Big Bang theory just does not make sense

[Mr Spock]

15 minutes ago, Xilman said:

I have a degree in chemiastry, for instance.

I have a BSc 

(bronze swimming certificate)

 

[saac]

12 minutes ago, Xilman said:

Agreed. Newtonian dynamics and Euclidean geometry is so brain-washed into us from childhood that truly grokking that they are only special cases can be extremely difficult.

Even after you achieve that level of enlightenment, the concept of a (-,+,+,+) metric can cause difficulty. The idea that a vector can be non-zero and yet have zero length is profoundly non-intuitive until you recalibrate your intuition.

I am an immense fan of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation, very widely referred to as MTW. Fully understanding it takes a mathematics level somewhat above A-leverl standard but does not require a physics degree. I have a degree in chemiastry, for instance.

Hang on don't go dissing Newtonian dynamics here     Can you tell I am a fan boi - stands up and mutters to the group  "I'm Jim and I'm an engineer.  It's been 32 days since picked up a slide rule " 

We came a long way on the back of Newtonian mechanics - heavier than air flight, split the atom, left the planet, built CERN and found more quantum stuff, put JWST in space to see the beginning.   Not so bad for "special cases" - we inhabit that realm.  Let's hear it for Newton.   

Jim 

[saac]

The OP has a lot in common with the BIg Bang - came from nowhere, caused inflation, followed by expansion and nobody knows why!

Come on OP,  send out an echo from the big bang  

Jim 

[Xilman]

6 minutes ago, andrew s said:

We can't all be perfect 😊 Regards Andrew 

Indeed. My tyaping[sic] could be much better.

[andrew s]

1 minute ago, saac said:

Hang on don't go dissing Newtonian dynamics here     Can you tell I am a fan boi - stands up and mutters to the group  "I'm Jim and I'm an engineer.  It's been 32 days since picked up a slide rule " 

We came a long way on the back of Newtonian mechanics - heavier than air flight, split the atom, left the planet, built CERN and found more quantum stuff, put JWST in space to see the beginning.   Not so bad for "special cases" - we inhabit that realm.  Let's hear it for Newton.   

Jim 

Absolutely,  the classical world is our domain. It is the bumps and bruises of our experience with Newton's insights that forged our world.

It is the lack of connection to our experience that make relativity and QM strange and mysterious. Open to our prejudice and fantasies. 

Regards Andrew 

[saac]

11 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Absolutely,  the classical world is our domain. It is the bumps and bruises of our experience with Newton's insights that forged our world.

It is the lack of connection to our experience that make relativity and QM strange and mysterious. Open to our prejudice and fantasies. 

Regards Andrew 

 

That is it Andrew, that is spot on actually. 

I remember Prof Jim Al Khalili in one of his videos pointed to quantum effects which were tangible in biological systems - navigation in robins, photosynthesis, and I think something to do with the sensory perception of fruit flies. Are there any examples of where we have used the rules and theories of quantum mechanics, GR to build or operate in the macro world?  I know GR calculations influence corrections I think to the GPS signal to counter time dilation arising from gravitational effects. But are there any situations where we start the design process off with QM or GR as the tools. Design, specification of particle colliders I guess?  Are there any quantum engineers out there - that sounds a cool job title  

 

ps - I just thought, I guess semi conductors would fall into the QM design realm  - but they don't count that's not real engineering  

Jim 

Edited August 24, 2023 by saac

[Xilman]

6 minutes ago, saac said:

Hang on don't go dissing Newtonian dynamics here     Can you tell I am a fan boi - stands up and mutters to the group  "I'm Jim and I'm an engineer.  It's been 32 days since picked up a slide rule " 

We came a long way on the back of Newtonian mechanics - heavier than air flight, split the atom, left the planet, built CERN and found more quantum stuff, put JWST in space to see the beginning.   Not so bad for "special cases" - we inhabit that realm.  Let's hear it for Newton.   

Jim 

Err...

CERN, and absolutely every particle accelerator working at more than 100keV or so, absolutely requires non-Newtonian mechanics. The rest mass of an electron is only 511 keV.

I guess you have heard of GPS. It absolutely requires GR to be useful.

Sending anything to another planet also require GR to get there with any degree of precision.

