ChatterBank1 min ago
physics...
8 Answers
okay, im not exactly well educated in science terms! but i just wanted to ask if ive got this right...all the website i found are just too complex!
is quantum physics, the physics that occur at the atomic/molecular level, and work differently to...erm...normal, everyday physics! lol :P i mean things that obey the law of gravity for example....
so...if this is right...why is it right? why should the physics of the atomic or molecular or whatever, work differently than "everyday" bog standard physics?
hehe, you can tell im rubbish at science...but im curious...i dont want a degree in the field, im just interested for the sake of it. besides, cant hurt to connect a few brain cells every now and then!
is quantum physics, the physics that occur at the atomic/molecular level, and work differently to...erm...normal, everyday physics! lol :P i mean things that obey the law of gravity for example....
so...if this is right...why is it right? why should the physics of the atomic or molecular or whatever, work differently than "everyday" bog standard physics?
hehe, you can tell im rubbish at science...but im curious...i dont want a degree in the field, im just interested for the sake of it. besides, cant hurt to connect a few brain cells every now and then!
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dannyday5821. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Actually, at its simplest, quantum physics as over against Newtonian Physics attempts to describe how things are and how they work at the sub-atomic level. Certainly far below, if that's an apt description, of the molecular level.
In school, you recall seing the model of an atom... a central core with things whizzing around it in orbit. Quantum Physics describes not only those things but the things of which they are made...
The standard laws of physics do appear to break down at the size, speed and inter-reaction at that size. Much of it, is obviously, theory, at least at this point. One major hurdle is incorporated in the term The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.) Again, geratly oversimplified, Heisenberg posits that observing any thing at the quantum level, changes that thing and in doing so negates or at least changes the validity of ones observation.
Another term in the Planck Constant (tP). In a few words, it is the constant of time and distance measurement. Measurement of both can only approximate the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to the Planck length (1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton) ... Planck time is 10-43 seconds. No smaller distance or time at this point has any meaning. Hence, we don't know or can't predict, for example, the exact time or circumstances of the actual Big Bang... only back to, you guessed it, 10-43 seconds after the event.
Again, this is a science (some would say an art) that only a few people in the world can speak fully and intelligently about... your own Stephen Hawking, being one...
In school, you recall seing the model of an atom... a central core with things whizzing around it in orbit. Quantum Physics describes not only those things but the things of which they are made...
The standard laws of physics do appear to break down at the size, speed and inter-reaction at that size. Much of it, is obviously, theory, at least at this point. One major hurdle is incorporated in the term The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.) Again, geratly oversimplified, Heisenberg posits that observing any thing at the quantum level, changes that thing and in doing so negates or at least changes the validity of ones observation.
Another term in the Planck Constant (tP). In a few words, it is the constant of time and distance measurement. Measurement of both can only approximate the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to the Planck length (1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton) ... Planck time is 10-43 seconds. No smaller distance or time at this point has any meaning. Hence, we don't know or can't predict, for example, the exact time or circumstances of the actual Big Bang... only back to, you guessed it, 10-43 seconds after the event.
Again, this is a science (some would say an art) that only a few people in the world can speak fully and intelligently about... your own Stephen Hawking, being one...
Actually Danny for someone not well educated in science you've asked a very important question
Why indeed should things behave differently at the sub atomic level and how big do they have to be before they stop acting that way and start acting in a more conventional manner.
I won't bore you with the details but there are some very interesting experiments going on at the moment on that very subject.
The Big Bang is a poor example of quantum mechanics because it involves very large amounts of gravity and right now our science is pretty good with small things and OK with large Gravitational forces but things get a bit dodgy when you put them together - a good theory of "Quantum Gravity" is high on every physicist's "what I want for Christmas" list!
I guess the most important thing to get your head around is that in the large world if I drop hit a bal with a bat the ball will move a certain way - If I do it again the same way the ball will move in the same way again - common sense right?
Not the case in the quantum world - Do something the same way twice and you can get different outcomes - the probablity will be the same but you can't say for certain what will happen in any particular try.
Why indeed should things behave differently at the sub atomic level and how big do they have to be before they stop acting that way and start acting in a more conventional manner.
I won't bore you with the details but there are some very interesting experiments going on at the moment on that very subject.
