










Comments     Threshold


RE: Laymen's terms
By masher2 on 2/18/2007 3:14:06 PM , Rating: 3
The biggest problem with understanding QM is that its essentially an incomplete theory. We know the mathematics work, but we don't have a model to hang them on...and we're not entirely sure what they're telling us is happening.

When you describe any classical (non-QM) theory of science, you interpret the math into words, using the conceptual model. With QM, this isn't really possible, as we lack that model.

The end result is that you can't really understand QM without the mathematics. And even when you "understand" it, you're not really sure what its telling you.

RE: Laymen's terms
By evildorf on 2/18/2007 4:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Quantum theory is be no means 'complete' in that it describes any and all physical phenomena, however by that measure it is far more complete than any other current theory. Classical physics, for all its intuitive appeal, isn't remotely comparable in terms of the variety of observed phenomena that it can describe/predict. All the crazy mathematics that go into quantum theory wasn't simply hit upon by chance. Concrete physical reasoning lies underneath all of it. It's just that to people who don't study it in some depth, the math can easily obscure the physics.

On the quantum computer, it will be interesting to see how this product plays out. Any number of well-funded research facilities have been trying to work out all sorts of tricky problems with the construction of a quantum computer for years. For this company to have somehow solved these would be a great leap forward...though perhaps an unlikely one.

RE: Laymen's terms
By masher2 on 2/18/2007 4:21:47 PM , Rating: 3
The theory is incomplete in that it lacks a conceptual model to accompany the mathematics, not that it fails to describe any particular phenonemon. Therefore, we can't "interpret" what the math is telling us, though the results are verifiably correct. Or rather, we have several different interpretations, all of which are incomplete, and none of which we're sure is correct (if any). For instance, what is really happening during wavefunction collapse? Is it an actual phenonemon, just an artifact of the mathematics, or a secondory mechanism to a larger, still unknown process? All we have are equations, not mental pictures to go with them. That is why you cannot even approximately describe QM with words.

Furthermore, we don't even know such basic things about QM such as whether or not Bell's Theorem is correct. When I was a graduate student in physics, I believed it wasn't...which pretty much made me a heretic. Lately, there's been some new evidence it may not be, which would cause a rather large rethinking of the foundations of QM.

Related Articles
