Tag Archives: Quantum mechanics

Spooky interaction and spongy space

While reading an excerpt from “How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival [Excerpt]” from Scientific American, I again started pondering on spooky-interaction.

Einstein saw a problem with quantum spooky-interaction at a distance, i.e., quantum entanglement. An observer can’t measure neither position or speed (momentum) accurately (noncommutativity) at the same time, because we are outside the reference frame or system of an individual particle being measured; outside the looking glass so to speak, existing within our own snow shaker (reference frame). Although we are made of lots of elementary particles, collectively they work as their own system, within a larger framework of another system.

Just as we can’t see outside our observable Universe or inside a black-hole, the same fuzz occurs with an individual elementary particle because we are not part of that system, which exists in a different phased space from what we exist within. We see a shadow or ghost of that individual particle and we appear reflected to the observed particle’s true nature also as a shadow or ghost.

Within quantum mechanics an elementary particle is said to have spin; that is spin direction. Wolfgang Pauli first proposed the concept of spin, who later formulated a mathematical theory in 1927. Quantum mechanics uses two types of angular momentum: orbital angular momentum and spin. So why is spin important? Spin has no direct analogous classical mechanical equivalent, however quantum mechanical spin does contain information about direction. Continue reading

Advertisements

Comments Off on Spooky interaction and spongy space

Filed under NatSci

What constitutes time?

A definition of time can be found within the second law of thermodynamics, in entropy. From entropy we can establish a direction for the flow of time within the classical physics world. Entropy at its core is about energy and heat transfer. Heat can be transferred from one body to another by electromagnetic radiation.

Electromagnetic radiation has several measurable components, wavelength, electron volt and frequency and its energy can be calculated using classical and quantum methods, seen as a wave or a particle. Waves and oscillations permeate the universe and are present in whatever form of tool we use to describe the world about us.

One component of a wave or an oscillation is its frequency. We can experience frequency in the form of an earth tremor, as the ground shakes and the earth’s mantle vibrates. The word frequency is defined as being, “The rate of repetition of a regular event. The number of cycles of a wave, or some other oscillation or vibration”, source: Oxford Dictionary of Science, John Daintith, Elizabeth Martin, et al., 2005, Oxford University Press.

Subatomic particles can be broken down into smaller and smaller components. LHC at CERN is attempting to confirm experimentally what theoretical physicists postulate for the structure of matter. I am proposing a thought experiment as to postulate further what time is. Continue reading

Comments Off on What constitutes time?

Filed under NatSci

Many-worlds interpretation

On the matter of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, I came across this fascinating article; below is an abstract:

“Or at least one of your future world-paths will… In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, all outcomes of any experiment are realised. Rather than the wave function, a superposition of all possible outcomes, “collapsing” to a single outcome, in the many-worlds interpretation the universe itself branches into all the possible outcomes. … The physics world thought this interpretation came along with a bit too much metaphysical baggage to be taken completely seriously. Nevertheless the mathematics are certainly self-consistent, I think.” Source: Play the Quantum Lottery!

Continue reading

Comments Off on Many-worlds interpretation

Filed under NatSci

One of our Dinosaurs, or is that Universes, is missing?

Like the accolade to Disney in its heyday with the great comedic British Actor… I feel a certain sense of nostalgia to the missing Universe debate; an article published at http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/6/5/1 discusses how “dark matter” is still nowhere to be found.

If astronomers are correct in that only 4% of the known visible universe is made up of ordinary matter, with the rest being made up of dark matter and or dark energy {which is responsible for the universe’s expansion}, then one might sensibly ask, where is the rest of the missing matter? Or is it missing?

It is good to debate, discuss and form hypothesis, as this keeps people thinking; though to describe dark matter in scientific journals as though it was “real” as normal matter that we can see and touch, is stretching it a bit. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for debates, discussions and hypothesis, but also, there is nothing wrong in saying: “we don’t know” where the rest of the missing matter is.

Continue reading

Comments Off on One of our Dinosaurs, or is that Universes, is missing?

Filed under NatSci