Responses Needed

[foodchain]

I have to write a paper and here is the rough draft. I could use help in any glaring errors with data, not so much anything to do with grammar. I have ommitted citings of any material currently as I am just trying to get down how I want it to read and look. Any responses would be appreciated.

 

---------------------

 

Quantum mechanics is a theory produced by the scientific field of physics. Quantum mechanics or QM for short is a complex mathematical formalism used to predict physical behavior on a microscopic scale primarily, though it has application to the entire observable universe. The mathematical formalism is the mathematical framework by which QM gets experimentally verified. In other words you could think of an insurance company using math to calculate rates it should charge potential customers. The mathematical processes behind QM would be similar as in a structured framework of math used to figure out what rate should be charged, and the experimental application is the math itself being tested in the real world. Such a test is the famous double slit experiment which is foundational to QM.

 

Without the formalism many of the outcomes of various experiments carried out by physicists in the past could not be explained. In the case of the double slit experiment, behavior of light was being encountered that was completely counterintuitive to common scientific understanding. When a beam of light was shown through two slits, the light itself behaved not only as a particle, but also as a wave. In regards to modern understanding of the times, light should only have behaved as either a particle, or a wave, not both. This was latter to be called wave particle duality, and the physical theory that came to be able to explain such is called quantum mechanics.

 

To sum up the shock of wave particle duality, individual rays of light seemed to behave as a constant flux of probability on observation, rather then as a simple, direct, and guaranteed consequence. Another way of looking at such is that nothing short of a description of light as nondeterministic and probable had to be used in order to quantitatively explain the physical behavior of light in experiment. So while the quantitative aspects of QM seemed solid, the qualitative aspects are the more mysterious part of QM

 

Reality as explained by QM has serious philosophical consequences. For instance, Albert Einstein, a human who created the scientific theory of general relativity had serious objections to it. General Relativity is a physics theory so powerful as to be able to describe almost perfectly the behavior of the macroscopic universe, and he simply could not accept the philosophical ramifications of QM, even in light of the double slit experiment. In fact the scientific community if not people in general that learned of QM were hard pressed to understand what it meant.

 

This issue has become known as the interpretation problem. No human interpretation of QM can suffice to explain really what is occurring in such experiments. In short, the theory worked to describe empirically physical phenomena, but it was beyond comprehension of even those behind such to adequately translate the math and experiment of QM into a coherent human definition. A model interpretation was devised called the Copenhagen interpretation. Even with its uneasy acceptance in those times, many more interpretations have sprouted fourth not only from physicists, but laypeople of science as an attempt to decipher the mathematical and experimental reality of QM.

 

This reaction to QM by many like legendary Einstein lead to tests designed by the brightest in physics to try and falsify QM. This though was brought about primarily over the issue with interpreting what QM actually means in the real world though. So its easy to see interpretation is not a resolved issue. Its support even in the modern physics community is questionable, with many simple accepting only the experimental aspects of QM, and thinking of interpreting such a less then worthwhile cause.

[Flashman]

Well I'd call it a glaring error that your construction appears to be missing a Planck.

[foodchain]

Well I'd call it a glaring error that your construction appears to be missing a Planck.

 

I know I should, but I don't want to make the paper overly technical at all. I also want to primarily focus on the topic of interpreting quantum mechanics, more so in that I have to double this papers size easily. I think using Planck scale could help show the difference in say QM to general relativity somewhat, such as in scale, but I don't know how to easily convey such to any audience.

[iNow]

Any responses would be appreciated.

First, let me say that I can tell you've put a lot of thought into this, and you took your time finding your words. Having read many of your posts, I commend you for being so focussed and communicating well.

 

I'm not going to address the content, but will try to help you with the wording. My father used to help me with stuff like this. I'd write a paper, ask him to read it, he'd mark it up with red pen and give me suggestions, then I'd update it and he'd read it again... we'd do this 3 or 4 times until it was crisp and clean. It really helped me to become a better writer. My hope is that I can honor the memory of my father by helping you in a similar way here. Feel free to ignore this if you'd prefer.

