Now there is a news feature again in Nature's latest issue (http://www.nature.com/news/physics-quantum-quest-1.13711) that deals with theoretical physicists' efforts to obtain a deeper more intuitive understanding of the foundations of quantum mechanics. As I am currently teaching some lessons in this subject to a class of undergraduate students (who hear about this strange quantum physics for the first time), I wonder what others here on ResearchGate think on that point. - Let me summarize my own view: we are macroscopic beings. Our bodies can be regarded as a universe of atoms. (Quantitative analogy! The number of stars in the universe has been estimated to be roughly of the same order as atoms in a macroscopically-large chunk of matter.) So, all the experiences we form from the time we are born, till we are old enough to study physics (and eventually quantum mechanics) are firmly based in a world ruled by classical mechanics. These experiences form the basis of what we call our *intuition*! How do we expect then to be able to achieve an *intuitive* understanding of quantum mechanics which is obviously nothing like its predecessor classical mechanics. (It was preposterous ever to think that classical mechanics would hold down to the atomic length scales. Well, we could not know really until someone did the experiments.) ... So, what is your opinion or viewpoint on whether we can ever obtain an intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics?
Below is part of an answer I gave to a similar question asked on RG:
The weird thing about QM is that no one really understands it. The quote popularly attributed to physicist Richard Feynman is still true: if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t. At a conference in Austria in 2011, 33 leading physicists, mathematicians and philosophers were given 16 multiple-choice questions about the meaning of the theory, and their answers displayed little consensus.
One of the most telling questions in the Austrian poll was whether there will still be conferences about the meaning of quantum theory in 50 years time. Forty-eight percent said “probably yes”, only 15% said “probably no”. Twelve percent said “I’ll organize one no matter what”.
Hard to answer what QM is.
It's even harder to answer what QM is not.
Ralph,
I have worked on the theory termed - "The Fractal Catalytic Model" (FCM) for a few years now.
Within the context of the model consciousness is correlated with the transition state of a macroscopic process of catalysis. Recent theoretic work into enzyme catalysis reveals that the principle mechanism of enzyme catalysis is vibrationally assisted quantum tunneling. The vibrational mode is, I believe, a coherent soliton.
Following on from this, the FCM suggests that consciousness is to be correlated with a macroscopic coherent soliton with an uncertainty in time (Delta 't') of about a 16th of a second.
Together with Prof. Ram Vimal we attempted to ascertain the apparent rate at which time is experienced. Our analysis provided very strong evidence that no argument rooted in classical 'cause and effect' could ever give insight into what bio-metric is responsible for determining the rate at which time is experienced. However, we found that the problem could be solved using QM.
So, to answer your question - if we want an intuitive understanding of QM then we have to look no further than the phenomena of consciousness!
Davia, C.J (June 2006), "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition", in Tuszynski, J.A, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (The Frontiers Collection), Springer, pp. 255–292, ISBN 978-3540238904
Vimal, R.L.P., Davia, C.J., 2008. How Long is a Piece of Time? - Phenomenal Time and Quantum Coherence - Toward a Solution. Quantum Biosystems, 2, 102–151.
Quantum mechanics (or any theory for that matter) can be thought as a set of rules. These rules govern the Life in the 'quantum universe'. We have experience of the 'classical universe', this is true. That does not mean we can not get familiar with Another set of rules and accept it as yet another, if you want, a parallel universe. Speaking of analogy, let us consider a chess game. A novice has no prior knowledge or experience of chess rules. Even when he/she gets to know those rules, it is a long long long long long way towards even an approximate understanding of the nature of the game. However, some acquire intuitive understanding of the game eventually. This comes with quite some time spent playing chess, watching other plays chess etc. Very much the same is true regarding quantum mechanics. It is just another game where rules are set by something or someone. Intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics comes with practice, solving problems thinking by the QM rules. It is unlikely something that can be acquired by a student after a couple of QM Courses.
Thanks Anatoly! I like your chess analogy (set of rules). - Yes, in that sense one can obtain an intuitive understanding of the working principles of QM (how to solve problems essentially). I am still not sure whether this is the same as an intuitive understanding of the theory itself, in terms of a "visual" imagination of the processes occurring at the QM level.
My research confirms Einstein's doubts about quantum mechanics, introducing the 'minion' DNA/protein complex serving as chip-in-the-brain. This coiled abacus makes wrap-around counting errors, a hyperbolic function, the 'Tyger equation', accounts for the difference between conception and perception.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics
- Quantum Mechanics