Social Question

Ruallreb8ters's avatar

Does anyone believe in the Theories of Quantam Physics?

Asked by Ruallreb8ters (681points) January 22nd, 2010

and do you think QP in some ways disproves the energy-mass theory (e=mc2)

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

36 Answers

Zen_Again's avatar

Sam do, sam dant. It dapands.

filmfann's avatar

bows before Zen

grumpyfish's avatar

Quantum Physics pretty clearly works, it’s not so much a faith issue.

And in what ways do you think Quantum Physics disproves e=mc^2?

Zen_Again's avatar

At least Qantas Airlines is still misspelled even after the edit – so I don’t feel like a total idiot.

marinelife's avatar

Quantum physics is a scientific theory. It is not a matter of belief.

Far from disproving e=mc2, it confirms it.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Yes plenty of people ‘believe’ it. Why, you don’t?

wunday's avatar

I don’t believe it. Think it’s a great model, though. I suspect they will find more evidence to support it.

(In my experience, belief usually is a mistake—it tends to mean going against all the evidence).

Austinlad's avatar

Personally—and I’m sure I’ll get pushback on this—I don’t believe we have a clue about how to universe really works, or ever will, or ever could. We have to pursue answers, though. It’s one of the things that makes life so interesting.

BhacSsylan's avatar

I believe it, I’m a chemist and it explains some things very well that were previously very strange. And it is a matter of belief, because one can believe one scientific theory over another. The trick in science is to not let your believe cloud your judgement, and to allow your beliefs to be easily overturned should the evidence point to it being wrong.

Also, I will join the chorus of “disproving E=mc^2? Whaa?”

Snarp's avatar

I’m not an expert on quantum physics, but as far as I know E-mc^2 still holds. Newton is in for a bit more of a drubbing as I understand it, but even then it all depends on the scale you are working at. At the human scale Newton’s laws work just fine. I’m pretty confident that the parts of quantum physics that are well settled are accurate.

In general though, this is a good link to think about the issues of what quantum physics “disproves” and what growth in scientific knowledge means.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

Quantum physics disproves E=MC^2 at high values. Values like .75 light speed, stuff like that.

In basic human life, E=MC^2.

It’s kinda hard to explain, especially considering I only barely grasp it. Go find a physics professor at a respectable university and ask them to explain.

BoBo1946's avatar

If u consider the lagrangian action for a free particle

S^{L}{0}=\alpha\int{(1)}^{(2)} ds

in the noncovariant formalism and u apply Noether’s theorem for time translations,u’ll get the conserved quantity called “energy”.

If u compute the Hamiltonian,u’ll run into

H\left(\vec{r},\vec{p},t\right)\longrightarrow H\left(\vec{p}\right)=\sqrt{\vec{p}^{2}c^{2}+m^{2} c^{4}}

Snarp's avatar

Also, given the enormity of knowledge in the world, and the complete inability of any individual to be an expert in everything, or even to know a tiny bit of the totality of knowledge, I choose to trust the scientific consensus as transmitted by scientists. Now some people think they should go to Google, find a bunch of websites, and do their own research, then they can challenge the scientists on subjects they are experts in, and that we should all do this or we are just sheep. Well I have no issue with trying to expand one’s knowledge base and gain some understanding of why scientists say what they do. I have no problem with applying some basic critical thinking skills to what the media says science says. But I guarantee that all the internet research in the world will not make you (or me) a quantum physicist. Scientists spend years reading and analyzing the published research in their field before they even get to the point of doing their own research, and they never stop reading the latest research. Even the greatest biologist in the world, if he has half a brain, will not go around challenging quantum physicists in their own fields, just as they would not challenge him, because they had to specialize at some point to gain an adequate depth of knowledge.

But ultimately, I trust biologists and paleontologists on evolution, I trust physicists on quantum mechanics, and I trust climatologists on climate change for the same reason that I would go to a professional surgeon to remove my appendix and not some guy who spends his spare time in the basement googling appendix. Because I trust the people who have studied for years, then practiced, then gained years of experience doing the real work. So if you trust amateurs and crank websites on science, next time your have a sharp stabbing pain in your lower abdomen, I’ll take your appendix out dirt cheap, I’m sure I can figure it out on the internet.

Cruiser's avatar

(e=mc2) was only the genesis that jump started the revolution of both Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics to further explore and understand the forces of all things subatomic whether particles, waves and even both. I believe!!!

HTDC's avatar

I do and I think the results from the LHC will help confirm it, unless it keeps breaking down.

CMaz's avatar

If it’s green and wiggles, it’s biology.
If it stinks, it’s chemistry.
If it doesn’t work, it’s physics.