Relativisitic QM is essential to understand almost anything at a small scale, including electron spin and antimatter. At large scales, why don't we fall to the centre of the Earth under gravity? Answer: Fermi-Dirac statistics.

QM itself is profoundly non-Newtonia. Try explaining lasers and superconductivity  in a Netwonian universe.

I know you are trying to be funny, but still ...

 

 

[vlaiv]

1 minute ago, saac said:

. Are there any examples of where we have used the rules and theories of quantum mechanics, GR to build or operate in the macro world?  I know GR calculations influence corrections I think to the GPS signal to counter time dilation arising from gravitational effects. But are there any situations where we start the design process off with QM or GR as the tools.

Computing heavily depends on QM effects now.

Storage for example - look at video titled Boy and his atom to get the idea of how "deep down" electronic device companies go in search for more computing power and storage.

No way to develop new microprocessor process without QM for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process

 

[andrew s]

@saac the hot topic area would be quantum computing. Also solid state chip design is hitting the limits set by QM. Regards Andrew 

[saac]

3 minutes ago, Xilman said:

Err...

CERN, and absolutely every particle accelerator working at more than 100keV or so, absolutely requires non-Newtonian mechanics. The rest mass of an electron is only 511 keV.

I guess you have heard of GPS. It absolutely requires GR to be useful.

Sending anything to another planet also require GR to get there with any degree of precision.

Relativisitic QM is essential to understand almost anything at a small scale, including electron spin and antimatter. At large scales, why don't we fall to the centre of the Earth under gravity? Answer: Fermi-Dirac statistics.

QM itself is profoundly non-Newtonia. Try explaining lasers and superconductivity  in a Netwonian universe.

I know you are trying to be funny, but still ...

 

 

Yes they do but you don't build and operate a particle collider without Newtonian mechanics  - stress, strain, acceleration, momentum, compression, expansion, cooling, fabrication of steel , concrete, generation of electricity etc.  That is the point I was making - we live and function in a Newtonian realm and we have discovered the quantum through that. 

Jim 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by saac

[andrew s]

1 minute ago, saac said:

Yes they do but you don't build and operate a particle collider without Newtonian mechanics  - stress, strain, acceleration, momentum, compression, expansion, cooling, fabrication of steel , concrete, generation of electricity etc. 

Jim 

 

If you want to frighten a quantum physicist ask them about the measurement problem.  🤫😉😊

Regards Andrew 

[saac]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Computing heavily depends on QM effects now.

Storage for example - look at video titled Boy and his atom to get the idea of how "deep down" electronic device companies go in search for more computing power and storage.

No way to develop new microprocessor process without QM for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process

 

I love the "Boy And And His Atom" video . I remember my physics teacher saying "we will never see the atom". Ok so we are technically still not seeing it rather visualizing it but that video is mesmerising - it raises so many questions when you realise what you are watching. It's about 10 years old now I think;  I wonder how further they have progressed.  Are we manipulating individual atoms yet ?

Jim  

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, andrew s said:

If you want to frighten a quantum physicist ask them about the measurement problem.  🤫😉😊

Regards Andrew 

It is really mind boggling that we still don't have any conclusion regarding that or accepted interpretation of QM

[Xilman]

6 minutes ago, saac said:

 

Are there any examples of where we have used the rules and theories of quantum mechanics, GR to build or operate in the macro world?  I know GR calculations influence corrections I think to the GPS signal to counter time dilation arising from gravitational effects. But are there any situations where we start the design process off with QM or GR as the tools. Design, specification of particle colliders I guess?

Lasers, superconductors are good examples. Bose-Einstein statistics are profoundly non-Newtonian.

Drug design is another one. QM calculations of molecules. their structure, their energy levels and their binding to biologically important molecules started about 1985. These days all serious pharmaceutical companies employ quantum chemistry specialists. Relativistic QM is becoming ever more important in that field.

Disclaimer: I almost joined a quantum chemistry research group back in the mid-80's.

 

[vlaiv]

Just now, saac said:

Are we manipulating individual atoms yet ?

Last that I've head about in that field is using electron spin to record the data. It was hot research area some time ago, it has a catchy name as well - let me see if I can find it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spintronics

yep, spintronics it is

 

[saac]

4 minutes ago, andrew s said:

If you want to frighten a quantum physicist ask them about the measurement problem.  🤫😉😊

Regards Andrew 

I've not came across that , ok I'm having a chat with Chat GPT later on  

Jim  

[vlaiv]

Just now, saac said:

I've not came across that , ok I'm having a chat with Chat GPT later on  

Jim  

Oh, it is very simple

It can be phrased like this:

Why, oh why did I measure only one value when QM tells me that system is in superposition of countless possible values - but I never seem to measure that.

