Elite Engineer

Why quantum physics is a WASTE OF TIME

64 posts in this topic

Theres a major flaw in QM in that it doesnt work with the classical physics which is used 80% of the time in engineering and such.

In what way? Can you be more specific?

 

For standard quantum mechanics we do have a classical limit. We also have several results that 'mimic' classical mechanics; Ehrenfest theorem for example.

 

More worrying is the classical limit of quantum field theories when treated in perturbation theory. The classical limit of perturbative QED is not well defined, for example.

 

We also have the case that different quantum field theories can have the same classical limit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The end of the quantum theory for the man with the disgusting pink avatar??

 

post-74263-0-07177200-1441443919.jpg

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason it is so important is due to the fact that if you understand the fabric/foundation of the universe, and find a way to munipulate it, then the posiblitys are endless, but yeah in reality we wont be able to use this knowledge for aloooong time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might stimulate new ideas or encourage young people to study physics. And who knows what might come out of that...

I just wrote mail to my government that they should make factory of Cloud Chambers, Peltier cooled,

to put them in the every primary school, middle, and universities..

In the hall. And physics class room.

 

Children should be accustomized with quantum physics since the early age of their life.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that furthers our understanding of how reality works is a worthwhile endeavor.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wrote mail to my government that they should make factory of Cloud Chambers, Peltier cooled,

to put them in the every primary school, middle, and universities..

In the hall. And physics class room.

 

Children should be accustomized with quantum physics since the early age of their life.

 

 

I'd settle for a (more or less) continuously running device on a webcam.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...spectroscopic methods? Super useful in industry... down to QM.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol - I was thinking of that sketch earlier w.r.t. this thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum mechanics is of immense use to modern physics. It is a major step forward towards understanding of this 'complex' universe. Perhaps, it can also lead to formulation of grand unified theory.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't this all about understanding how atoms works at its deepest levels ??

 

i am just a computer science student , i am not a physicist ...

 

 

i still don't know what holds an electron to its place ...

 

does this resemble atoms ?

 

800px_Passionfruit_cream.jpg

 

but after watching a lot of documentaries on quantum physics ...

i ended up watching this documentary ...

 

 

 

its not bad as it sounds ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't this all about understanding how atoms works at its deepest levels ??

 

i am just a computer science student , i am not a physicist ...

 

 

i still don't know what holds an electron to its place ...

 

 

Electrons are not held in place in atoms, but what holds electrons in atoms is electrostatic attraction.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks ,

 

how does an electron avoid collision with a proton then ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks ,

 

how does an electron avoid collision with a proton then ?

Electrons behave like waves. It will pass through/by the proton, but sticking to it is not an allowed state. (Combining with the proton is not energetically allowed for a single proton, though it can happen in some nuclei)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proton-rich isotopes can decay by electron capture. And release neutrino (to conserve lepton number).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

 

But daughter isotope (just nucleus) must have smaller mass-energy, than parent isotope (nucleus), to conserve energy properly.

In the case of lone proton and electron, there is missing 0.782 MeV mass-energy.

Because free neutron has 939.565 MeV/c^2, proton has 938.272 MeV/c^2 and electron has 0.511 MeV/c^2 mass.

938.272 MeV/c^2 + 0.511 MeV/c^2 - 939.565 MeV/c^2 = -0.782 MeV/c^2

Negative means disallowed/missing energy. If it would be >0, such decay mode would be at least plausible.

Edited by Sensei
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum physics is becoming really popular on TV and other media, mainly b/c it has the potential to offer so much, but in reality provides so little.

Sure, I can tediously calculate all the electrons on my computer screen, or explain why benzene is a stable ring due to its orbitals. But at the end of the day, these don't really save or help anyone or anything.

Yes, I'm aware of the things physics has given us such as the atom bomb, etc. However, once we start talking about string theory and 5th, 6th, and 7th dimensions and so on...why does this matter, and what does this do?

if you look at the most beneficial achievements to human kind in the last 100 yrs..it's been mostly in biology, chemistry, and engineering (including computer engineering). I don't see how understanding the spin of a quark is ever going to advance human kind.

 

(P.S. we will never approach the speed of light)

 

/end rant

 

~EE

 

as I understand ,you criticize the theoritic studies at the background of this text. I also critize this. but here is clearly important detail ,I think theoritic studies are not empty or valueless.

theoritic studies only need perspective approach.

Edited by blue89
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretical physics is not good career choice in my opinion.

 

Most of the theories of mainstream theoretical physics like quantum mechanics, special relativity, general relativity, quantum field theory and modern cosmology are highly mathematical and theoretical and they can be quite difficult for most people to understand, unless you are very gifted at mathematics of course and have very very good memory.

 

Biology, chemistry, engineering (electrical engineering, computer engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering or electronics engineering for example) or economics/social science are better career choices in my opinion because these fields are much less difficult to master than theoretical physics and requite less effort, money and time to be really good at.

 

Theoretical physicists don't make a lot of money but this field requires tons of effort and money to be really good at (for normal people I mean and not geniuses or prodigies) and is in my opinion not worth the money and effort which could be spent on something else.

Edited by seriously disabled
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretical physics is not good career choice in my opinion.

 

 

 

That's not what the OP was discussing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretical physics is not good career choice in my opinion.

 

 

It is, if it is what you want to do.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost my feelings for physic to. I understood so mutch more but cannot maynot explain tell.

 

Modarator this is ontopic.

 

I got in an discussion in Holland. I aimed that the universe is far more than 1000billion light year wide and proved it at the end.

 

.......... imagine each one is a spot of the hubble extreem deep photo. 13,3b ly far. Btw i could put the sun at a distance of 13,3 billion ly far and aim the same.

 

I saw many galaxys on that photo and had the thougth that it would have a wide of +/-100million ly wide. One photo. One spot that is entlargent by a telescope. How many of that spots can we put next to each other in our sight, if we look above? Say 4m broath.. 10.000 (hubble extreem deep photo spots in broath/wide)? Times 100million ly wide? The question can also be asked as how wide is the universe

 

I know a lot in physics, but I am not an physician. I discovered so mutch more because I loved it. But can't tell all. Because I see and saw what is made up and where you/they wrong whit and of course there is crowdfunding. They make money and I have to shut upp and starfe from the hunger. Didn't have any benefit of all.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost my feelings for physic to. I understood so mutch more but cannot maynot explain tell.

Modarator this is ontopic.

I'm not convinced you understand the meaning of the phrase. The topic here is QM, not cosmology.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between entertainment and reality why does that annoy you

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now