Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
virus: Why?
« on: 2004-04-10 23:14:41 »
If folks would learn just a "wee" bit more regarding the weirdness inherent in quantum physics, they would quit asking the annoyingly anthropomorphic question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
One could just as easily ask "Why do we think it intuitively proper to ask the above question?" as opposed to the counterpart "Why would nothing be the default state of the universe?"
SOY DISALEWVCICAt 10:14 p.m. 10/04/04 -0500, you wrote: >If folks would learn just a "wee" bit more regarding the weirdness >inherent in quantum physics, they would quit asking the annoyingly >anthropomorphic question: >"Why is there something rather than nothing?" > >One could just as easily ask "Why do we think it intuitively proper to ask >the above question?" as opposed to the counterpart "Why would nothing be >the default state of the universe?" > >Walter > >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to ><http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re:virus: Why?
« Reply #2 on: 2004-04-12 19:18:49 »
Isn't this obvious Walter, Someone had to make it all!
People don't learn more about quantum physics because the faculties necessary don't exist in the general population.
I was listening to a radio ad the other day, a pro-female advertisement. It went something like this:
Daughter: Why is the sky blue daddy? Father: To match your beautiful eyes my sweetheart. Daugher: Nope, because blue wavelength light that enters the atmosphere is scattered much more than the reds, and other colors of the spectrum, making the sky appear blue. Father: ohhh, how did you know that. (The father obviously did not know the answer) Daughter: Mommy told me. Announcer: Little girls need a andequate education too, etc....
The point of the commercial should be obvious, and it's a good point. But even deeper is the reality that the mind simply does not grasp such a conclusion - there is no correlation with survival needs, hence, the brain does not intuitivly know and it takes a deliberate question to get to the answer. Why go to all that work when the answer "Because X made it this way" will work in 90% of the cases or more.
Re: virus: Why?
« Reply #3 on: 2004-04-12 22:20:31 »
People don't want to learn about quantum physics because they don't see the money/reward in it. It's not that hard. Half the crap quantum physicists dream up is more like collaborative theatre than physics. Nearly any theory that fits the data and is capable of predicting possible futures has, likely, some predictive merit. The only reason “vortex theory” hasn't taken off is because it doesn't have the funding.
Isn't this obvious Walter, Someone had to make it all!
People don't learn more about quantum physics because the faculties necessary don't exist in the general population.
I was listening to a radio ad the other day, a pro-female advertisement. It went something like this:
Daughter: Why is the sky blue daddy? Father: To match your beautiful eyes my sweetheart. Daugher: Nope, because blue wavelength light that enters the atmosphere is scattered much more than the reds, and other colors of the spectrum, making the sky appear blue. Father: ohhh, how did you know that. (The father obviously did not know the answer) Daughter: Mommy told me. Announcer: Little girls need a andequate education too, etc....
The point of the commercial should be obvious, and it's a good point. But even deeper is the reality that the mind simply does not grasp such a conclusion - there is no correlation with survival needs, hence, the brain does not intuitivly know and it takes a deliberate question to get to the answer. Why go to all that work when the answer "Because X made it this way" will work in 90% of the cases or more.
RE: virus: Why?
« Reply #4 on: 2004-04-12 23:05:38 »
> People don't want to learn about quantum physics because they don't see the > money/reward in it. It's not that hard. Half the crap quantum physicists
> dream up is more like collaborative theatre than physics. Nearly any theory > that fits the data and is capable of predicting possible futures has, likely, > some predictive merit. The only reason "vortex theory" hasn't taken off is > because it doesn't have the funding.
Considering my friends who've taken Quantum, who I've oftentimes seen ambling about in an incoherent or half-asleep state, I have some small reservations regarding the line "It's not that hard."
While it may seem like collaborative theatre in what can be theorized, the actual practice of quantum mechanics tends to heavily involve calculating integrals and solving PDE's relating to wave functions.
I'll agree that people don't see money or reward in it, and that's often times a very rational judgement, since in order to make worthwhile usage of Quantum Mechanics, it takes a rather significant endeavor to understand the important parts of the theory.
IMHO, it does pay off to understand the basic gist and implications of the theory (the collaborative theatre bits), though.
RE: virus: Why?
