# An idiot dealing with quantum theory.



## Foxbat (Nov 21, 2019)

I've been trying to grasp basic quantum theories and I'm currently struggling in my head with the Higgs Boson. Higgs himself scoffed at 'scientists who should know better' when they tried to describe a particle's interaction with mass as wading through treacle. So I've formulated my own analogy. I know there are folk here with a much greater knowledge so here goes.

Picture mass as a light mist. Now throw a tennis ball through that mist and it comes out damp at the other end (it has acquired mass). Now picture a smooth rubber ball travelling through the mist and it comes out much wetter than the tennis ball (which is furry). This is my interpretation of different particles interacting with the field in different ways. Now picture a ball that repels water travelling through the mist. It comes out dry. This is  like a photon which does not acquire mass. 

Now, imagine a sheet of glass onto which some of the mist condenses. The glass is the energy of a collider and the condensation is the Higgs Boson. It comes from the mist but is now in a different state. But, you might ask, what about all the rest of the condensation on the glass? Well, theoretically, the Higgs Boson should have a much greater mass than we see (10 to the nineteen giga-electron volts instead of the 125 giga-electron volts currently seen). Perhaps, if we section off the glass, we can limit the amount of condensation in any one place (limit the Higgs mass) or perhaps something else is taking up the rest of the condensation. Supersymmetry? Who knows? Certainly not me.

I don't know if I'm even close to grasping this.


----------



## J Riff (Nov 21, 2019)

Waay over my head. Cosmic rays pass through the Earth, apparently...  the rest is a ball of confusion and mystery. 10 to the nineteen giga-electron volts? Would that make for a loud guitar amp? Sorry, I'll be quiet now.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 21, 2019)

I'm fortunate that I used to do a bit of Gamma Spectrometry and Liquid Scintillation Counting, both of which use the electronvolt as a unit of measure although in a different context to here where it doubles up as a unit of mass (mass and energy being interchangeable). Apparently it's easier to talk in electron volts than in billionths of billionths of grammes.

Giga electron volts might sound like a lot but it's actually pretty miniscule in energy terms. I once read somewhere that a flying mosquito would use around 1 terra-electron volt (1000 giga) to remain airbourne.


----------



## J Riff (Nov 21, 2019)

So... some mass... say one drop of blood, as mosquito fuel... is equal to a very large number of terror-electron volts?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 21, 2019)

Quantum theory, well in fact most theories, physical, mathematical, philosophical etc. generally seem easier to understand if they are rammed into the head of a late teen, say 18-20ish. On the principle that you still haven't really worked out what 'common sense' is till about a decade later, so that's the time to indoctrinate.   

Actually, in terms of brain development, as you cross the barrier into adult then older age, the brain does become less 'moveable' and 'plastic' and could be said to become more 'reflex' and 'hardened'. i.e younger you can still change neuron networks in response to external stimuli, like new ideas, but when you become more 'crystal' you can actually think faster, but you are less able to change (hence learn, I believe?) 

Blame our evolution!


----------



## J Riff (Nov 21, 2019)

I know about radios, it's hardened information, but I like this new electron-volt info too. What would, say, a McDonalds hamburger equal in electron-volts?


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 21, 2019)

J Riff said:


> I know about radios, it's hardened information, but I like this new electron-volt info too. What would, say, a McDonalds hamburger equal in electron-volts?


With all the calories involved,  I'd use the technical term of a s***load


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 21, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> Quantum theory, well in fact most theories, physical, mathematical, philosophical etc. generally seem easier to understand if they are rammed into the head of a late teen, say 18-20ish. On the principle that you still haven't really worked out what 'common sense' is till about a decade later, so that's the time to indoctrinate.
> 
> Actually, in terms of brain development, as you cross the barrier into adult then older age, the brain does become less 'moveable' and 'plastic' and could be said to become more 'reflex' and 'hardened'. i.e younger you can still change neuron networks in response to external stimuli, like new ideas, but when you become more 'crystal' you can actually think faster, but you are less able to change (hence learn, I believe?)
> 
> Blame our evolution!


