# Why aren't more people talking about quantum mechanics?



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Vinniebob said:


> you pasty assed kraka mutha fucka's got's it all wrong
> medieval philosophy is where it be
> silly white folk with all yer math's, ooh look at me trying to prove nihllo ex nihilo with all like 2+2=5, puhleeze


*pats Vinnie on the head*


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

charlie.elliot said:


> I find it strange that more people aren't talking about quantum mechanics.
> 
> Yes, the ins-and-outs of it are nearly impossible for the lay person to understand, but the basics of it aren't. For example, anyone can understand how the double slit experiment is set up, and what the results of it are.
> 
> ...


People do tend to express loud opinions on subjects they are ignorant of and lack a working understanding of (I'm a case in point so ironically you should also be ignoring me).

But people's ignorance usually extends to a subject, or an understanding, of a subject that is convenient for their level of thinking. Like the man down the pub who can always manage sports teams better than anyone else, particularly the current manager.

Your final paragraph addresses this, I do think this is a subject that might be beyond most people's comprehension (certainly my own given the amount of time i would have to dedicate to it). "Exactly how do you use the basics of the double slit experiment in your day to day life?" There are potentially lots of applications, but getting someone to acknowledge that is very difficult.

It's not the same as someone knowing about nuclear power without knowing how it works, yet still being able to associate it with recent events such as Chernobyl and Fukushima and therefore build some argument for a negative idea of it.

It is too much in the fringe, it has no room to filter down into a common pool of understanding. The majority of us are average, with little to no interesting events happening to us (internally or externally) possibly for the rest of our lives. We want to know, first and foremost, how does this affect and relate to our own lives and experiences?

A great deal one might put forth, but you would need to invest more effort than is reasonable for an otherwise inadequate return.

It would not be 'get' in the necessary amount to be 'got'.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@Worriedfunction yeah those are great points. I guess it doesn't really have an visible effect on our day to day lives to latch onto.


----------



## Kaboomz (Jun 14, 2016)

charlie.elliot said:


> I find it strange that more people aren't talking about quantum mechanics.
> 
> Yes, the ins-and-outs of it are nearly impossible for the lay person to understand, but the basics of it aren't. For example, anyone can understand how the double slit experiment is set up, and what the results of it are.
> 
> ...


firstly, because everything is ultimately pointless and in the grand scheme of things, the fact that this is that doesn't require the double slit experiment. it's intuitive. it's in the bible. it's what enlightened buddha. it's the knowledge babies come into this world with. 

second. as with babies, we are suffocated by distractions in this world from the moment of birth, and so the discoveries of quantum mechanics are relatively redundant when we can stimulate ourselves in so many more visceral and gratifying ways. such as the almighty fap fap


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

People don't talk about QM because they don't know about it.

I think what you're asking is for average people to learn all the 'maybes' and 'what ifs' and start getting excited about stuff they don't even know is possible? It leads to blind hope and stupid futurist ideas. Think of the solar roadways hype. Or the guys who tried to make a water bottle that extracts water from air. Or the guys who tried to make a mouthpiece that extracts air from water; a human gill of sorts. These ideas were all completely dumb and, while possible, served no utilitarian purpose (e.g. the human gill could extract about 1 cubic centimetre of air for every cubic metre of water - that was the theoretical maximum and still nowhere near enough for a human to breath). Now add the fact that laypeople who talk about QM have no idea what they're on about, and it's obvious why people do not, and should not, talk about it. 

Also, QM is hardly the magical thing we all assume it is. It's just a mathematical model based on the principle that very small things are affected by the wave nature of energy itself.

I actually find that as I learn more about the subject I get sick of discussing the subject, because these very people you want to talk about it have actually got nothing of relevance to say. There's a reason QM isn't properly covered until the later years of a physics degree. There's a lot to take in and build up to beforehand. In the end it's just another branch of science.

Personally, I could sit here and go on and on about the potential of human gene manipulation. We could all be superhuman! But in the end it's utterly imbecilic speculation. I know nothing about the subject so I shouldn't talk about it.

It sometimes annoys me how the internet has given such a platform to the ignorant. I don't mean that as an insult. I just wish people would keep a bit more schtum about topics they know _absolutely nothing_ about.