« Reply #5 on: 2004-04-13 02:55:13 »
Durazac15 Sent: 13 April 2004 01:19 AM
<snip> People don't learn more about quantum physics because the faculties necessary don't exist in the general population. </snip> <snip> ...the reality that the mind simply does not grasp such a conclusion - there is no correlation with survival needs... </snip>
[Blunderov] And yet I discover, to my amazement, that all of us are probably using actual (!) quantum technology in our everyday lives.
<q> Since 1998, almost all hard discs have used a property of quantum physics known as 'giant magneto-resistance'.
Certain materials dramatically change their electrical resistance according to the surrounding magnetic field. It's all to do with the electrons' spin rather than their charge, apparently. (The 'giant' incidentally refers to the size of the effect, rather than the size of the read heads.) By placing a GMR sandwich in the middle of a circuit, the magnetic domains flying past on the disc underneath the read head can either open or shut the circuit. Because the current is external, GMR heads generate much stronger signals than the tiny currents that would be induced with a coil. This allows smaller domains packed closer together and the higher disc capacities. (PC Format, April 2004, SA Edition.) </q>
Are there other real-world applications of quantum mechanics that I have been missing? (Up till now, I confess, I had rather thought of quantum mechanics as another sort of glass bead game, not unlike memetics.) Best Regards.
RE: virus: Why?
« Reply #6 on: 2004-04-13 19:28:43 »
At 11:05 PM 12/04/04 -0400, Calvin wrote:
Erik Aronesty wrote:
> > People don't want to learn about quantum physics because they > > don't see the money/reward in it. It's not that hard. Half the crap > > quantum physicists dream up is more like collaborative theatre > > than physics. Nearly any theory that fits the data and is capable > > of predicting possible futures has, likely, some predictive merit. > > The only reason "vortex theory" hasn't taken off is because it > > doesn't have the funding.
>Considering my friends who've taken Quantum, who I've oftentimes seen >ambling about in an incoherent or half-asleep state, I have some small >reservations regarding the line "It's not that hard."
About 35 years ago I took quantum mechanics from a decently rated school.
One of the problems we had for homework was the one dimention non-infinite potential square well.
That's a hard problem to integrate even *after* you recognize that the form of the equation that emerges from the geometry is a Bessel function.
>While it may seem like collaborative theatre in what can be theorized, the >actual practice of quantum mechanics tends to heavily involve calculating >integrals and solving PDE's relating to wave functions.
Yep. Worse yet non-linear partial differential equations. There is an amusing thing about non-linear PDEs. If you solve one, they name it after you.
>I'll agree that people don't see money or reward in it, and that's often >times a very rational judgement, since in order to make worthwhile usage of >Quantum Mechanics, it takes a rather significant endeavor to understand the >important parts of the theory.
That's true. But you have to have QM for the language and concepts before you can take and understand solid state physics. I think QM and solid state are required for electrical engineers everywhere since solid state is the required background to understanding silicon (semiconductor) circuits.
Keith Henson
>IMHO, it does pay off to understand the basic gist and implications of the >theory (the collaborative theatre bits), though. > >Just wanted to add... >-Calvin > >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to ><http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
RE: virus: Why?
« Reply #7 on: 2004-04-13 19:40:41 »
At 08:55 AM 13/04/04 +0200, Blunderov wrote:
snip
>Are there other real-world applications of quantum mechanics that I have >been missing? (Up till now, I confess, I had rather thought of quantum >mechanics as another sort of glass bead game, not unlike memetics.)
A few. Diodes, transistors, ICs of all kinds, LEDs, and lasers. A substantial percentage of the US GDP.
Then understanding chemistry depends utterly on QM. I took college chemistry before QM chemistry (Pauling) hit big time. A few years ago my daughter took chemistry in high school. To help her I had to completely relearn the subject since it is now taught from a QM perspective.
Keith Henson
PS. Photosynthesis depends on QM electron trapping.
Re:virus: Why?
« Reply #8 on: 2004-04-13 21:27:04 »
[hkhenson] Worse yet non-linear partial differential equations. There is an amusing thing about non-linear PDEs. If you solve one, they name it after you.
[rhinoceros] Heh, true. But non-linear equations do not belong in quantum physics -- at least they didn't when I was at school.