So you really can't teach an old dog new tricks? Even if they try really hard?   
I'm an obsessive so I'm going to keep on trying


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 21, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> So you really can't teach an old dog new tricks? Even if they try really hard?
> I'm an obsessive so I'm going to keep on trying


I think you can still learn...just not the same as a young and free child/teen/twenty-something!


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 22, 2019)

Yep. Probably quite true. But I do believe in Lenin's assertion on mental gymnastics (he was referring to Chess) and I'm a firm believer that these kind of mental pushes can perhaps help prevent or delay dementia (of course, I have no proof of this, merely faith)


----------



## dask (Nov 22, 2019)

I think someone published a book about quantum mechanics once.


----------



## olive (Nov 22, 2019)

My introduction to the subject was Leon Lederman's, 'The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?'. It wasn't even a conscious choice. I just picked it up in the book store because I was curious. I was in my early 20s I guess, and I was astonished. Now, it is an old book I know -published in 1993- but for anyone who wants to have a general idea about the subject for the first time, it is still a very good book in my opinion. Especially, considering there is a handful of people who understand this subject in the world and there is no actual understanding it.

The main reason, I think, this book is still good is because I find it the best way to go about this subject is through its history. And it's an entertaining book. He takes it all back from Democritos. That part was very good,lol. I should read this again. He published books afterwards, but I haven't followed them.

Also, another old one I picked up recently in the States was Jim Baggot's, The Quantum Story, A History in 40 Moments. (2011) It's difficult o me, I haven't finished it yet. I'll keep trying of course. But it's a difficult reading for the complete layman like me. It goes too slow and I read in front of the computer with aid.

But note that these are all written before 2012, before scientists in the LHC confirmed they 'found' the Higgs Boson. I think Baggot also wrote another revised edition after the event.

Jamal Khalili's, The Secret of Quantum Physics is a very good documentary. (2 parts) I enjoyed it very much. Same idea. Starting from the light bulb, he is coming back to the 21st century. And he arrives to quantum biology. Photosynthesis! (E: The card game with the devil.  It's amazing.)

[E: Taken from Comments section under Let There Be Life part of the documentary in youtube:  "Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Ohm are in a car. They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" "No, but I know exactly where I am" Heisenberg replies. The cop says "You were doing 55 in a 35." Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts "Great! Now I'm lost!" The cop thinks this is suspicious and orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says "Do you know you have a dead cat back here?" "We do now, a******!" shouts Schrodinger. The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists, because he doesn`t know how to conduct himself. "   ]


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Nov 22, 2019)

I have two recommendations: _Quantum_ by Manjit Kumar (superb book), and Jim Al-Kalili's excellent tv programmes _The Secrets Of Quantum Physics,_ now available on the iPlayer.


----------



## Av Demeisen (Nov 22, 2019)

Any opinions on Leonard Susskind's _Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum_? I'm quite enjoying it. Seems well structured.
@Foxbat  Have you been reading books with or without math?


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 22, 2019)

Av Demeisen said:


> Any opinions on Leonard Susskind's _Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum_? I'm quite enjoying it. Seems well structured.
> @Foxbat  Have you been reading books with or without math?


More or less without but I have been trying to grasp a few things like Heisenberg's matrix mechanics but, to be honest, I'm still trying to get my head around the concepts rather than the mathematical detail. 

I'm afraid if I'm told that such and such  has this spin and that mass, I just have to accept it as gospel. What I think I am starting to grasp is the difference between charge when it comes to electrons and quarks. I think I more or less understand (for example) why they both have to carry a charge but why they can't be the same kind of charge (electron being electromagnetic and interacts with the weak nuclear force, quarks carry one of three types of charge and interacts through gluons with the strong nuclear force....if quarks had the same charge as an electron, it would cause problems across these forces so has to be different...named after colours...hence the term quantum chromodynamnics).