And I'm not at all meaning to say I'm some sort of physics god - far from it! - but it's quite annoying when people start making 'intelligent' opinions on things, with big ideas to boot, which they just do not know enough about. In fact it's fucking lazy. Study _properly_ first before wading in and telling the professionals how you know something they haven't thought of yet.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Actually I've seen a lot of people talking about it to the point that I'm bored of hearing about it. I've seen threads like this pop up once or twice a year like it's something new since I don't even know when.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

Probably because there aren't any practical applications of it in their daily lives... and they may not understand it or be aware of it.


----------



## starvingautist (Mar 23, 2015)

Because they don't know shit about it. Tbh I wish fewer people would talk about QM. It would reduce the sheer amount of disinfo around it, e.g.

>QM says that our conscious observation of something changes its reality. 

Nope, I don't think it does. Conscious observation determines what we perceive, so we only see parts of the whole. In choosing an experimental setup, we also choose what we measure. Incompatible observables (e.g. position and momentum) cannot be measured together. It doesn't mean anything special about the nature of reality - only that we have to interact with something to observe it, which really comes as no surprise given that information = interaction.
It's exactly the same concept as measuring a particle's charge - we choose this quantity over other possible observables.

I know a little quantum mechanics.

Also, as for science stopping asking "why", it's not because they're too "cowardly".. it's because particles are described by probability waves and the question of why it is in x position has no answer; it's probabilistic. The maths works beautifully and that's basically all there is to it. Unless we find something underlying the randomness, there is no getting past this.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

It is too daunting for my money. Without a background in science, where do you even begin? It's like looking at a piano and thinking you can play Chopin.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Paulie said:


> It is too daunting for my money. Without a background in science, where do you even begin? It's like looking at a piano and thinking you can play Chopin.


If you're really interested, a neat place to start is semiconductors and electronics science. They have some practical and interesting QM involved.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Paulie said:


> It is too daunting for my money. Without a background in science, where do you even begin? It's like looking at a piano and thinking you can play Chopin.


With music, you start by learning scales and finger exercises. For QM, you start by learning the math...


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

And all this time I thought the double-slit experiment was a drunk mistake between two sexually curious college girls who describe each other as their "bestie". I am seriously blown away.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

I think it's both the fact that it's counter-intuitive, and most people seem to have trouble making sense of things if they cannot see an actual application.

Computing is the obvious use, though most people don't really grasp the mechanics and it is often explained in a way that it is not made easy to grasp.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I don't think there is a shortage of "crazy people" interest. Quantum mechanics is used as an explanation for pseudoscience like the "Law of Attraction", and seems popular in some New Age communities (a lot of overlap with those two). Whereas physicists seem to be focused specifically on quantum-level phenomena; as far as I'm aware, they make a distinction between quantum and macro mechanics. That's one of the major questions (the paradox of a certain set of laws applying on a quantum scale, but a different set on a macro scale). 

For "lay people" who aren't coming up with pseudo-scientific theories, I think there is an understanding of the limitations there, as our day-to-day existence takes place on the macro scale (at least, our awareness of it. :crazy. 

So I think there is the element of "But what does any of that actually mean?"


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> I find it strange that more people aren't talking about quantum mechanics.
> 
> Yes, the ins-and-outs of it are nearly impossible for the lay person to understand, but the basics of it aren't. For example, anyone can understand how the double slit experiment is set up, and what the results of it are.
> 
> ...


It actually doesn't...which is why it's a bit difficult talk about QM. You need to understand the math to understand the physics to understand the implications. 

When things are under a quantum scale as opposed to a classical scale, everything is probabilistic, and our observation collapses a wavefunction which we can take a measurement. It doesn't alter reality, it just allows us to take a measurement of something physical. 

In QM, we have things called eigenstates and eigenvalues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state

And whatever we're dealing with is put in the notation of a wave function: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function. The wave function is a probability amplitude and can be use to describe the probabilities. 

This eigenstate is pretty much a possibility of every possible probability/measurement of a system. When we take a measurement, we collapse a wave function. A wave function collapse will remove that part of the measurement from the wavefunction, because it's already measured. There's no reason for it to be a part of something probabilistic. But the information or reality, is not lost. Reality isn't altered by measuring, we just find out the actual value of a list of values from the eigenstate. 

