The Secrets of Quantum Physics

[RobM77]

I'm a big fan of Jim, but I must admit I thought he could have explained things a bit better in this one - perhaps that's what comes of doing a programme on a subject you're an expert on? Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to the second part

[RobM77]

ash73 said:

Well he is trying to describe something which is inconceivable

Enjoyed the programme, he's my favourite science presenter. Feynman's book on QED here is required reading for anyone interested in this, it's mind boggling but still digestible by the interested layman.

It's not that counter-intuitive if you think about it, if the universe is literally infinite it makes sense it would only instantiate when observed, rather like a fractal on a computer which only draws the level you are looking at.

I should say that I personally understood what he explained (I have a degree in Physics!), but I just thought that his explanations could have been clearer. He's my favourite science presenter too - I really like his output as it's probably the least dumbed down, and he's a superb communicator.

[Abagnale]

I'll be watching because if I don't it might not be on.

[MartG]

Abagnale said:

I'll be watching because if I don't it might not be on.

Brilliant

[Toltec]

RobM77 said:

I should say that I personally understood what he explained (I have a degree in Physics!), but I just thought that his explanations could have been clearer. He's my favourite science presenter too - I really like his output as it's probably the least dumbed down, and he's a superb communicator.

I rate Marcus du Sautoy too, his mathematics programs are excellent.

[RobM77]

Toltec said:

I rate Marcus du Sautoy too, his mathematics programs are excellent.

Another favourite of mine; I've been listening to his R4 'History of Mathematics' series - very good if you haven't heard it. David Malone is probably my favourite - he's not an academic as far as I know but he makes superb documentaries - his one on waves was particularly good.

[MartG]

Toltec said:

I rate Marcus du Sautoy too, his mathematics programs are excellent.

Apart from his inability to pronounce nuclear ( he says nucular )

[tobinen]

I think I'll have to watch last night's again on the red button.

If it's a tricky subject for physicists then there's no shame in not fully grasping it IMO

[RobM77]

Last night's second and and final part was very good and I learnt a lot of interesting things about the uses of Quantum Mechanics. I must admit, whilst his analogies were good, I wouldn't have minded knowing the actual science behind them. I've now got a list of topics to look up on the web and learn more about

[GnuBee]

RobM77 said:

Last night's second and and final part was very good and I learnt a lot of interesting things about the uses of Quantum Mechanics. I must admit, whilst his analogies were good, I wouldn't have minded knowing the actual science behind them. I've now got a list of topics to look up on the web and learn more about

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Guide-Perplexed-Jim-Al-Khalili-ebook/dp/B009S8AV1I/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418816537&sr=1-4&keywords=jim+al-khalili

This is his book and is about 1000 times better than the TV programme(s).

How many times do we need to here it's weird, spooky, no really, really weird yada yada. The book skips the red balls and spooky stuff...

[Einion Yrth]

I think it's probably fair to say that if the physics is counter-intuitive then it's likely to be the intuition that's wrong rather than the physics.

[KareemK]

So, in a nutshell, I'm taking it that the whole universe (if viewed from the outside) is really just a hazy ball of probability rather than a fixed definite object.

[RobM77]

KareemK said:

So, in a nutshell, I'm taking it that the whole universe (if viewed from the outside) is really just a hazy ball of probability rather than a fixed definite object.

Not at a macroscopic level, no. The Universe itself may bear signs of its early quantum nature, but they would manefest as permanent scars, so that's something different entirely. The actual macroscopic structure of the Universe is, on a large scale, definite and not fuzzy. Every particle in my body obeys quantum laws, so each individual particle has a probability that it's located anywhere within a fuzzy realm, not a definite place, but I, as in my whole body, am currently sat at my desk at work - there's not any probability at all that I'm sat at the next desk, or outside in my car.

[Dr Jekyll]

RobM77 said:

Not at a macroscopic level, no. The Universe itself may bear signs of its early quantum nature, but they would manefest as permanent scars, so that's something different entirely. The actual macroscopic structure of the Universe is, on a large scale, definite and not fuzzy. Every particle in my body obeys quantum laws, so each individual particle has a probability that it's located anywhere within a fuzzy realm, not a definite place, but I, as in my whole body, am currently sat at my desk at work - there's not any probability at all that I'm sat at the next desk, or outside in my car.

Which brings us back to the question of how big something has to be before being definite. Or is it a case of having sufficient 'fuzzy' particles to average out?

[KareemK]

ash73 said:

If there's even 0.0000000000000000001% of a grain of truth in that then surely it is a fuzzy existence (or at least not a completely definite existence) in which we all reside no?

[Thorodin]

Probably.

[Toltec]

Dr Jekyll said:

Which brings us back to the question of how big something has to be before being definite. Or is it a case of having sufficient 'fuzzy' particles to average out?

Alpha particles exhibit wave particle duality and they are a helium nucleus so not really a particle as such. I am not sure (it has been 30 years since I studied this stuff) if they can be made to form the interference pattern or not, or if so, then if they are the largest object that exhibits QM behaviour.

This is too obvious to be the 'Helium problem' referred to in the program I think.

Using blatant googling I found this page that says the ammonia molecule exhibits QM behaviour, but nothing larger appears to.

[Dr Jekyll]

Don't Buckyballs do strange things in double slit experiments?

[RobM77]

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

Not at a macroscopic level, no. The Universe itself may bear signs of its early quantum nature, but they would manefest as permanent scars, so that's something different entirely. The actual macroscopic structure of the Universe is, on a large scale, definite and not fuzzy. Every particle in my body obeys quantum laws, so each individual particle has a probability that it's located anywhere within a fuzzy realm, not a definite place, but I, as in my whole body, am currently sat at my desk at work - there's not any probability at all that I'm sat at the next desk, or outside in my car.

Which brings us back to the question of how big something has to be before being definite. Or is it a case of having sufficient 'fuzzy' particles to average out?

As far ask know it's because the scale of quantum effects is tiny in comparison to anything large. The vibrations of atoms in my body due to heat, for example, are unimaginably larger in magnitude than the QM uncertainty in particle position.

[Toltec]

Dr Jekyll said:

Don't Buckyballs do strange things in double slit experiments?

It appears they have gone a bit further than merely 60 atom molecules

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicis...

Wow!