As far as I remember, the principle of superposition, which allows you to combine wavefunctions, demands linear equations or else it does not apply.
Non-linear partial differential equations are more common in thermodynamics, I think.
Re: virus: Why?
« Reply #9 on: 2004-04-14 08:42:44 »
I liked diffeq's. I found them, in some ways, to be easier than multivariate calculus. I think because it had some practical benefit. You could actually use them to model and discover real-world phenomena. A lot of examples used in the texts used economic data, biological processes, etc.
[hkhenson] Worse yet non-linear partial differential equations. There is an amusing thing about non-linear PDEs. If you solve one, they name it after you.
[rhinoceros] Heh, true. But non-linear equations do not belong in quantum physics -- at least they didn't when I was at school.
As far as I remember, the principle of superposition, which allows you to combine wavefunctions, demands linear equations or else it does not apply.
Non-linear partial differential equations are more common in thermodynamics, I think.
Re: virus: Why?
« Reply #10 on: 2004-04-14 08:46:39 »
I liked diffeq's. I found them, in some ways, to be easier than multivariate calculus. I think because it had some practical benefit. You could actually use them to model and discover real-world phenomena. A lot of examples used in the texts used economic data, biological processes, etc. (Quantum physical processes)
The equations that have already been solved are sufficient to understand current quantum theory - so it's not like you have to be some pioneering mathemetician just to be useful in the field. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re: virus: Why?
« Reply #11 on: 2004-04-14 10:54:52 »
----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com> To: <virus@lucifer.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:28 PM Subject: RE: virus: Why?
> That's true. But you have to have QM for the language and concepts before > you can take and understand solid state physics. I think QM and solid > state are required for electrical engineers everywhere since solid state is > the required background to understanding silicon (semiconductor) circuits.
A QM background would be helpful but it isn't strictly necessary for an EE degree. I passed a course in solid state physics without a QM pre-req, and though I have no doubt I would have understood solid state better with QM, it is possible to get by without. And while I'm in confession mode, I have an advanced CS degree but no compiler course under my belt. :-o
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re: virus: Why?
« Reply #12 on: 2004-04-14 14:40:21 »
--- "Walter Watts" <wlwatts@cox.net> wrote: If folks would learn just a "wee" bit more regarding the weirdness inherent in quantum physics, they would quit asking the annoyingly anthropomorphic question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
One could just as easily ask "Why do we think it intuitively proper to ask the above question?" as opposed to the counterpart "Why would nothing be the default state of the universe?"
Walter
[Athenonrex]
well, remember...'nothing' doesn't technically exist. it would potentially exist if it weren't labelled, but giving it a label, semantically speaking, makes it a 'thing'...therefore, 'nothing' is really 'some thing'. so if the intellectual concept of 'nothing' is in existence, then the physical concept of 'nothing' doesn't exist, otherwise there wouldn't be a word for it.
semantically speaking...
nothing; syn.: void, null, nihl, vaccuum, etc...
_____________________________________________________________ --->Get your free email @godisdead.com Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
Re: virus: Why?
« Reply #13 on: 2004-04-14 16:25:20 »
I love this place.....
Walter
----- Original Message ----- From: "athe nonrex" <athenonrex@godisdead.com> To: <virus@lucifer.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 1:40 PM Subject: Re: virus: Why?
> > --- "Walter Watts" <wlwatts@cox.net> wrote: > If folks would learn just a "wee" bit more regarding the weirdness inherent in quantum physics, they would quit asking the annoyingly anthropomorphic question: > "Why is there something rather than nothing?" > > One could just as easily ask "Why do we think it intuitively proper to ask the above question?" as opposed to the counterpart "Why would nothing be the default state of the universe?" > > Walter > > [Athenonrex] > > well, remember...'nothing' doesn't technically exist. it would > potentially exist if it weren't labelled, but giving it a label, > semantically speaking, makes it a 'thing'...therefore, 'nothing' is > really 'some thing'. so if the intellectual concept of 'nothing' is > in existence, then the physical concept of 'nothing' doesn't exist, > otherwise there wouldn't be a word for it. > > semantically speaking... > > nothing; syn.: void, null, nihl, vaccuum, etc... > > > _____________________________________________________________ > --->Get your free email @godisdead.com > Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Author
Logged