 

 

---------------------

 

Quantum mechanics is a theory produced by the scientific field of physics. Quantum mechanics or QM for short is a complex mathematical formalism used to predict physical behavior on a microscopic scale primarily, though it has application to the entire observable universe. The mathematical formalism is the mathematical framework by which QM gets experimentally verified.

You should look at how often you repeat the same words, and see if it adds or detracts from your message. Also, think about where you put your adjectives and descriptors. You might update the above to say something like this:

 

Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory in the field of physics. Quantum mechanics, or "QM" for short, is a complex mathematical formalism primarily used to model statistic physical behaviors on a microscopic scale. In addition to being useful on microscopic scales, the theory is also useful when applied to the entire observable universe. The formalism I mentioned is a mathematical framework, and it is by this framework which QM is experimentally verified.

 

 

 

 

In other words you could think of an insurance company using math to calculate rates it should charge potential customers. The mathematical processes behind QM would be similar as in a structured framework of math used to figure out what rate should be charged, and the experimental application is the math itself being tested in the real world. Such a test is the famous double slit experiment which is foundational to QM.

I don't understand the relation to an insurance company. What if I don't know how insurance companies calculate rates? You should make this more clear. I would add to this, but you might start with something like:

 

Mathematical frameworks are common in our society. One common example is insurance companies. These companies use mathematical frameworks to calculate the rates they will charge to their potential customers. The mathematical framework supporting QM is similar in many respects, as it is consistent, and provides us with a means to run tests, and apply it in real world experiments. There are many experiments and tests which use the mathematical framework of QM, and one such test which is both well known and also foundational to QM is the double-slit experiment.

 

 

You might want to briefly describe the double-slit experiment here, as not everyone is familiar with it, despite the fact that it's famous. Be brief. When it was done, who did it, what they found, why this was so surprising...

 

 

Without the formalism many of the outcomes of various experiments carried out by physicists in the past could not be explained.

After briefly explaining why the double-slit experiment is so foundational to QM, and what it meant, you might update the above to something like:

 

There have been many experiments carried out by physicists in the past which could not have been explained without the formalism of QM.

 

 

 

In the case of the double slit experiment, behavior of light was being encountered that was completely counterintuitive to common scientific understanding.

What was counter-intuitive about it? What was the previous scientific understanding, and how did this go against it? This is the type of thing I meant you should explain sooner.

 

 

When a beam of light was shown through two slits, the light itself behaved not only as a particle, but also as a wave.

Good, but why was that a surprise? Didn't we always know that light was a wave? What made us think it was a particle? How does QM help us with the idea that it's both? Elaborate a little on those things.

 

 

In regards to modern understanding of the times, light should only have behaved as either a particle, or a wave, not both. This was latter to be called wave particle duality, and the physical theory that came to be able to explain such is called quantum mechanics.

You may have already covered this after looking into some of the updates I suggest above, but clean this up. Make it crisp. Be direct, explain the point, but welcome people who don't understand to read more... make them curious.

 

Something like:

When physicists learned that light passing through two slits behaved like a wave, forming an interference pattern on the screen behind the slits, it baffled those who had previously understood light to act like a particle, as demonstrated in the photoelectric experiments by blah blah blah in the year blah blah blah. The double slit experiment suggested that light somehow behaved as both a particle and a wave, and this was very strange. In some experiments light acts like a particle, and in other experiments it acts like a wave. In QM, this phenomenon is described as wave particle duality, and blah blah blah...

 

 

To sum up the shock of wave particle duality, individual rays of light seemed to behave as a constant flux of probability on observation, rather then as a simple, direct, and guaranteed consequence.

What shock wave? Do you mean the perception of the scientists... that they were shocked? Or, are you talking about waves of light again? Be clear. Also, this is your first mention of probability. Is probability what makes QM different? Were we previously used to "simple, direct, and guaranteed consequences" in classical physics? Is that why QM was so important? Expand on this. You understand it well. Help others who don't understand it to come away from reading your paper with knowledge they didn't previously have, and also a desire to go learn more.