And this is why it's difficult talking about QM. I've taken grad level quantum class in college, and to really understand the implications of QM you really need to know linear algebra, and what it's implying. This is why I have a problem with pop science. It sounds cool, but it may not be accurate. Pop science's goal is to get clicks and views, and ultimately that may distort the truth.

So to answer your question, to really talk about QM, and also understand what's happening, you need to have a really solid foundation behind the mathematics and what's going behind the scenes with QM. A lot of people try to use QM to explain consciousness but it has nothing to do with it and other really random things that QM has nothing to do with. It's something used to talk about things on a very small scale, because they don't behave under classical mechanics. The same reason we can't use classical mechanics in relativistic speeds, it's because the rules change


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> I find it strange that more people aren't talking about quantum mechanics.


Everybody is talking about it already. There was even a blockbuster (Ant-Man) based on quantum mechanics in 2015.



charlie.elliot said:


> Yes, the ins-and-outs of it are nearly impossible for the lay person to understand, but the basics of it aren't. For example, anyone can understand how the double slit experiment is set up, and what the results of it are.


Because nobody knows... We don't "really" know what is an electron or a photon. We have some equally plausible yet conflicting assumptions about subatomic nonsense but there are no tiny balls circling around some other physical objects under microscope. Don't confuse any theoretical expression of fundamental forces with intuitive practicality in everyday life... By the way, if you have a profound explanation about wave-particle duality just go and receive Nobel prize in physics. You don't even have to be nominated.



charlie.elliot said:


> QM says that our conscious observation of something changes its reality.


They have enough findings to be suspicious and there's no way to be sure. Unless we can find a way to conduct an experiment without being conscious while still keep observing it.



charlie.elliot said:


> Quantum uncertainly and quantum entanglement are not just crazy theories, they're real. We build our technology with them. Here's some articles- (Scientists just built the most promising quantum computing circuit ever - ScienceAlert)


They are not real for you and me. We are biological beings made of atomic structures. Anything and everything in nature that you are experiencing are happening on molecular level. Which is nothing but indirect interactions between atoms according to some undeniable laws of physics. Indeed, we are capable of sabotaging/manipulating beneath the atomic structures enough to witness how they are functioning according to some other incomprehensible laws. The thing is, those experiments are nothing that we can grasp while we are doomed to exist in our sealed/clockwork realm. Ontologically, there's no way to "understand" that "some kind of matter can simultaneously exist on variable locations". We can only relate with matter: We are made of matter. You can only assume and accept. Finding a way to use it as a technology requires nothing but figuring out the principles of functionality. Nobody truly understood electroluminescence but we are capable of manufacturing LEDs. They are working.



charlie.elliot said:


> So why aren't more people talking about the implications of this? Even physicists, while they may understand the actual workings of QM in more detail than the average person, don't seem to actually talk very much about the full-scale implications of it. And by "full-scale implications" I mean, re-evaluating what reality really is based off what QM proves to be true. Does it mean that reality is fundamentally conscious in some way? Sure, it may sound crazy, but it's no crazier than religion, and people love religion.


Physicists are a little more confused than an average person. That's all. By the way, there's already enough "quantum" religions for begging money from the universe and shit.



charlie.elliot said:


> Usually, people all over the world will speculate wildly on subjects that they know barely anything about-- so why not about QM? Articles like this one...
> How Quantum Suicide Works | HowStuffWorks
> .... are a start.
> But no one seems to really jump on this stuff. People kinda forget about it. Is it just too much? Has humanity finally come up against something so radical that even the craziest people don't bother speculating ignorantly about it?


Average people need a product they can buy and use effortlessly. It's ambiguous yet complex nature can't satisfy even the craziest people. Even the most intelligent and sane people need centuries with insane budgets and resources to make sense.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

yet another intj said:


> Nobody truly understood electroluminescence but we are capable of manufacturing LEDs. They are working.


The cause of electroluminescence is a relatively basic topic in the field of condensed matter, and those who work as professionals in that area know it very well indeed!


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

HAL said:


> The cause of electroluminescence is a relatively basic topic in the field of condensed matter, and those who work as professionals in that area know it very well indeed!


