Cool, CSteinhardt. Sorry for misinterpreting you then. Obviously I agree with everything you say about the history.

Your research sounds really interesting, incidentally.

May I suggest CSeinhart to post links instead of writing lots of words. A good link with illustrations will be far more beneficial to us, and it will cut down the words in the threads. If you have your own idea, then sure, write your posts. But a lot of your explanations I've read, I have already read else where, mostly on WiKI. So why rewrite when you can reuse with a link.

I disagree. People are likely to keep reading a forum post. They're relatively unlikely to go read a lengthy article that they feel (probably correctly) would be half over their anyway.

I think I understand enough of it: Energy exists in discreet amounts and is not infinitely divisible. When one attempts to describe small particles in terms of discreet amounts of energy, the observed behavior fits the quantum model (to a point) and not the newtonian model.

@Meep

LOL Lot of words? Have you bet obi?

*met

You are posting too frequently, please slow down.
You are posting too frequently, please slow down.

I posted this:
I once debugged an intermittent problem on an electronics circuit. I wanted to see the setup/hold time of the troublesome signal. The moment I put the probe on, the circuit no longer showed any intermittent problem. The capacitor of the probe changed the circuit.

I showed my boss the signal on the oscilloscope and said, this is not the signal which caused the problem. We can never observed the true signal since any probe which touch it, would alter the signal. That's an example of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle at play.
----------------------------------------------------
But CSeinhart did not understand my point. So let me explain some more.
Would you say the smallest probe I can have is the reduced Planck constant. Thus it's true that I can never know the true signal which caused the intermittent problem?

This was how Neil Bohr countered Einstein's arguments in every debate. Bohr was able to show the need of the reduced Planck constant probe in every thought experiments come up by Einstein.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSeinhart, you do no a lot. Whether you understand is another level up. I used to think I understand, but then I noticed as I know more, my understand kept changing. I finally deduced that I really don't understand many of things. Quantum Physics is one of those I don't really understand.

My boss understood my explanation, he liked it. I would never throw at him the loooooooooong boring explanation which he won't understand. In fact, the short explanation was easy for him to remember and brag around to what his people can do.

Being CONCISE is an art.

I'm not sure what you mean by "understand it." I had a workmanlike knowledge at one point (sadly atrophied), but I think I could pick back up with a little effort. If you want a layman's understanding of the one concept that is most useful in understanding the rest I'd just google "Schroedinger's cat."

@ abgemacht
Alright, I'll post less if CSeinhart agree to post less words. Lemme see if I can sign a non-aggression pact with him. LoL.

"I showed my boss the signal on the oscilloscope and said, this is not the signal which caused the problem. We can never observed the true signal since any probe which touch it, would alter the signal. That's an example of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle at play."

No, this really isn't true at all.

You were describing a classical system, in which your tool happened to be interfering with your reading.

Heisenberg said that some states, such as momentum and position, simply cannot be defined exactly at the same time. It has nothing to do with the tool. For instances, position and energy CAN be measured at the same time, but that doesn't mean we necessarily have the tools to do so.

Do you see the subtle difference?

I do know the subtle difference. But do you know the obvious difference? My boss is not a technical person. I used the classical system and was lucky that my boss understood it. Now for you, I will use the modern system. Would you agree with me that there is no perfect probe, the smallest probe you can have is the reduced Planck constant?

Using Classical systems to explain QM is something I can't support. It's too different and trying to use one to describe the other just doesn't make sense.

I agree there is no perfect probe. I don't know what you mean by the smallest probe is hbar, because hbar is not a length. I will say that the smallest probe is probably the planck length, at which point QM falls apart. What the take away from that is, though, I don't know.

The bosses only care about the correct end results. They don't care about the precise explanation. They prefer my "convenient" explanation so that they can BS'ing among themselves. If any boss do the nickpicking on my explanation, I'll use the QM to give the full explanation: THERE IS NO PERFECT PROBE.

I am very much like you, starting out as a Physics guy then lost my heart in it, I pursued something more deterministic: LOGIC.

I still know enough to box around with anyone who claims to understand QM. Most people only know QM. I think there are only a few top scientists who would understand QM.

"I am very much like you, starting out as a Physics guy then lost my heart in it, I pursued something more deterministic: LOGIC."

This does not describe me at all, so I'm not sure what you're saying. Also, Schrodinger's equation is completely deterministic.

For sure, Schrodinger's cat experiment shows the nondeterministic nature. The Schrodinger's equation is completely deterministic because it is non-relativistic. For the Schrodinger's equation to be relativistic, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein%E2%80%93Gordon_equation

Then we go right back to the nondeterministic nature.

@meep (roadrunner reference, right?)

I think you were describing me, not abge. And to be fair I didn't loose my heart in it, I was scared away ... And lured away by the money in software.

The Wave Function described by Schrodinger's Equation is deterministic; it really has nothing to do with relativity. It only becomes probabilistic when you attempt to observe a property of the Wave Function.

There you said it, probabilistic is another way to say nondeterministic. I am going to stop at this Schodinger as it's getting down to a rabbit hole. You are welcome to post another counter point.

@Philcore,

Yes, MeepMeep is a reference to the Road runner. I was dating this one coworker. One day she was giving a technical presentation with her group, she forgot to block her company's online chat box. I wanted to go out for lunch with her. I sent her a ping, "Meep...Meep..."

She panicked and sent a word, "stop". Everyone in her group thought it was so funny, they laughed so much and joked about me. It then became our special ping when we want to each other.

Right, but the Wave Function itself isn't probabilistic.

I want to know if anyone read about the validity of the experiments showing/verifying the Quantum entanglement with the 'information' speed appears to 'transpire' at a speed thousand or more faster than the speed of light.

I think that's in how you look at it, abge. When you a measure a property, according to (say) the Copenhagen interpretation, it's not a property of the *wave function* that you're measuring -- it's a property of the particle whose state at that moment is described by the wave function.

When you measure it, the state nondeterministically changes to one that's no longer described by the wave function, but the probability with which it gives you various results is determined by the wave function.

So the wave function's *evolution* is not probabilstic. But the wave function's meaning with respect to a measurement is. In fact, the norm squared of the wave function is exactly the probability density in whatever basis (x or p) you're expressing psi.

Google Bell's inequalities, Meep.

Hey, can I suggest you guys to use the common sense into improve our games. I am into practical results. Please reply to my proposal in the last post here:

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?newsendtothread=997010&viewthread=997010#postbox

I don't know -- let's find out!

@semck83, oooh, I like your explanation. My last explanation was actually wrong. I forgot about Neil Bohr's tricks to insert back the uncertainty principle, "You don't really know until you measure and when you measure, you will be face the imperfect probe."