A little bit of quantum mechanics is a dangerous thing to learn.
Basically every particle, energy, light, etc. in the known universe can be described by a wavefunction ?. This kind of (as in the square of the wavefunction is proportional to the probability) represents the probability of finding a particle (photon, virtual particle, whatever), in a certain state (position, energy level, velocity, whatever). When an observer (this is a tough term to define), directly or indirectly observes the particle it’s wavefunction collapses to some defined value and it behaves normally/classically (until that point it kind of doesn’t exist in any specific state, but can still interact with other things). This overall explanation gives all matter a sort of wave-like parameter that some people equate to a particle-wave duality of nature.
All of this is defined by this beautiful, but complex (literally and mathematically) formula, known as the Schroedinger Equation:
where H(t) usually isn’t very pretty.
Solving this equation requires third to forth-year university physics and math (or at least training in partial differential equations – lots of calculus).
Unfortunately, most people don’t continue physics past grade 10, let alone to that level, so this creates a problem, because the results are so unusual that people want to interpret them.
Another issue is the thing deBroglie discovered, known as the deBroglie wavelength:
where a particle has mass m, velocity v, and h is Planck’s constant. So a 60kg person travelling at mach 1 has a wavelength of 3.7 x 10-31 metres (for comparison the radius of hydrogen is 5 x 10-11 meters.
So what does all this mean?
First. Quantum mechanics has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance at macroscopic scales.
Second. The results of quantum mechanics fall out of the advanced mathematics required to solve the Schroedinger’s Equation, and loose pseudo-physics interpretations are almost always wrong.
But what I really want to get to is the idea I’ve heard that quantum mechanics means that perhaps there is an intelligent observer (god) who is needed to collapse the wavefunction of the universe (or all of us in it).
I think this argument is pretty invalid because of those length scales first, and second because as far as all of our experiments have shown, we are as intelligent observers as necessary to collapse the wavefunction of particles, so there is nothing really necessary outside of the universe to collapse us. It’s kind of like Schroedinger’s cat knows damn well whether it’s alive or not, even if we cannot know until opening the box.
So the moral of the story: “Do not bastardize quantum mechanics by implying that it has shit all to do with your crazy theories.”
WordPress
Facebook
Google +
Quantum mechanics does have relevance at the macroscopic scale. Any measurements of quantum effects must have macroscopic manifestations if they are to be measured by macroscopic individuals.
Second: If Quantum mechanics makes you think, then it means your education is working. If your mind is closed to thinking because you already know the answer then your education is worthless. I can’t see how calling yourself a freethinker makes any sense unless you and everyone around you is also free to think.
James’ comment regarding what constitutes intelligence is not that far fetched. There is something to be said for the difference between a human being and a neighbouring atom. Observations by the former “count” when observations by the latter do not. Obviously the intelligent observer does not need to be outside of the universe as you pointed out, but it does still need to be intelligent.
When its wavey out, you shouldn’t go canoeing…
Too bad people who come up with “theories” or “ideas” based on some small tiny bit of quantum mechanics they read in a Popular Science article don’t know what “macroscopic” means.
“Quantum mechanics has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance at macroscopic scales.”
If Quantum Mechanics is the fundamental base for Matter…
Then obviously the existence of all matter … and the existence of the Universe is held in check… by Quantum Mechanics.
Does an atom have the capacity for thought?
What about a Quark?
What is the Origin of Thought?
JP Cory
A thought is just an pattern of electrical impulses propagating across neurons or transistors. A neuron is about a trillion atoms and a transistor is a few thousand. So, no, an atom doesn’t really have any capacity for thought. Its an atom. Its not alive, it isn’t conscious(and what would that have to do with QM if it was?).
As Ian explained, we don’t see quantum effects unless the deBroglie wavelength and the system are about the same size. Since deBroglie wavelengths are stupid tiny on our scales we don’t see silly quantum effects like tunneling, entanglement or wavefunctions collapsing. It all is still happening, its just too damn tiny to matter. If it mattered, someone would have noticed a lot sooner. Baseballs don’t tunnel through windows, they break them.