In Reply to: Quantum entanglement and photosynthesis posted by Mike K on May 16, 2010 at 09:04:57:
PAINTING: The Alchemical Trickster
Mike K.,
I'm among those who thinks that quantum entanglement is one of those concepts necessary to present a keen grasp of the obvious, while giving it a name to make it sound it arcane, mysterious, and requires a physics degree to understand. Even the term "quantum" and them names of quarks, muons, leptons, and so on are akin to the names of cartoon characters- semi- jokes and a sure sign of floundering and dueling theories. String theory is like this too- another attempt to describe super-complex interactions in very large system. How many dimensions is the fashion today- 7-11- 13?
Quantum entanglement is only saying that there is a condition in matter such that bonds between particles- their energetic interactions means that each particle is influenced by the other so that a system is described that is more than the sum of it's parts- the effects of the energy that makes the links cases each particle to be describable only as a component in a system -the individuality of the particle is lost. A binary star would be an example on a macro-scale- consider each star as a particle and the gravity as the interactions that makes only the function of the system a valid complete description.
While the idea is a bit perfunctory, the idea though to emphasises the importance of bonded systems is healthy. Because , reverse engineering systems from components is proven to be constantly fallacious. Take a piece of audio gear, explode it in to the smallest pieces possible and then ask someone to draw an accurate picture of the original object/system. In my home-brew cosmology, I think the results of colliders is seriously corrupted- when the particles are removed from their relative position by the removal of inter-atomic forces, their energies and behaviours must not resemble those within the system. Another analogy- drop a fertilized chicken egg on the floor, then piece it back together and refill it with the yolk and white. Who thinks a chick will hatch from the re-assembled egg? "All the King's horses and all the King's men",..
Quantum uncertainty in my view, is also in this category, a worse offender since entanglement is something that does happen, but the influence of observation on subatomic particles is I believe is a simple matter of instrumentation- the exact position of an electron could be known- if you measure it. Logically the particle if it can be said to be "moving" must mean that they are visualising a tiny sphere of energy that is displacing. However, in the atom, with the electrons moving at c, each electron contitutes a field- given the scale and the speed, the electrons must be so nearly simultaneously The sensors and not being capable to capture a positional image of something displacing much faster than the instrumentation and importantly, on a subatomic scale. My analogy is to try and imagine trying to take a freeze-frame photograph of something traveling at the speed of light across an nucleus. - That photo will probably be a blur won't it? And, the only equation that would be useful to describe the position can only be a function derived form the behaviours of the field in situ- back to "quantum entanglement" and the possible fallacies of collider data.
A future generation- about 20 years- will look back on quantum mechanics of today the way we do of Newtonian Mechanics- incredible genius on many levels, but nowhere near the complete story. Einstein's reservations about quantum mechanics may someday be vindicated.
Colonel Kilgore: "Ah luv the smell of quantum mechanics in the morning- it smells like,..like infinite squabbling over nothin'."
Cheers,
Bambi B
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Don't get me started on the wild world of Quantum "Mechanics"- they're a bunch of body and fender men! - Bambi B 05/16/1010:46:02 05/16/10 (4)
- Quantum Uncertainty - rlindsa 18:49:25 05/16/10 (2)
- Excellent!! Now if you talked of the paradoxes in quantum entanglement... (nt) - orejones 02:46:19 05/17/10 (1)
- ok, here it is - rlindsa 05:25:07 05/17/10 (0)
- Well, I tend to agree with you, to a point - Mike K 17:34:30 05/16/10 (0)