The Big Bang is a poor example of quantum mechanics because it involves very large amounts of gravity and right now our science is pretty good with small things and OK with large Gravitational forces but things get a bit dodgy when you put them together - a good theory of "Quantum Gravity" is high on every physicist's "what I want for Christmas" list!
I guess the most important thing to get your head around is that in the large world if I drop hit a bal with a bat the ball will move a certain way - If I do it again the same way the ball will move in the same way again - common sense right?
Not the case in the quantum world - Do something the same way twice and you can get different outcomes - the probablity will be the same but you can't say for certain what will happen in any particular try.
This is probably not an appropriate forum to debate aspects of quantum mechanics, but I have to ask jake why the Big Bang isn't a good example of quantum physics... While, eventually, (in this case, a very short eventually, time wise) the Big Bang appears to have developed enormous gravitational aspects, the actual event was smaller than anything anyone can imagine (nothing, to be precise), and from the time it intitiated, so to speak, until it could be thoretically measured was less than Planck Time, so at least intuitively, it would seem we are considering the smallest and shortest (time wise) event that has ever occurred or could ever occur.
You'll find, dannyday, these types of questions generate a lot more heat than light in the way of debates, only exceeded by those involving religion, or so it seems...
You'll find, dannyday, these types of questions generate a lot more heat than light in the way of debates, only exceeded by those involving religion, or so it seems...
go ahead! debate away! i like reading what other people think, religious or otherwise. although like you said yourself, its always gonna cause problems with the whole religious/scientific debate. personally, im not really a supporter of either. although im more inclined to follow the scientific route. having said that, i always keep in mind that the more complex things get in science or religion, the more things turn into "theory" instead of an actual fact. but thats just me...
although ive got to say this...
i watched one of those "god" channels once from Sky Tv, and an advert was...well, advertising (obviously!) a DVD claiming it gives "proof that god created the world!" im sorry religious people, but i had to laugh!
although ive got to say this...
i watched one of those "god" channels once from Sky Tv, and an advert was...well, advertising (obviously!) a DVD claiming it gives "proof that god created the world!" im sorry religious people, but i had to laugh!
danny - you're fast turning into one of my favourite ABers! I love your rambling questions and your mercurial mind. After 'everyone's gone' I've been happily daydreaming about being in that scenario, and here you are, casually asking about quantum physics and evolution practically in the same breath.
You're making me dizzy, but don't stop will you?!
You're making me dizzy, but don't stop will you?!
lol nutgoneflake! i do ramble alot dont i! i can type quickly (though not the offical way) so i tend to type what im thinking exactly, rather than turning my questions into exam-like things! im very inquistive, and love learning random new things. i dunno, im no longer doing an degree, and i think working in an office dulls my mind, i can easily understand why some people see us as robots! we practically are in that office! so i try and keep my mind as active as i can, always thinking something different, always questioning, wondering and daydreaming. its actually quite nice. when i was at school, i had to learn what they told us to learn, now i can learn about "anything" i want! and since i did psychology, socially and history, ive learned to question everything i see, literally, and to always think of things from as many different angles as i can.
also, i just have a crazy imagination! - im a very visual person, hence i love drawing in my spare time as well! and of course, i love to play devils advocate, but that tends to lead to stupid arguments, espcially when im winding up my friends, colleges or parents (or generally anyone in the vicinity!)
hehe, ill stop now as this could turn into a little biography! that "everyones gone" question is addictive isnt it? ever since i posted it, and ive been on my own, either outside having a cig, or looking out the window at 3am and hearing nothing other than wind, i cant help wonder what i "really" would do, had everyone dissapeared!
also, i just have a crazy imagination! - im a very visual person, hence i love drawing in my spare time as well! and of course, i love to play devils advocate, but that tends to lead to stupid arguments, espcially when im winding up my friends, colleges or parents (or generally anyone in the vicinity!)
hehe, ill stop now as this could turn into a little biography! that "everyones gone" question is addictive isnt it? ever since i posted it, and ive been on my own, either outside having a cig, or looking out the window at 3am and hearing nothing other than wind, i cant help wonder what i "really" would do, had everyone dissapeared!
1 to 8 of 8
