Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whew...all the quantum physics stuff is certainly over MY head, but I feel honored that all this intelligent conversation happend as a result of my humble little thread
So, can anyone recommend some kind of "physics for dummies" books for me? Definitely a gap in my education that I should look to fill (at least a little.)
As I said earlier, I just finished reading The Fabric of the Cosmos. Is it a little tough to grasp the full context of everything? Yeah, but the author puts it in a way that is about as simple as it's going to get. He uses fantastic analogies, refrains from ridiculously long mathematical formulas, and puts it in a way that is fundamentally easy to understand on some level. Are you going to struggle with some of the concepts? Yep. It blew my mind.
There's a saying about quantum physics.
"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics at all."
I think that's about as adequate as it gets
I really enjoyed that book. I did struggle through some of it, but if you're looking for basic (at least as basic as can be presented) than I recommend it.
Edit: The book goes into all things physics from the theory of relativity to brane theory not JUST quantum physics. It's a pretty cool ride to at least try and wrap your mind around some of it.
With my (very) limited understanding of physics and advanced math, I'm sure there will be a lot I won't "get", but it sure sounds interesting and I think I'll give the book a try
Whew...all the quantum physics stuff is certainly over MY head, but I feel honored that all this intelligent conversation happend as a result of my humble little thread
So, can anyone recommend some kind of "physics for dummies" books for me? Definitely a gap in my education that I should look to fill (at least a little.)
Sorry.. I wrote this a while ago but never got round to posting it…
Word Docs is a graveyard for my unfinished messages..J
Sometimes I still manage to resurrect them..
------
I would recommend.. looking though books first.. to see if they make easy reading or not. By easy reading I mean.. if the writer captures my interest.. I will read it.. but if he/she doesn't.. I look around for someone who does.
There are lots of good books around written for the layman.. in plain language.. that are not full of maths.. If you are like me and can't read maths.. and don’t have much of a school education.. they can still really teach you a lot. I would go for the more general books at first.. and if you find something that you feel really curious about.. start reading more specifically.. you can get books specifically about.. time.. gravity.. star evolution.. atomic particles.. and black holes.. etc.
I found the best way to read physics was to read about an idea and then try to imagine it as a picture in my mind.. then as I begin to take in more.. I adjust the picture I have.. always trying to see it more clearly. I guess this is trying to understanding things.. by means of making continual progressive approximations.
You will never have the answer to all possible questions.. but even just having a general idea can be quiet fascinating.
Also.. if you find a book you enjoy.. read it several times.. much more sinks in when we do repeated readings.
Alternatively.. online.. this is something I really like.. written by Peter Russell.. it explains some of the strangeness and paradoxes.. of a photon of energy.. which is the basic building block of everything physical.
Personally.. I find this kind of stuff really exiting..
If you have two photons called A and B respectively could we predict their three characteristics (velocity, position, and spin)??? Well, what makes quantum physics so incredibly hard is that at any point you examine photon A, photon B immediately takes the setting of photon A. To make it even more difficult, we can only look at one particular "setting". In other words, if we looked at photon A's spin as it went through a detector of sorts, then photon B's spin would automatically take the spin of photon A. Even more difficult is that if you were to look at the velocity of photon B, it also changes the position of not only photon B but the position and velocity of photon A.
The best potential explanation I’ve found for that comes from here http://tinyurl.com/yxwsbo . Here’s a quote:
“In 1997, Maldacena developed a type of string theory in a universe with five large dimensions of space and a contorted space-time geometry. He showed that this theory, which includes gravity, is equivalent to an ordinary quantum field theory, without gravity, living on the four-dimensional boundary of that universe. Everything happening on the boundary is equivalent to everything happening inside: ordinary particles interacting on the surface correspond precisely to strings interacting on the interior.
This is remarkable because the two worlds look so different, yet their information content is identical. The higher-dimensional strings can be thought of as a "holographic" projection of the quantum particles on the surface, similar to the way a laser creates a 3D hologram from the information contained on a 2D surface. Even though Maldacena's universe was very different from ours, the elegance of the theory suggested that our universe might be something of a grand illusion - an enormous cosmic hologram (New Scientist, 27 April 2002, p 22).”
So if strings in the larger dimensional space can be thought of as projections of particles in the smaller dimensional space, possibly the reverse could be true as well. More specifically: possibly the two entangled photons are actually essentially the same object - two projections of the same structure which exists in the larger space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
However, we can determine that the two are inherently different by "splitting" the photons as they pass through two separate detectors. In other words, we send photon A through a "splitter" and photon B through a "splitter". We then have four photons each ripe for examining their own velocities and spins.
This might tend to disprove my conjecture above. Do you know where I can find details on it? Do the four photons act as if they are no longer entangled?
This might tend to disprove my conjecture above. Do you know where I can find details on it? Do the four photons act as if they are no longer entangled?
I don't think that the four photons no longer become entangled it just allows the scientist(s) to better understand or accurately predict the location and thereby examine other properties such as spin or velocity. However, if I'm not mistaken, I do believe they mentioned that the velocity is reduced in half upon going through the splitter. Let me see if I can't find the study for you outside of the book I mentioned. As I said, I'm a bit of a novice in this area so please correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think that the four photons no longer become entangled it just allows the scientist(s) to better understand or accurately predict the location and thereby examine other properties such as spin or velocity. However, if I'm not mistaken, I do believe they mentioned that the velocity is reduced in half upon going through the splitter. Let me see if I can't find the study for you outside of the book I mentioned. As I said, I'm a bit of a novice in this area so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks for the link. Hadn't seen that before. (I'm barely a novice as well). Based on the linked article, however, I don't think the splitter splits the photon. Rather it splits the beam by deflecting half the photons down path 1 and letting the other half pass through to travel down path 2. That way you can tell which path a photon traveled along, which is the equivalent of knowing which slit a photon passed through in the two slit experiment. When you put another splitter at the other end, however, you no longer know which path the photon traveled along, because the second splitter might direct a photon from either path out either exit. The point of the experiment is that whenever you don't know which path the photon travels, it behaves as it it's traveled both of them, and ends up interfering with itself. But when you do know which path it traveled, it doesn't do that.
They also tried it with one of a pair of entangled photons, and whenever that photon interfered with itself, the entangled photon interfered with itself as well. That would seem to support the idea that two entangled photons are actually the same "object" in some way, such as if they are both projections of a single extra-dimensional object.
Thanks for the link. Hadn't seen that before. (I'm barely a novice as well). Based on the linked article, however, I don't think the splitter splits the photon. Rather it splits the beam by deflecting half the photons down path 1 and letting the other half pass through to travel down path 2. That way you can tell which path a photon traveled along, which is the equivalent of knowing which slit a photon passed through in the two slit experiment. When you put another splitter at the other end, however, you no longer know which path the photon traveled along, because the second splitter might direct a photon from either path out either exit. The point of the experiment is that whenever you don't know which path the photon travels, it behaves as it it's traveled both of them, and ends up interfering with itself. But when you do know which path it traveled, it doesn't do that.
They also tried it with one of a pair of entangled photons, and whenever that photon interfered with itself, the entangled photon interfered with itself as well. That would seem to support the idea that two entangled photons are actually the same "object" in some way, such as if they are both projections of a single extra-dimensional object.
Head...exploding...but in a good way. I love this stuff!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alice-in-Quantum-Land