Why do my measurements relate to square of amplitude of QM wavefunction (probability of outcome is square of amplitude)?

But most importantly - why do we never see super position, is it a real thing or just calculation aid?

[Xilman]

4 minutes ago, saac said:

I love the "Boy And And His Atom" video . I remember my physics teacher saying "we will never see the atom". Ok so we are technically still not seeing it rather visualizing it but that video is mesmerising - it raises so many questions when you realise what you are watching. It's about 10 years old now I think;  I wonder how further they have progressed.  Are we manipulating individual atoms yet ?

Jim  

We have been manipulating individual atoms for rather a long time.  A famous example is IBM spelling their company's name dates from 1989.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms) for more detail.

[saac]

2 minutes ago, Xilman said:

Lasers, superconductors are good examples. Bose-Einstein statistics are profoundly non-Newtonian.

Drug design is another one. QM calculations of molecules. their structure, their energy levels and their binding to biologically important molecules started about 1985. These days all serious pharmaceutical companies employ quantum chemistry specialists. Relativistic QM is becoming ever more important in that field.

Disclaimer: I almost joined a quantum chemistry research group back in the mid-80's.

 

 

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Last that I've head about in that field is using electron spin to record the data. It was hot research area some time ago, it has a catchy name as well - let me see if I can find it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spintronics

yep, spintronics it is

 

 

16 minutes ago, andrew s said:

@saac the hot topic area would be quantum computing. Also solid state chip design is hitting the limits set by QM. Regards Andrew 

Thanks for these.  It's really good to be able to point to current uses/direction of research when talking about this area with pupils, it gives it all relevance. 

Jim 

[andrew s]

Sadly, I spent years trying to understand how our classical reality emerged from the quantum world. Eventually, I came across environmental dechoherence but even this did not solve the measurement problem. 

I feel it's more subtle than @vlaiv characterisation but I may be wrong.

I am now content with my ignorance in many areas.

Regards Andrew 

Edited August 24, 2023 by andrew s

[saac]

2 minutes ago, Xilman said:

We have been manipulating individual atoms for rather a long time.  A famous example is IBM spelling their company's name dates from 1989.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms) for more detail.

I remember that one, it was a precursor to Atom Boy. I was wondering if the manipulation had gone beyond that with more meaningful intent - beyond a demonstration of capability

Jim 

 

[billhinge]

26 minutes ago, saac said:

Hang on don't go dissing Newtonian dynamics here     Can you tell I am a fan boi - stands up and mutters to the group  "I'm Jim and I'm an engineer.  It's been 32 days since picked up a slide rule " 

We came a long way on the back of Newtonian mechanics - heavier than air flight, split the atom, left the planet, built CERN and found more quantum stuff, put JWST in space to see the beginning.   Not so bad for "special cases" - we inhabit that realm.  Let's hear it for Newton.   

Jim 

Is there a Newtonian gravitational force on the bottle & water or is it weightless in free fall ? 

 

 

 

 

 

[saac]

2 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Sadly, I spent years trying to understand how our classical reality emerged from the quantum world. Eventually, I came across environmental dechoherence but even this did not solve the measurement problem. 

I feel it's more subtle than @vlaiv characterisation but I may be wrong.

I am now content with my ignorance in many areas.

Regards Andrew 

I have become all too comfortable with that feeling too Andrew. I'm content, why fight the reality of experience  

Jim 

[billhinge]

16 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

It is really mind boggling that we still don't have any conclusion regarding that or accepted interpretation of QM

Thats the issue with uni physics, they teach the maths but not "Foundations of QM' - I used to believe in Copenhagen but now switched to Many Worlds, you know it makes sense 😉 

[andrew s]

Just now, billhinge said:

Thats the issue with uni physics, they teach the maths but not "Foundations of QM' - I used to believe in Copenhagen but now switched to Many Worlds, you know it makes sense 😉 

Is that in one or all of your many worlds? Personally,  I would hedge my bets. Regards Andrew