Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Quantum Physics tonight

DaveS

By DaveS
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

LukeSkywatcher

LukeSkywatcher

Posted
Posted

Jim is good. Last week i started delving into quantum physics on tv with something light...............Stephen Hawking's "Grand Design". I had just grasped the Big Bang Theory, and how everything came from nothing, and then Stephen blindsided me and took it all away again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ian_bird

ian_bird

Posted
Posted

Thanks. I would have missed this without your heads up!

He's a pretty good presenter. Strikes a good balance between geek and non-geek. Heavily weighted towards the non-geek - but that's fair enough.

Thanks again.

Regards

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ian_bird

ian_bird

Posted
Posted

Well that was a blast from the past.

Two books I read at the end of the seventies. The Tao of Physics and the Dancing Wu Li Masters.

Never thought I would hear of them again!

They first got me interested in Quantum Theory.

Those were happy days! :icon_biggrin:

Cheers.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saac

saac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

IIRC... Neutrinos being sub-atomical particles can appear out of nowhere and vanish as quickly. 

It made sense to me, and who am I to question perhaps the most brilliant mind ever. 

Sounds like a typical night's observing with stars vanishing behind clouds as quickly as they came into view. Quantum evident in the macro world :) 

Jim 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andrew s

andrew s

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, brantuk said:
"If I hadn't watched that program, then it wouldn't have existed" and I'd get one hour of my life back lol :)

I thought it was a reasonable program about the old quantum theory. It needs updating getting away from the old debates and looking at things like QED and environmental decoherence. Then he need not have got into the issue of "it's only there when looked at". The decoherence time for macroscopic object is <<10^-10s just from the cosmic microwave background alone. 

Quite simply the moon is alway there as the universe keeps interacting with it.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brantuk

brantuk

Posted
Posted

Yeah - I wasn't sure about the 2 thing too. It was a fascinating program and I thought I was just keeping up till he started on coins and cards sending secret messages to each other. Then the number two suddenly appeared as if out of thin air (higher or lower than being the proof or not). I wish he would've clarified that - or maybe he did? Perhaps I was just tired cos I was desperately ready for bed by then. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andrew s

andrew s

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, brantuk said:

Yeah - I wasn't sure about the 2 thing too.

Didn't anybody see his hand move faster 
Than the lightning in his eyes 
Oh! what a cold surprise...

...The Medicine Man sits on the stage
Eats fire and water, earth and air while we all stare.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Posted
Posted

Jim A is pretty good and programmes like this were made as primers for the Open University I think so they're a bit above the Brian Cox level.  

I sometimes wonder whether it is more confusing to use analogies to try and explain things like quantum  mechanics than it would be to actually teach people some physics.  I discussed the programme afterwards with my OH, who is not daft by any means, but she doesn't have a scientific background.  She found the analogies too muddled and convoluted. So I explained about photons and polarisation and the supposition of states and the creation of entanglement in simple terms and she said yes I get all that, why didn't Jim A say that instead of muddling  it up with coins and gloves and whatnot. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brantuk

brantuk

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

She found the analogies too muddled and convoluted. So I explained about photons and polarisation and the supposition of states and the creation of entanglement in simple terms and she said yes I get all that, why didn't Jim A say that instead of muddling  it up with coins and gloves and whatnot

Yup - it woulda helped me too - I found so many analogies far too confusing. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

So I explained about photons and polarisation and the supposition of states and the creation of entanglement in simple terms and she said yes I get all that, why didn't Jim A say that instead of muddling  it up with coins and gloves and whatnot. :)

True that. I know quite a few people who believe that e.g., during the
process of shuffling, a deck of cards literally becomes "quantum mush".
And, as a consequence, all sorts of bizarre beliefs become possible... ;)

I wonder if science is a bit of a disappointment to those who take it up
after hearing the accounts of TV Scientists. Recalling a poster on one
notable Physicist's office door re. "Theorists settling differences" etc. :D

Sumo.jpg.67a42ad27e28d4fdde9a401957ac0515.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.