 

 

Another way of looking at such is that nothing short of a description of light as nondeterministic and probable had to be used in order to quantitatively explain the physical behavior of light in experiment.

Another way of looking at what, exactly? What is "such?" The sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think you're trying to say this:

After the double-slit experiment, the only way to explain the physical behavior of light in future experiments was nondeterministic. We could only explain the behavior of light in terms of probabilities, and this where QM has been most successful. It is the mathematical framework of those probabilities.

 

 

 

So while the quantitative aspects of QM seemed solid, the qualitative aspects are the more mysterious part of QM

What are the quantitative aspects of QM? I don't know what you mean. Can you give some examples? What are the qualitative aspects of QM? What makes them mysterious? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Remember, take the reader on a journey. You are the tour guide. Don't just point to a building or a store, explain it's significance, and give a brief history. Not too much, just enough to supplement your words with something more familiar in the reader.

 

 

Reality as explained by QM has serious philosophical consequences.

Very good. This drives to why you find it so interesting and so mysterious. It makes sense, and stays on topic. I might adjust the sentence slightly like below if this were a paper I'd written, but it's also good as is.

There are serious philosophical consequences to explaining reality using the framework of QM.

 

 

For instance, Albert Einstein, a human who created the scientific theory of general relativity had serious objections to it. General Relativity is a physics theory so powerful as to be able to describe almost perfectly the behavior of the macroscopic universe, and he simply could not accept the philosophical ramifications of QM, even in light of the double slit experiment.

This is good, too, but I think it may need some more ways tying it back into your previous sentence. You still haven't told us much about the "philisophical consequences," only that Albert Einstein was a human who objected to them.

 

Something like this:

 

Those philosophical consequences caused Albert Einstein to reject the implications of QM, despite the strange evidence brought forth by the double-slit experiment. Einstein is best know for his work on the theory of General Relativity, a description of the larger macroscopic universe. Einsteins general relativity is very powerful because the descriptions it gives for the universe at larger scales are so accurate, nearly perfect, and this nearly prefect description seems to contrast with the probable nature of QM.

 

 

In fact the scientific community if not people in general that learned of QM were hard pressed to understand what it meant.

You might shift the wording on this a bit. I'm thinking:

 

Albert Einstein wasn't the only person to struggle understanding the ramifications of QM. Many members of the scientific community, and also people in general, are hared pressed to really understand what it means. It's just strange.

 

 

This issue has become known as the interpretation problem. No human interpretation of QM can suffice to explain really what is occurring in such experiments.

What experiments? Are there really NO interpretations of QM at all that are able to explain those experiments? I'm not sure what you're saying with this part. Is it that it's counter to our common sense? That it is not intuitive? What do you mean? Try to be more clear.

 

 

In short, the theory worked to describe empirically physical phenomena, but it was beyond comprehension of even those behind such to adequately translate the math and experiment of QM into a coherent human definition.

This is a bit wordy. You might try to shorten it a bit. Like:

 

QM is very successful when describing empirical data and physical phenomenon, and yet making the math which describes QM comprehendable and coherent to most people is nearly impossible. Many attempts to describe it in common sense terms have been presented, but even those are limited.

 

 

A model interpretation was devised called the Copenhagen interpretation. Even with its uneasy acceptance in those times, many more interpretations have sprouted fourth not only from physicists, but laypeople of science as an attempt to decipher the mathematical and experimental reality of QM.

Okay, you just lost me again. What is the Copenhagen Interpretation? Why is this important? What does it mean? When was it put forward? What is uneasy about it? Also, what is this other stuff that lay people have put forward? Be more specific. Don't just assume that people know, make sure of it.

 

"Hey, you see, that over there is a rose bush. Roses are prized for their colors and the layout of their petals, and they are usually well received by women. However, they do have thorns which are painful when touched, and they do require a lot of care and attention when growing, but the effort and risk pays off in the end..."

 

Don't just say... "Roses are both good and bad," then move on, ya dig? Be clear. Help your reader. You are the teacher. Take your time with them, your student. Make sure they know what you're saying.

 

 

This reaction to QM by many like legendary Einstein lead to tests designed by the brightest in physics to try and falsify QM.

