that suggests the Earth will "roast" in the next 750millionish years does not take into account the fact that the Sun is loosing mass at a greater rate than it is increasing in luminosity.

The evidence of this is found in the geological record of Earth. There have been more near total coverage ice ages in the last 50million years than there were in the previous 1 billion. So the Earth is getting colder in general over time. This is known fact. Given that it is also known fact that the Sun is getting brighter and hotter means only one thing, the Earth is moving away from the Sun at a rate greater than that of the Sun increasing luminosity.

Therefore, the "Roasting Earth" theory is utter nonsense as it is not supported by evidence. The Earth, regardless of the artificial warming we have induced, will continue to get colder and another ice age is just around the corner of the geological calendar. IF it were not for human activities, the Earth would already be in the beginning stages of it's next ice age. We have only delayed it, we have not stopped it.

 

[Space Lynx]

The idea is very simple in concept but often perplexes people. The Sun is always radiating waste EMR(from the fusion reactions in it's core) in massive amounts, but there are also CMEs, frequent and powerful which eject mass that never returns to the Sun. The Sun is brighter than it once was, but it's also smaller and less massive. As the Sun continues to eject mass, it's total mass is reduced. And what happens when the mass of any given object is reduced? It's gravity well also is reduced. So as the Sun ages and continues to expel mass, it's gravity reduces also. So what happens to the objects in orbit around the Sun as a result? They move further away from the Sun, gradually, but at a the same rate as the reduction of solar mass. The theory that suggests the Earth will "roast" in the next 750millionish years does not take into account the fact that the Sun is loosing mass at a greater rate than it is increasing in luminosity.

The evidence of this is found in the geological record of Earth. There have been more near total coverage ice ages in the last 50million years than there were in the previous 1 billion. So the Earth is getting colder in general over time. This is known fact. Given that it is also known fact that the Sun is getting brighter and hotter means only one thing, the Earth is moving away from the Sun at a rate greater than that of the Sun increasing luminosity.

Therefore, the "Roasting Earth" theory is utter nonsense as it is not supported by evidence. The Earth, regardless of the artificial warming we have induced, will continue to get colder and another ice age is just around the corner of the geological calendar. IF it were not for human activities, the Earth would already be in the beginning stages of it's next ice age. We have only delayed it, we have not stopped it.

I was under the impression that John Michael Godier said the sun is literally getting bigger as it heats up, and that stars tend to get bigger before they supernova, ours won't supernova but the concept is the same on smaller scale? Seems to me you are directly contradicting whatever science John Michael Godier is referencing, because I know I have heard him say several times the sun will continue to get bigger in size as it enters its death phase.

I like your idea too, but the issue I have with both you and him, is the source for your science on whether the sun is getting bigger or smaller. I would need both sources from the two of you, then we could debate from there. Or perhaps my memory has completely failed me and he has never said the sun is getting bigger... LOL

 

[lexluthermiester]

I was under the impression that John Michael Godier said the sun is literally getting bigger as it heats up, and that stars tend to get bigger before they supernova

What he is referring to is the end cycles of the life of a star, any star really. That's not the same as the main fusion stage that the Sun is in.

I would need both sources from the two of you

The sources for my conclusions are known science, astrological observations and discoveries in geological history. If I were to attempt to make citations, I'd be here for days. It's not an effort I'm willing to make, so I'm not going to. It's up to the reader to research the Sun, it's history as we know it and draw a conclusion.

 

[Space Lynx]

What he is referring to is the end cycles of the life of a star, any star really. That's not the same as the main fusion stage that the Sun is in.

The sources for my conclusions are known science, astrological observations and discoveries in geological history. If I were to attempt to make citations, I'd be here for days. It not an effort I'm willing to make, so I'm not going to. It's up to the reader to research the Sun, it's history as we know it and draw a conclusion.

No need for citations then. I see what you are saying.

I have always been fascinated as well with this idea of the Earth moving further away from the Sun, I know its like 1 or 2 inches every year or something like that. Combine that with your hypothesis, and one has to wonder if climate change is actually a good thing and needed to keep the Earth warm? Probably not at the current pace of it, but it does open the question of there needs to be some kind of balance, but the math is so complex and so many variables it may be impossible to ever know the exact number of actual carbon pollution we need...

No idea either way, just think it is interesting to think about.

 

[qubit]

@lynx29 you really can't argue that quantum physics / theory "overcomplicates things", because it's been experimentally proved thousands of times. It's ok not to understand it as it's pretty unintuitive. The split beam experiment is a pretty good example of the nature of quantum physics. Oh and you can't disagree with the Schrodinger's cat experiment either, as it's been proved and is at the heart of quantum physics. That describes superposition which has been proved, so to disagree with that is to deny hard evidence.

 

[R-T-B]

The only point at which the earth will be roasted by the Sun is when the sun enters it's death throes. Thankfully that is very far off. We should have answers by then if we still exist. I don't view it as a very sensible thing to fear.

 

[Space Lynx]

The only point at which the earth will be roasted by the Sun is when the sun enters it's death throes. Thankfully that is very far off. We should have answers by then if we still exist. I don't view it as a very sensible thing to fear.

the challenge of thinking about it could lead to innovations though

 

[Shrek]

It already is

* Quantum cryptography is already commercial

 

[R-T-B]

the challenge of thinking about it could lead to innovations though

Oh I have no doubts understanding the process is useful. Just saying anyone losing sleep over it is being silly, that's all.

 

[lexluthermiester]

It already is

* Quantum cryptography is already commercial

True. Keep in mind though, it is still just software running on a computer. It's not really "Quantum Cryptography" when you get technical.

the challenge of thinking about it could lead to innovations though

Exactly. We are motivated to find answers to problems we often have no way to test or use in any practical method. But it's the discoveries that do lead to practical knowledge & application to daily life that is the main motivation behind governments and big business offering funding.

Oh I have no doubts understanding the process is useful. Just saying anyone losing sleep over it is being silly, that's all.

Right. No one living will have to worry about it, nor anyone for 1000 generations. But it's something that will someday effect our world one way or the other and finding the answers & probabilities could be a key to a solution for generations of humanity far in the future.

 

[qubit]

True. Keep in mind though, it is still just software running on a computer. It's not really "Quantum Cryptography" when you get technical.

The transmission of data down the fibre optic cable does use quantum effects to keep the data stream secure. Anyone intercepts it, it's instantly spotted and the transmission stopped. Transmission between banks is a typical use for this technology.

 

[Deleted member 6693]

I have always been fascinated as well with this idea of the Earth moving further away from the Sun, I know its like 1 or 2 inches every year or something like that. Combine that with your hypothesis, and one has to wonder if climate change is actually a good thing and needed to keep the Earth warm? Probably not at the current pace of it, but it does open the question of there needs to be some kind of balance, but the math is so complex and so many variables it may be impossible to ever know the exact number of actual carbon pollution we need...

I don't think the Earth, Sun and for that matter, the rest of the universe cares, about balance and carbon polution, regarding humans well-being - humans are only a tiny tiny dot, in that equation.....
But ill agree, it is fascinating.

 

[ThaiTaffy]

Many of us are in the same boat as you.

So have you looked up quantum computing?

I found this:

Quantum information science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

just started reading it

Please don't get your knowlage from Wikipedia if you like to read and really want to know more use something like https://arxiv.org/ you can find published papers on many fields there https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.13552 is a good paper on quantum computing if your interested.