BoBo1946's avatar

@ChazMaz loll

his question is way over my head…but, that would not be very far up! lol

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

It’s a model that works, until a better model comes along. Historically, older theories are either replaced outright or found to be a “special case” in a larger theory.

VanCityKid's avatar

Yes, I do believe it, up until now it is a proven theory. Why would you say it disproves E=mc^2?

Ruallreb8ters's avatar

@vancitykid Disprove was the wrong word.. i was told there were discrepancies between the two. like westy 81585 said, they conflict at high values and I know tachyons travel faster than the speed of light. e=mc2 still stands i just thought there were cases in quantum physics where it was not applicable. wondering what some of those were hard to answer the question without years of research..

grumpyfish's avatar

@Ruallreb8ters The trick with tachyons is that the can NEVER go below the speed of light, so the end up in a different class of particle.

I thought the whole quantium field theory thing solved the problems with relativity?

Ruallreb8ters's avatar

@grumpyfish i think your right about the field theory.

Rarebear's avatar

It’s not a question of “believe”. The evidence is there and quantum physics has been validated over and over (and over and over and over). Do you “believe” in gravity? Do you “believe” in electromagnetism? You either accept the evidence or you don’t.

Relativity is a theory of fields. Quantum physics is a theory of particles. Their mathematics are often incompatable with each other and they are both absolutely true. Much work is being done on unifying the theories (the two leading theories are string theory and loop quantum gravity). if you want to understand it better, read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

hiphiphopflipflapflop's avatar

I have personally used equipment that generated, right before my eyes, diffraction patterns (a wave effect) from thin crystals using electrons (what had been thought to be purely particulate matter before quantum theory). What’s more, the current density was low enough that at most one electron should have been passing through the crystal at any given time.

So count me as onboard wave-particle duality at the very least. Much of the work I’ve done would make no sense at all without quantum theory.

Be aware that quantum mechanics is open to a degree of interpretation, about which there is not a cut-and-dried scientific or philosophical consensus.

Now, seeing that quantum field theory is essentially quantum mechanics married to special relativity, I don’t see how Einstein’s theory of mass-energy equivalence, a product of special relativity, is “disproved”. I think some of you are confusing kinetic energy with rest mass-energy.

em2theuha's avatar

“As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right.” Each is exceedingly accurate in its field: general relativity explains the behavior of the universe at large scales, while quantum mechanics describes the behavior of subatomic particles. Yet the theories collide horribly under extreme conditions such as black holes or times close to the big bang. Brian Greene, a specialist in quantum field theory, believes that the two pillars of physics can be reconciled in superstring theory, a theory of everything.”

Snarp's avatar

@em2theuha If you’re going to use quotes, could you link to a source?

em2theuha's avatar Review of The Elegant Universe

dpworkin's avatar

I still say it’s turtles all the way down.

daemonelson's avatar

I support many of the theories of quantum physics. Mainly due to their mathematical confirmation. Also because they’re fascinating beyond all comprehension.

In other news, quantum physics disproving e=mc^2? What have you been smoking?

philosopher's avatar

Some say it was disproved . Others say not true. Only a Physicist can truly debate this.
I“d like greater explanation than has been offered.

Rarebear's avatar

@philosopher How detailed of an explanation do you want? And who has said quantum physics was disproved or not true? I’d be interested in seeing the source of your information. I’m not a physicist, and I’m happy to debate it.

philosopher's avatar

I am no Physicist. I can not debate this .
I love Science took many classes in college.
I saw a show on Science Chanel. They said, most Scientist moved on to something else . I can not recall the name.
Yes everyone agrees some Physicist still believe in it. The new Theory seemed very similar but a little different.
LOL I’d like a explanation that a non physicist can comprehend; but I know Science is difficult to put into such simple terms.
They did but it was a long time ago.

Rarebear's avatar

@philosopher You saw a show on Science Chanel (sic)? That’s your evidence that scientists don’t accept quantum theory?

hiphiphopflipflapflop's avatar

@Cruiser Mass-energy equivalence came out of special relativity. Quantum mechanics grew from a number of different experimental and theoretical results. Einstein’s major contribution to the development of QM was his theory of the photoelectric effect. Later, quantum field theory developed from the attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with special relativity. QM has yet to be fully reconciled with general relativity.

A new all-encompassing theory (TOE, theory of everything) will likely involve subtle corrections to our physical pictures of quantum fields and general relativity.

flutherother's avatar

Relativity theory and quantum theory describe the same universe but they are not compatible with one another and so one or probably both will have to be modified. I don’t think quantum theory means that e doesn’t equal mc squared as at the quantum level mass and energy are pretty much one and the same so the equation is more obviously true.

People ‘believe’ in quantum theories only because they work so well. It is hard to imagine how a particle could be in two places at once or how a cat can be both dead and alive at the same time but that is how the universe seems to be.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther