Quantum physics, real or a Vegas act?

Question

Einstein couldn't grasp hold of the theory and I'm just wondering if it's more of a Las Vegas odds system than real science. Probability and uncertainty are good for horse races and roulette, but I find I need more from my physics. What if we just don't have the measurement tools at the quantum level to take into account the effects of the warping of time and space? At the macro level, these effects are small compared to the size of the objects, but at the quantum level, these effects could be astronomical to the point that we just can't measure them effectively to predict their outcome? Now, I'm not a mathetician and physics theorist so give it to me in something that I can get my arms around. And remember, simplicity is truth and complexity is mankinds way of saying, "I don't really know." Also, applying quantum rules to the universe? If we can't apply Relativity at the quantum level, why should the quantum level be applied at the macro level? String theory?

Answer 1

Quantum physics is largely based on our inability to make certain measurements precise IN PRINCIPLE. It has nothing to do with the crudity of our instruments.

The classic example is: how would you define the position of a sine wave? For the wave to have a definite wavelength--I mean, perfectly defined--it has to be of infinite extent. On the other hand, if it's localized, then it actually consists of a superposition (sum) of a bunch of different waves. Since in quantum mechanics the wavelength determines the momentum, the momentum and position cannot be simultaneously measured to perfect precision--there is a tradeoff.

So what position do you measure? The answer in almost has to be random--otherwise there would be some correlation which, in principle, might allow you to simultaneously infer position and momentum at once. This is the experimental case.

There is determinism in quantum mechanics--the Schroedinger equation, the Klein-Gordon equation, the Dirac equation are all quite deterministic. What is undetermined is the outcome of a specific measurement--because of this wave/particle tradeoff, known in its more general form as the uncertainty principle.

In fact, the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations are (special) relativistic generalizations of the Schroedinger equation for spin-0 and spin-1/2 particles. Quantum Electrodynamics is a fully (special) relativistic theory for the interaction of the electromagnetic field and electrical charge, and it's been extended to cover the weak nuclear interaction as well. Quantum chromodynamics seems to describe the strongly interacting particles well, and together all of these theories underpin the Standard Model. They've done pretty well in experiments.

I've only described the successes--the shortcomings are most glaring when one tries to find a consistent theory which includes a quantum version of the gravitational field. This is where string theory is trying to expand upon quantum mechanics--though I daresay the uncertainty principle holds there, too.

Answer 2

What do you mean, "Einstein couldn't grasp hold of the theory"?
Einstein is one of the founders of Quantum theory, not to mention a genius....I am pretty sure he understood it.
Einstein, however, did not like some of the things Quantum mechanics seemed to imply ("God does not play dice"). Near the end of his life, Einstein was trying to find a way to combine his theory of relativity and Quantum mechanics unto a unified theory to better explain the universe.

You can apply quantum mechanics at macro levels, but it just wont do you much good.
An electron is so tiny with so little mass that (similarly to light) it not only can act as a particle, but also as a wave. In fact, all matter, no matter (pun) the amount acts are both a particle and wave. But the more mass an object has, the smaller the wavelength is, so on the level of an electron, it sometimes helps to think of it as a wave, but on the level of a horse, it is virtually meaningless.

Answer 3

There's nothing inferior about probabilities. Almost all science requires probability theory to model our lack of knowledge about things.

However, there's a controversy whether probabilities should be used only for that purpose, or whether it makes sense to talk about objective probabilities also. The latter was what Einstein was against.

Most physicists currently disagree with Einstein when it comes to quantum mechanics. Roger Penrose is a prominent one who agrees with Einstein. Anyway, quantum physics is very difficult to understand. Assuming that the uncertainties reflect the crudeness of our measurements and understanding does not make it simpler.

Answer 4

The truth is always simple.....

Relativity seems simple to understand. But Quantum physics is way too complex. To compound the problem, we have not been able to see an atom but we are talking about particles two levels below an atom.

May be the scientists are too brilliant and may be they are right.

But just in its current format, quantum physics seems complicated and my heart says probably this is not correct.

I strongly think that nature would not have a two set of rules one for the micro world and another for the macro.

Answer 5

Most of what you learn, observe and retain are sensory. To bend space and time is to become one with the energy of the universe. This isn't physical. Stop thinking in the physical. Look into Remote Viewing instead.It has been described as astral time travel and psychic spying among others. Than you can go talk to Einstein if he's still even in this universe or catch him before he does leave, relativity to time, space,place and energy uno. Um, sorta. (D'OH!) Do you really need someone to draw you a picture to enjoy the show? Less is more, remember that.

Answer 6

I'm no math or science person, just someone logically thinking. Try using the theories as you like, science is not about the answers, but about the questions themselves. Try to see if you can apply them and use them in a "String Theory", who's to say its wrong if you can make it work.

Answer 7

If a light bulb is on-it's on-whether someone observes it or not. The "cat in the box" is either alive or dead. Observation may change one's perception or answer one's self imposed I wonder question-but it won't change the facts.