Today's question comes from Gug H., of Akron, OH. Gug wonders: what's Dantom's beef with quantum mechanics?
I'm glad you asked, Gug! Quantum mechanics (QM) plays an important role in Dantom's history, for it was the topic of choice when Dan and I initially got together. I won't speak for Dan, but I think of QM kind of like how I think of the Windows OS: sure it works, but it feels like it was patched together from a bunch of misplaced pieces, no one really understands its logic, and I'm quite confident it'll all come crashing down one day. There has to be a better way!
It so happens that today, April 23rd, is the birthday of the founder of QM, Max Planck. Although he was destined to become a great physicist (all people named Max are), Planck really went the extra mile, formulating a science that continues to baffle and delude people to this day! He even got a constant named after him: Planck's constant.
POP QUIZ! (Jeopardy! style)
A: Planck's constant is named after him.
Q: Who is Planck?
Planck postulated that light (and in general all energy) could be represented as particles of a fixed size dependent on the frequency of the light. Each particle has one planck (or "quanta") of energy-- no less, no more. The discrete nature of energy had big consequences for science and modern chemistry in particular. You can even use it for your own daily amusement. Go to Home Depot and ask for "1/2 planck of lumber", and just watch them struggle!
When I first learned about Planck and Heisenberg and all of those guys, I was still a QM enthusiast. In fact, after my first course in modern physics, I forsaked all possibilties of getting a real job and declared myself a physics major. From then on, it was all downhill (or is that uphill? It was like struggling up a hill and then tripping and falling all the way down to the bottom). Every subsequent physics course was math, math, math. A lot of the math was succinct and arbitrary. Where were all of these approximations coming from? Why were you allowed to divide by zero and ignore infinities everywhere? But still, I persisted (it was either that or become a philosophy major, perhaps the only thing less employable than physics!) In my confusion over QM I came to this epiphany ... no one, students or professors, understood this subject!
To test my theory, I setup an after-class meeting with the prof of my QM course, I'll call him Mr. Q* to protect his anonymity.
Me: I read that QM can be reduced to Newtonian physics if you make large-body assumptions. Can you show me that?
Mr. Q*: {fidgets uncomfortably} Um, sure. {does something under his desk} Well... {phone rings} Oh, I have to go. Good talking to you, Tom!
I attempted to corner Mr. Q* on a few occassions after that but he always averted my efforts. Then one day we had an awkward encounter in the bathroom and that pretty much ended all further discussions.
So my distaste for QM is largely out of confusion. I acknowledge that the science "works", but why is it that no one can explain it coherently? And why can't these braniacs flat-out admit that they don't know what's going on?
In the spirit of my most hated filmmaker, M. Night Shyamalan, I shall conclude this story with a contrived plot twist. As it so happens, my dad is a fairly prominent ... quantum chemist (the audience shudders!) He currently operates a computational chemistry company that I worked at for a number of years (I told you I couldn't get a real job). Of course I consulted him about my dillemas with the subject:
Me: So, can you explain this approximation here?
Dad: Uh, sure. {points} Hey, what's that over there?
Me: {looks} What? Dad? Where did he go? {crickets}
Quantum mechanics: the greatest conspiracy known to nerd-kind.
ID:50
 Apr 22 2005, 11:49 pm
|
|
Brian Greene is a stud.
| |
How interesting! I've long suspected that a related conjecture, Einstein's special relativity, is also wrong. My gut still says that Newtonian relativity has it right, and all of the data suggesting an Einsteinian model exist because all our measurements are based ultimately on electromagnetic phenomena which are subject to the very dilation they purport to measure. I.e., it's not that the data shows special relativity is right, but that it looks right.
As I recall, even Planck never really believed in quantum physics, either, and he was pretty desperate to find some simpler solution than what his results kept telling him. | |
I like your attitude to QM, Tom. I agree that anything that cannot be explained properly should inspire further investigation. It seems like science has gone from assumptions to definitions in that area however, so changing anything could be a tough task. Questioning only leads to, as you said, excuses and/or ridicule.
I can see a similar attitude concerning gravity. No one understands the origin of gravity, but still people use the (rather incomplete) Newtonian model of gravity to explain the universe. Then of course the anomalies needs to be covered up, so then it's convenient to create something that no one ever has seen or can see: Black holes and dark matter. What to do about all this? It seems like humanity can be stuck in a complete mess if this goes on. | |
Take this with a grain of salt, but you might find at least one or two of the answers in a book called What is Quantum Mechanics?: A Physics Adventure. It's a hard book to describe.
It's an 8-1/2" x 11" trade paperback with 565 pages, so it's a bit on the heavy side. It chronicles the quest of a group of Japanese students to understand all the key concepts of quantum mechanics, and they apparently did. As far as the style, try to imagine a Hello Kitty Guide to Quantum Physics: full of cartoons and step-by-step derivations of key formulae, all written with a relentlessly cheerful "Let's do it!" tone.
If you ever get a chance to check it out, I'd be interested to see what you think of it.