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 22, 2019)

Foxbat said:


> More or less without but I have been trying to grasp a few things like Heisenberg's matrix mechanics but, to be honest, I'm still trying to get my head around the concepts rather than the mathematical detail.
> 
> I'm afraid if I'm told that such and such  has this spin and that mass, I just have to accept it as gospel. What I think I am starting to grasp is the difference between charge when it comes to electrons and quarks. I think I more or less understand (for example) why they both have to carry a charge but why they can't be the same kind of charge (electron being electromagnetic and interacts with the weak nuclear force, quarks carry one of three types of charge and interacts through gluons with the strong nuclear force....if quarks had the same charge as an electron, it would cause problems across these forces so has to be different...named after colours...hence the term quantum chromodynamnics).



I think the problem here is, you need to sit down and actually do the mathematics to fully understand it. 

I did a physics degree and PhD so I kinda had to . I have read popular books on Quantum mechanis, and frankly they are all the same. The first half usually starts with basic concepts that are quite easy to explain in words...then the second half tries to do more complex stuff, but I always found them clumsy and more often than not struggling with concepts that really require some nice beautiful mathematics. So trying to explain it in horrid dirty words can, I feel, be quite misleading.  

Actually, purely from my experience, I don't think my understanding would have been remotely the same if I hadn't got to grips with the mathematics. 

Once you understand 2nd order differential equations well, a lot of basic Quantum mechanics is very easy and a lot falls out just from the mathematical structure!


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Nov 22, 2019)

I did QM as an option when I did my Physics degree, and slightly regretted it. :/ Confusing.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 22, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> I have read popular books on Quantum mechanis, and frankly they are all the same


The last couple I've read have varied enormously. The first - Cracking Quantum Physics, I found to be absolutely no help at all. The current one (how the universe works) is a New Scientist publication. I've found to be a much better help. I've always viewed mathematics as going to the numerical dentist. It fills me with dread but I still have to go. Is time already for my six monthly numerical tooth pulling?


----------



## Av Demeisen (Nov 22, 2019)

I learned about Leonard Susskind's book(s) in Philip Ball's excellent _Beyond Weird_. A quote from Ball: "Suskind has organized the material so as to tell you what you need to know in the order that you need to know it, in distinction from the common practice of introducing topics and concepts in more or less chronological order." The book series is based on the free online video course also called _The Theoretical Minimum_. 

Personally, I think his approach is wonderfull, introducing the general reader to the actual equations in a very clear way that is not intimidating, countering the impulse of people to simply philosophize and let their imagination run riot.


----------



## tinkerdan (Nov 22, 2019)

All that extra mass,
osmosed through the glass,
wicked itself off,
and went on its merry way,
to where-ever it goes when hiding.


----------



## Av Demeisen (Nov 22, 2019)

tinkerdan said:


> All that extra mass,
> osmosed through the glass,
> wicked itself off,
> and went on its merry way,
> to where-ever it goes when hiding.


A science nerd with the heart of a poet.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 22, 2019)

Stephen Palmer said:


> I did QM as an option when I did my Physics degree, and slightly regretted it. :/ Confusing.


Interesting. After reading some of your work, if anybody had asked me to guess, I'd have said either a biology or pyschology degree. But maybe that says more about me than you


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Nov 22, 2019)

Well, I do read a lot of biology and psychology books...


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 23, 2019)

Not too far out then


----------



## RJM Corbet (Nov 23, 2019)

Av Demeisen said:


> Any opinions on Leonard Susskind's _Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum_? I'm quite enjoying it. Seems well structured.
> @Foxbat  Have you been reading books with or without math?





Av Demeisen said:


> I learned about Leonard Susskind's book(s) in Philip Ball's excellent _Beyond Weird_. A quote from Ball: "Suskind has organized the material so as to tell you what you need to know in the order that you need to know it, in distinction from the common practice of introducing topics and concepts in more or less chronological order." The book series is based on the free online video course also called _The Theoretical Minimum_.
> 
> Personally, I think his approach is wonderfull, introducing the general reader to the actual equations in a very clear way that is not intimidating, countering the impulse of people to simply philosophize and let their imagination run riot.


I think Susskind is very good at explaining quantum stuff to not very mathematical people like myself. I haven't read any of his books but I really like his You Tube talks. I watched this one last night. There are several other talks by him:


----------

