Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

RE: Explaining QM to the layperson



Folks,

In discussing these issues with students who know little about physics =
at all I am truly surprised at how much I myself have accepted to be =
true about the interpretation of QM without a deep understanding. I am =
consoled however by a quote from Feynman in his book "The Character of =
Physical Law", that basically says "....no one knows how it can be that =
way, it just is."

Personally I think the task of explaining Quantum Mechanics to the layman is
Sysiphian (spelling not guarranteed). The support the attempt and think its
worthwhile, but I too remember the other Feynman (the gospel according to
Feynman) quote, where he mentions the fact that nobody understands QM.

I agree that the Schrodingers Cat gedanken experiment could have been =
used to illustrate the seeming absurdity of the Copenhagen =
interpretation of QM. However it could also serve as a means to attempt =
to bring the odd properties of the QM world into a realm closer to our =
experience so that we might appreciate more the differences between the =
micro and macro worlds. In this sense it is in the spirit of Mr. =
Tompkins adventures, is it not?

As far as providing the students with alternatives, I did mention =
Everett's Many World's Interpretation. Amazingly, they were =
significantly more comfortable with this concept. Probably due to the =
fact that so much media SciFi plays on this idea. I did point out to =
them that if they recalled our discussion of the Scientific Method, that =
this theory was untenable due to it's untestability. The only truly =
different interpretation that I can think of is Bohm's Causal =
Interpretation which I understand to be most closely related to =
deBroglie's pilot wave theory.

This is interesting to me. I thought of putting in a trite reply to Leigh
and what he said about the Copenhagen interpretation by saying something
along the lines " . . . if you really want them to think we're kooks, just
mention the 'many worlds interpretation' . . ." I have much more trouble
with this one, thinking that it contains itself as a "reducto ad absurdo"
interpretation. But your experimental anecdote takes the wind out of those
sails. "Its enough to make one weep"; (Brownie points to whoever can tell
me, where that one quote comes from or at least enough to make one want to
be a hidden variablist, if only there was a shred of experimental evidence
for it.

Well, I've inflicted my opinions enough for the moment.

Joel