Does Quantum Mechanics Describe a Paradoxical Reality?

[ajb]

If you see what I mean, could you explain how QM really is ‘somewhere in between’ and not the paradox of the duck-rabbit image?

Very loosely, if you ask it a question that a duck would answer yes, then it would answer yes. If you ask it a question that a rabbit would answer yes, then it would answer yes.

 

So many scientists tell me, but without explaining why. I understand that I can never understand it deeply or fully without studying Physics for years, but I also know it is possible to understand this well enough to work out if my basic idea is right or wrong and, without going in depth, why: in the same way I can understand enough of Godel’s theorum, Kant’s philosophy or Darwin’s theory without having studied them for years.

One direct route to understanding this is via the wave function and Schrödinger's equation. Everything about a particle is contained in this wave function and this gives us the dual nature. I suggest having a look at Wikipedia and then come back with specific questions.

[Strange]

Einstein once said if you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it. This is true for every field of enquiry I do understand well

 

I strongly disagree with this. And it certainly isn't true for the areas I work in (even though a large part of my job is explaining these things!)

 

There is also, as far as I know, no evidence that Einstein said this. Similar statements have been attributed to Rutherford, Feynamn and many others. I suspect it is just wishful thinking on the part of some people. Einstein did say, when asked what he had got his Nobel Prize for, "If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."

[chippy_pensoi]

 

I strongly disagree with this. And it certainly isn't true for the areas I work in (even though a large part of my job is explaining these things!)

 

Obviously full understanding, or grasping of the process and components, is not the point here, just an overall understanding that is good enough, or accurate enough. Or perhaps you don’t understand your field well enough

 

There is also, as far as I know, no evidence that Einstein said this. Similar statements have been attributed to Rutherford, Feynamn and many others. I suspect it is just wishful thinking on the part of some people. Einstein did say, when asked what he had got his Nobel Prize for, "If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."

 

Yes, you’re quite right, just checked: He may not have said it! I stick by it though.

[swansont]

 

I strongly disagree with this. And it certainly isn't true for the areas I work in (even though a large part of my job is explaining these things!)

 

There is also, as far as I know, no evidence that Einstein said this. Similar statements have been attributed to Rutherford, Feynamn and many others. I suspect it is just wishful thinking on the part of some people. Einstein did say, when asked what he had got his Nobel Prize for, "If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."

 

The thing is, a simple explanation of relativity is that time and distance aren't absolute, owing to c being the same for everyone. But that doesn't help you understand all that much about relativity if you are trying to apply it. It doesn't let you calculate time dilation or really help you understand the rocket/twins example.

 

The same holds true for this discussion on QM. Saying that there is no clear division between waves and particles is simple and true, but it doesn't help much with the application of QM.

[Strange]

Or perhaps you don’t understand your field well enough

 

Ssshhh! I have got away with it so far...

 

The thing is, a simple explanation of relativity is that time and distance aren't absolute, owing to c being the same for everyone. But that doesn't help you understand all that much about relativity if you are trying to apply it. It doesn't let you calculate time dilation or really help you understand the rocket/twins example.

 

The same holds true for this discussion on QM. Saying that there is no clear division between waves and particles is simple and true, but it doesn't help much with the application of QM.

 

I agree. It is always possible to provide simple explanations at some level. But these require a lot of supporting information to be just accepted. Or it leads on to more and more detailed explanations to answer the questions that come up (as in this thread!). And, in the end, it stops being simple.

 

The other problem is that the simple explanations are, necessarily, based on analogies, which can lead people to think they understand a lot more than they do. We have all seen people trying to disprove relativity, or whatever, by showing that some analgy or another is wrong.

http://xkcd.com/895/

Edited December 21, 2014 by Strange

[Delta1212]

 

Obviously full understanding, or grasping of the process and components, is not the point here, just an overall understanding that is good enough, or accurate enough. Or perhaps you dont understand your field well enough

 

 

Yes, youre quite right, just checked: He may not have said it! I stick by it though.

[chippy_pensoi]

Well thanks for your time and everything fellas, but is anyone going to answer my original questions? Or is it just ‘beyond me’ and that’s that?

[swansont]

1 yes

2 that's one interpretation

3 that's up to each individual

4 not a paradox

[MigL]

Didn't notice this thread during the holidays.

 

People are often confusing reality with the model, and saying there is a paradox.

We can describe certain aspects and properties of quantum reality with a particle model.

We can describe others with a wave model.

Does that mean reality is a particle ? A wave ? Both ? Neither ?

And any paradoxes, imagined or real, can they possibly be present in the reality ?

Or are they only manifest in the models ?