Scientifically, electroluminescence is still an optical and electrical "phenomenon". Nobody, including you, can explain why/how different order/thickness of elements play a role in wavelength and efficiency of a LED with different failure modes. Just like we are clueless about every possible quantum mechanics behind any field-effect transistor but what it practically does, in a sense of predicting a particular magic trick by observing the stage and props.

Nobody can say he/she truly understood electroluminescence while we are still arguing about Bohr–Einstein debates. There's no scientific consensus that determinism would have been refuted.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

yet another intj said:


> Scientifically, electroluminescence is still an optical and electrical "phenomenon". Nobody, including you, can explain why/how different order/thickness of elements play a role in wavelength and efficiency of a LED with different failure modes. Just like we are clueless about every possible quantum mechanics behind any field-effect transistor but what it practically does, in a sense of predicting a particular magic trick by observing the stage and props.
> 
> Nobody can say he/she truly understood electroluminescence while we are still arguing about Bohr–Einstein debates. There's no scientific consensus that determinism would have been refuted.


Do you know what this is, or what it means/represents?


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

HAL said:


> Do you know what this is, or what it means/represents?


It's like presenting astronomical data about gravitational properties of some celestial bodies, after somebody claimed we don't really know what is gravity. Understanding the nature of something as a whole and somewhat figuring out some of it's properties are different things.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

yet another intj said:


> It's like presenting astronomical data about gravitational properties of some celestial bodies, after somebody claimed we don't really know what is gravity.


I think you're trying to reduce things down too far to the ultimate philosophical question of 'what is matter'. That's fine, but I didn't think that's what you were talking about, when you said:



> Nobody, including you, can explain why/how different order/thickness of elements play a role in wavelength and efficiency of a LED with different failure modes


which is what I disagreed with. People _can_ explain these things.

The band gap graph above is a depiction of the energy of electrons at various levels within a substance.

It shows clearly how electrons sit at those energy levels, and how much energy is needed for an electron to bridge a gap between the levels, thus releasing a photon - _electroluminescence_.

I forget why it was so hard to achieve the blue LED at first, not doubt something relating to the awkward electron configuration required for such an energy release.



> Nobody, including you, can explain


I just did


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

HAL said:


> I just did


Only some aspects of it... Just enough to manufacture a consumer product. The OP's question still stands and my answer is still relevant. We don't know "everything" about subatomic realm enough to reject/forget our current philosophical modalities/binary thinking. That kind of revolution supposed to be ontological, not a scientific or a cultural one. Femtoengineering can't be meaningful but a limited functionality if we will stay as biological beings made of Lego bricks anyway.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Snowy Leopard



>


What does that formula yield, and what do all the variables mean?

@maku Yen



> You know nothing john @*Snowy Leopard* ...*Bring the real mother fucker in here!!!*


And what does that translate to, and what do all the variables mean?


----------



## SummerHaze (May 18, 2016)

i know nothing about quantum mechanics and i don't know ppl who talk about it


----------



## Clare_Bare (Apr 6, 2015)

One of my housemates is studying his PHD in Quantum Physics.
What particular field of 'Quantum' he is specilaising in is beyond me.
It's all too complicated for moi ...


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

_Simple:_

It's about fucking particles.

Particles are boring.


----------



## There4GoEye (Feb 13, 2015)

First of all, it's discussed frequently (albeit in light depth) over on INTJf (mostly pure INTJ forum). For some reason the conversations here (even in INTJ, INTP forums) are a lot less highbrow. I have a theory for why that is. (dude, I have a theory for everything).

But quantum mechanics is one of those semi-taboo social topics. Hell, even relativity is semi-taboo. The social perception seems to be that if you discuss these things you have a high opinion of yourself, are a know-it-all, and may be just be a try-hard intellectual. Bringing up the topic won't necessarily brand you as a nerd. It might brand you as a loon, or a social retard. It might even foster some serous butthurt and anger from those around you. 

Here we are, surrounded by all types. What is socially taboo in the outside world might still feel socially taboo here. Do you think that people might simply avoid such topics because they don't want to look like a know-it-all? Or perhaps because on the internet, there are more specific places to discuss such topics in detail?


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

RobynC said:


> What does that formula yield, and what do all the variables mean?


It yields absolutely all sorts, depending on what you set the variables to be.

The variables are explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation#Time-dependent_equation


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

I understand the basic concepts of quantum mechanics but I am very bad at the math part.

