Mugwort
Joined 9 years ago
Joined 9 years ago
A GLOBAL MAGNETIC ANOMALY: On June 23rd, Earth’s quiet magnetic field was unexpectedly disturbed by a wave of magnetism that rippled around much of the globe. There was no solar storm or geomagnetic storm to cause the disturbance. So what was it?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/25/weird-out-of-nowhere-...
Ask a grad student or even a professor of physics what is essentially different about QM verses classical mechanics.
I almost always get one of two answers.
QM has operators acting on a Hilbert space (rigged HS). It's so mysterious because we have to replace everything with operators. well...
Have they heard of the Koopman–von Neumann formulations of classical mechanics? It's CM formulated using HS and ops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_cl...
Another answer is uncertainty. QM has uncertainty. Well... so does classical mechanics!
So what is different? That's a very long answer but one thing is the Exclusion principle.
Besides the KvN formulation is it possible to do QM using the equations of CM in the same form?
yes, it is. The Wigner Moyal Weyl formulations of QM. Look it up or Moyal star products.
Lastly, the collapse of the wave function.
Already done long, long ago by John von Neumann in his book on Quantum Mechanics. The correct formulation involves the subtle concept of decoherence. Von Neumann's trace operators are used in extreme cases where standard calculations (which involve a tiny bit of cheating) won't work, e.g. black hole entropy.
What's wrong with QM? So far nothing! It's possible someone might find a flaw but it hasn't happened.
The problem is mostly US. We don't understand all the implications of what we already possess. The enormous amount of myth making and lack of understanding surrounding QM obfuscates what the true problems are which in 99% of cases is the most physicists simply haven't studied von Neumann carefully enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5p8DPbaokE
Learning Lisp, Scheme or Clojure is more about learning ideas than anything else.
Later you might want to learn Alonzo Church's Lambda calculus after learning some set theory and mathematical logic.
What does physics need? The world doesn't know. Nobody knows but someone will do it, someday in a manner no one else thought possible or could really anticipate. In fact, that's not entirely true but new developments will happen and only a handful of people will be in the loop. Lorenz, Poincare etc. e.g. laid some vital groundwork for relativity.
My own two cents on the matter is that we really don't understand our theories well enough and are badly in need of a firmer foundation. The situation is analogous to calculus before Weierstrass, Cauchy, Dedekind and Cantor.
Of course, mathematics wasn't completely stuck just because calculus wasn't fully developed. Probability and non-Euclidean geometry were stunning developments which predated a truer understanding of real numbers.
So it is with physics right now. Unification, strings, etc. isn't working out so well right now. Quantum computing is now a thing and Quantum mechanics is enjoying a second revolution not unlike the General Relativity Renaissance led by Penrose, et. al.
We can't predict the future. We don't know the sequence things we need to take the next step in AI or even if there is one. Will some form of deep learning be all we need? Probably not but possibly yes.
Physics is right where it should be. Frustration is part of the process. We're feeling some pain because our approach isn't working. Instead of having answers to everything maybe we should focus on better questions.