Isn't this part of the scientific method? I want to ask, "so what?" I think you mean something like this:

 

The reaction to QM has been mixed, and many people have a hard time accepting it because it is so counter-intuitive and contrary to our normal everyday experience. Although the scientific method always attempts to falsify hypotheses and discard incorrect ideas, the challenges to QM have been especially fierce. These challenges came from the legendary Albert Einstein himself, and a great many of our brightest physicists challenge QM and try to falsify it to this day. Thus far, it has withstood all of the challenges brought forward, and that means that there really is something there which accurately describes our reality.

 

 

 

This though was brought about primarily over the issue with interpreting what QM actually means in the real world though.

Too much use of the word "though." Stay connected with the previous point more closely. "Many of the challenges being put to QM result from the difficulty we have interpreting it in real world terms."

 

 

 

So its easy to see interpretation is not a resolved issue.

Remember, keep your story line consistent, like you're weaving a rope through all of the ideas, and at the end you're going to tie a knot, closing it back in on where you started.

 

No one interpretation has yet satisfied everyone, and many of our brightest physicists are still looking for ways to explain the strangeness demonstrated by QM, whether it be the probabilistic nature of the very small (microscopic), or the fact that light somehow behaves as both a particle and a wave. However, if ignore for a moment the trouble we have making our interpretations fit with our common sense, we see just how clearly and accurately the mathematics of QM describes our microscopic world, and that is something which continues to fascinate countless people of all ages and backgrounds.

 

 

Its support even in the modern physics community is questionable, with many simple accepting only the experimental aspects of QM, and thinking of interpreting such a less then worthwhile cause.

 

Good. You know that you want to close strongly, and I like what you've said. Perhaps just "tweak" it a bit. Like:

 

While QM has proven extremely useful, and a strong tool when dealing with experimental data relating to the very small, it is still seen as questionable by many in the modern physics community, who prefer more "common sense" and non-probablistic answers. While that's an understandable human reaction, there is no question that QM is very interesting, very useful, and both strange and mysterious all at the same time.

 

 

I probably wrote too much, but you're not exactly a noob, and I know you understand this stuff. I'm just trying to help you get your thoughts out on paper.

 

Think about it like you're sending a letter to your grandmother. She probably hasn't been in school for 50 years, and even then they were learning very basic ideas. She's spent the last 20 years cooking and sewing and tending plants, and despite the fact that she's interested in your work and wants to learn more about what you have to share, you need to hold her hand and gently walk her through it... keep it simple, explain the words and concepts that may be difficult to understand, and enrich her with basic tastes of the important stuff.

 

Just like when she let you lick the spoon when she baked cookies... you didn't have to understand how the flour and sugar and baking soda combined with eggs and butter to make these delicious disks, just that your grandmother was making something yummy and you wanted more. Make your description of QM just like that... you're letting them lick the spoon, and giving them a peak into the oven as the cookies start to rise.

 

Like I said, good job foodchain. I hope my comments above are useful to you. I always appreciated it when my dad gave me a second set of eyes, and helped me to really get to the heart of the idea I was attempting to share, and I've tried to emulate that approach here with you. Good luck.

Edited November 27, 2008 by iNow

[foodchain]

That is a lot of feedback, thanks.

 

I am thinking of expanding on interpretation mainly in the remainder of the paper. As what I am trying to place emphasis overall is that. I wanted to be able to derive some opening salvo that could be just enough to allow the concept of interpretation to exist for discussion. So in only so many words I am trying to explain also in just enough detail for someone to grasp QM, this to me is the big hurdle. How to make it really simple for space.

 

I am thinking of using uncertainty principal, in relation to at what size of stuff does such occur, and sort of what does uncertainty mean for the physical universe, how would you say what that means outside of the physics, and how this correlates to interpretation.

-------

I got the rest of the draft done, in terms of composition I tried to be more personable through this part. My big question of my stuff here if I had to pick is how I end paragraph three, does that capture how perplexing the uncertainty principal is in a simple tone?