Quantum mechanics has many philosophical implications was well.


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

RobynC said:


> @*Snowy Leopard*
> 
> What does that formula yield, and what do all the variables mean?
> 
> ...


It's the Schrodinger equation which is a partial differential equation which shows how a quantum state can change with time. A probability of two quantum states, is the states inner product. An inner product is the same as a dot product as two vectors/matrices(with each column having a dot product with each column). 

The H/2mu quantity is the kinetic energy, and V(r,t) is the potential energy. The equation describes how a state that is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian can evolve with time, and we find out through derivation that it goes through a phase shift, defined essentially by e^(-i*Hamiltionian*t). That's very powerful because we find the state doesn't lose orthogonality between time, which makes the math a lot easier. However the phase shift can produce a considerable effect if you have two different states in two different basis. However a state that is time evolved that hits it self is still normalized to 1, which is a very powerful implication.


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

Robopop said:


> I understand the basic concepts of quantum mechanics but I am very bad at the math part.
> 
> *Quantum mechanics has many philosophical implications was well.*


No it doesn't. Sorry this is a big pet peeve of mine because quantum mechanics is just the description of how very small particles act. That's all it is. It's just a way of physics to describe the behavior of every small things since they don't behave classically. 

Saying Quantum Mechanics leads to philosophical implications is like saying gravity has an effect on your love life. It doesn't. All Quantum Mechanics does is describe things like protons, neutrons, atoms, etc since they don't behave under classical mechanics


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

Nightmaker81 said:


> No it doesn't. Sorry this is a big pet peeve of mine because quantum mechanics is just the description of how very small particles act. That's all it is. It's just a way of physics to describe the behavior of every small things since they don't behave classically.
> 
> Saying Quantum Mechanics leads to philosophical implications is like saying gravity has an effect on your love life. It doesn't. All Quantum Mechanics does is describe things like protons, neutrons, atoms, etc since they don't behave under classical mechanics


This is needless nitpicking, there is a philosophy of physics you know, I was specifically referring to the different interpretations of empirical findings of quantum mechanics. Many physicists have came to many different interpretations about the nature of reality based on quantum mechanics.


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

Robopop said:


> This is needless nitpicking, there is a philosophy of physics you know, I was specifically referring to the different interpretations of empirical findings of quantum mechanics. Many physicists have came to many different interpretations about the nature of reality based on quantum mechanics.


That's fair, but my point is there is a lot of pseudo and pop science associated especially with quantum and I just wanted to get out of the way that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with our consciousness or something about altering reality or whatever, that it's fundamentally describing the behavior of particles, in the same way classical mechanics can describe a car

Metaphysics is valid though especially with quantum mechanics and the notion of causality especially with quantum entangled states


----------



## TechFreak (Sep 15, 2016)

The answer is simple, it's far to complicated for most to comprehend and going forward chances are there maybe less people talking about it. Primarily due to the fact the kids have a lower attention span then the previous generation and that alarming trend will continue as long we give toddlers electronic gadgets to entertain themselves to keep them occupied. 

As opposed to toys like the abacus, musical instruments, rattles - anything that will promote growth and improve their cognitive and motor functions. 

Forums like this will soon or later become "safe haven" for those who are wish to discuss "fringe" science. To be honest, I really worry about the future of humanity as one cannot express themselves eloquently or through coherent sentences without being dubbed as a pompous know-it-all. 

For example if one was to say, "have you seen then new avengers movie? man that was absolutely mental" will get a positive response. 

As opposed to "I really liked that latest avengers movie as I found the action scenes to be extremely artful and of high calibre" - typical response will be: "Dude, what the heck are you talking about?"

Never the less as we start talking about Artificial Intelligence more and more over the years, that may spur more discussion into Quantum Mechanics in the pursuit to find greater processing power to analyse and process the vast amount of data that will be generated (ad infinitum) far into the future.


----------



## Acrylic (Dec 14, 2015)

charlie.elliot said:


> @Despotic Ocelot thanks for those videos, I will check them out!


I didn't put them there to be listened to, only put them there to respond to your post with song titles haha. 

I can put stuff to be listened to, I just have to know what kind of music you like, and I can give you music related to your thread.


----------

