Quantum Mechanics and Two Ibuprofen Tablets, Call Me In the Morning

The trope with quantum mechanics always is, "Only three or four people in the world understand quantum mechanics." Part one, anyone with an abstract mind can understand the basic principles of quantum mechanics. It is not that elite.

Part two, in quantum mechanics we plug a statistical variable - really an entire statistics equation - into a calculus integral-equation of some pretty high complexity. I do not know that kind of mathematics, and the thought of such mathematics almost has me running with a migraine for the Advil in my W.C. That kind of mathematics is for an elite few, and don't hand that elite tube-socks, as people might wind up dead.

Next problem. Quantum mechanics is weird, so people have all these "guide-quanta," delusions and other garbage. Please, just put down the giblets and stop using hallucinogens. That is not science, that is pseudo-science. That kind of behavior is very pathetic.

So let us go into quantum mechanics through a development in the philosophy of science. We'll touch on this, and then we'll move on. It is called, "the instrumental view of science." It is a re-statement of what Kant the bore took 6000 years to put into our Western minds, which is that knowledge of existence isn't exactly the same as existence.

The basic idea is this, and I may have done this, but I'll re-state it here as it is a very important philosophical idea. You go out into a place and you do some orienteering. You go back to your desk, and you use a certain set of symbols to map the place you took data from. Then you make a key for your symbols. You have a map of a place, but you don't have a place. To quote Ken Wilber, "the map is not the territory."

This is instrumental science. We have made a model of a reality, and it may even be effective - quantum mechanics is amazing for studying and engineering light refractions - but it is merely a model of the existence - however powerful that model may be.

So what happened is that since Democritus in the West, 2400 years ago - or thereabouts - we have imagined, "atoms," these spheres that fall into different categories and interact with each other in certain ways. The product today is modern particle physics, and this is powerful stuff. Controlled and uncontrolled fission - and currently - uncontrolled fusion. One of our problems in particle physics today is that we have maybe 30 particles with very different characteristics - according to our best data - and we can't seem to put these 30 or so particles in any reasonable categories.

I would not want to work in a particle accelerator. You are wasting millions of dollars of studio time and millions of dollars of very specialized materials if you make a single data collection mistake. I would find a solid rope and a solid rafter if I made such a mistake, in preference to what the other results might be for my self.

Let me just hit string-theory very quickly, and we'll go back to quantum mechanics. There is a man named Dr. Glashow who has worked in the FERMI labs for many years, and his critique of string-theory and its hypotheses has been quite heavy. However, even though he is a data-based physicist, he has very respectfully stated that string-theory is not total nonsense. Dr. Glashow strikes me as the kind of guy you want on your team, and would probably be discreetly even more critical if he felt string-theory was all nonsense.

So, with this in mind, string-theory and its hypotheses are very likely a distinct possibility. It will be many pennies into our treasury before we can know. Here is my own critique. We are abstracting a hyper-dimensional vibration-substance instead of our little spheres, but are we still playing Democritus, the atom, and the fundamental particle? That is my critique. I have looked into string-theory some, and it strikes me as attractive as well, but - 2400 years of fundamental particles - that is my critique.

Now here is the thing, because it is funny and I want to be fair. You have a man like Dr. Witten at the Princeton Academy of Science who is a mathematician who works on string-theory, and he is the kind of guy I think I would want on my team. He is a theoritician. You have a very respectable hard-data physicist like Dr. Glashow making a critique of these theories. Men - as well as sciences - are very competitive.

So in public, Dr. Witten and Dr. Glashow are discreet and respectful, as anyone in such a position has to be. They also seem to genuinely respect one another. However, I can imagine Dr. Witten and Dr. Glashow banging holes in walls and ripping apart phonebooks in private over their differences.

I also want to make the reiteration that I am making a critique, but that I respect the hypotheses of string-theory, though I happen to disagree with the whole mindset behind the work. I rip apart my own phonebooks to heavy metal music over some things. Life ain't easy.

So we return to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics developed from a question really, "What is a model of small-scale physical interactions that doesn't involve particles?" The first principle of quantum mechanics is the quanta. There is a best definition, and this is not easy, but it isn't only for people who need to be helped with their socks and need cases of ibuprofen a week.

It goes like this: "The smallest measurable unit that can be measured at a specific position at a specific time in a closed system." What this means is that we choose a place and time to measure, and then we measure the smallest unit at that time and position. It means that the quanta is variable in size, dependent on the time and position of measure.

So the quantum theory has really made huge breakthroughs in light-refraction technology. Now this is the hilarity of it. One of the only other uses for quantum mechanics is in the very particle physics it aimed to replace! In a particle accelerator, you are taking approximate data, so you can view the particles only from a specific position at a certain time. This is particularly because such particles drop out of our ability to detect so quickly.

So there you have it. Comedy physics! You theorize, "Let us try a model without particles," and you advance the study of particles! Trust me, other than light refraction and its use in particle physics, quantum mechanics is pretty much nothing but a dud.

The concept of a variable standard of measurement and that measurement's dependence on position and time is very important - I think - a very big development. However, other than amazing lenses and fiber optic cables and particle data - fuhgeddaboutit. Total dud.

I did this article next because I know people are interested in these subjects, and I've decided to release some of my matrix geometry work before I start on the category principles. I like to joke around, and remember, if the critique is hard to take, go get a phone book and rip it to pieces, or buy a punching bag - whatever it takes. The thing is that respectful critique is very important as a theorist, and I do try to be discreet and respectful. I will continue on in this pleasant morning.