 

---------------------

 

To again speak of the history of QM, the Copenhagen interpretation surely signified the significance of such in science. This interpretation was devised by some of the scientists paramount to quantum mechanics true significance as a means of inquiry. In this, one of the most profound and conflictive qualities of QM was coined the uncertainty principal. This particular aspect of quantum theory allowed the behavior of light to be predicted in various experimental settings.

 

The scale the uncertainty principal comes into existence is beyond small, in fact its on the currently smallest scale science can physically observe any part of the material universe. QM was and still is the only physical theory capable of doing such in any way holding up to empirical testing. Yet with the uncertainty principal comes a stark statement, its in that you can question how the universe itself in day to day life relates to QM. This question has drove a wedge in physics over how to actually apply it along with General relativity into a single theory. Science still currently cannot use one or the other alone, or together to produce a single theory that satisfies what both say scientifically.

 

The reality of interpretable problems primarily bloom from the uncertainty principal also. The root of the issue is that you cannot do the math part of the theory without using it, ever, to any success in any setting currently be it experiment or theoretical. The philosophical sentence I would use to best describe this problem is simply the one that it allows you to ask if all of reality is some probability of uncertain proportions, regardless of scale.

 

Simply put that if this is how the universe actually behaves at such at that size, then why does anything regular exist. Why can you think faithfully that tomorrow will even occur in an uncertain universe? That question basically posits the reality at least to me on how to speak of such outside of pure physics, how do you use any other language besides the math of its experiments to speak on such, or how can you interpret it.

 

To date various interpretations exist of QM. Not all but quite of few of These are made by respectable scientific methods more often then not like various other serious scientific questions. Most of them seek to supplant the Copenhagen interpretation by predicting a normal reality existing with such uncertain forces in the universe. Yet no interpretation could receive the label as something that would end the interpretation problem. No one in the physics community would declare the universe all figured out. So why you may hear of these concepts at some point, its nice to understand the actual scope of complexity to such if nothing else I think.

 

To think of how QM helps the living, it allows us to produce certain technologies we all like for instance. One major application of interest with QM is a hybrid sort of scientific inquiry is with chemistry. Quantum chemistry is typically encapsulated under computational chemistry, and physical chemistry. Both of the fields are currently critical to understanding chemistry itself, physical chemistry being regular classes in most any baccalaureate of chemistry at university. By these relationships the uncertainty principal applies to life via biochemistry by some extent if not by default, so why don't you or I just become a frog in some uncertain poof of quantum goings on? Again the question of how to think of such in the real world is mildly impossible for mortal comprehension, thus interpreting quantum mechanics itself becomes a sword in the stone situation that has yet to be removed in some certain sense.

Edited November 27, 2008 by foodchain
multiple post merged

[iNow]

Good job, foodchain. The improvements are noticable. Keep it up!

 

The reality of interpretable problems primarily bloom from the uncertainty principal also. The root of the issue is that you cannot do the math part of the theory without using it, ever, to any success in any setting currently be it experiment or theoretical. The philosophical sentence I would use to best describe this problem is simply the one that it allows you to ask if all of reality is some probability of uncertain proportions, regardless of scale.

 

This is the heart of your presentation, so you want to be direct. Think about boxing. If you want to hit your opponent hard, you punch straight, with your weight behind it. If you spend too much time dancing and waving your arms around you'll lose power and the punch won't be as solid. Keep it direct and focussed.

 

You are describing why interpretation is difficult. You are explaining why it is mysterious, and what is so strange about it, while also reminding everyone that the math works well.

 

The problems of interpretation are very real. This is exemplified by the uncertainty principle. When we do the math, we see how successfully it applies to both theory and experiment, but it raises questions in our human minds. In a philosophical sense, we cannot help but ask whether reality as a whole is more deterministic, or if instead it is nothing more than a collection of uncertain probabilities. People who have studied QM will tell you that these probabilities only apply on the scale of the very small, but how are we to know that it doesn't apply on larger scales? The answer to this question, it seems in principle, remains uncertain.

 

 

I've only had one cup of coffee, so my neurons aren't all firing yet. One way or the other, keep focussing your thoughts and concentrate on the message. Cheers.