Jump to content
CuriosOne

Why are QM effects only found at sub-atomic levels?

Recommended Posts

They aren’t. The premise of your question is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferromagnetism,* superconductivity, and superfluidity are among quantum effects that can be seen with your own eyes.

It is true that the context of QM par excellence is the very small, though. That's due to the smallness of the quantum of action when compared to ordinary experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism#Explanation

Quote

The Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem, discovered in the 1910s, showed that classical physics theories are unable to account for any form of magnetism, including ferromagnetism. Magnetism is now regarded as a purely quantum mechanical effect. Ferromagnetism arises due to two effects from quantum mechanics: spin and the Pauli exclusion principle.[16]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another example but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem

says that you can't have something stable and levitated in space by a magnetic field.
And it should be correct.
But, QM gives you a way round it.

So things like this are macroscopic quantum observations which you can set up for yourself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2020 at 9:41 PM, CuriosOne said:

Why are QM effects only found at sub-atomic levels?

No math, no theories simple question..

 

 

I will answer this for you as many others have this false impression that QM only applies to the very small.

This arises because the energy (transitions) involved are very small and therefore individually only affect very small particles.

So an individual quantum energy effect (transition) can only affect a minute part of a (large) macroscopic object.

However when lots of these small transitions all work together they can affect large objects.

The effects include our everyday Physics so this if I push a large block of metal, it is all the small quantum effects working together that hold the block together so that it can move as a solid body under Newton's Laws.

No esoteric Laws and effects are required.

The whole of our macroscopic world works as it does because QM is the way it is.

Hope this helps others as well.

 

Season's Greetings to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to what has already been said: there is, in principle, no law of nature that stops macroscopic systems from behaving quantum-mechanically. The problem is only that you need to prevent decoherence from occurring - meaning you need to prevent the system in question from interacting with its environment. This is relatively easy to do for very small systems, but becomes exponentially harder the larger the system in question becomes. Putting a single atom into a superposition of states isn't too difficult, given a suitable setup; doing the same with (e.g.) an elephant is - for all intents and purposes - a virtual impossibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2020 at 2:09 PM, swansont said:

They aren’t. The premise of your question is false.

""You Seriously Need To Be Jocking"""

The premise of my question deals on the "Reconciliation" of Gravity "Macro" and General Relativity "Macro."

On 12/25/2020 at 3:23 PM, joigus said:

Ferromagnetism,* superconductivity, and superfluidity are among quantum effects that can be seen with your own eyes.

It is true that the context of QM par excellence is the very small, though. That's due to the smallness of the quantum of action when compared to ordinary experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism#Explanation

 

Thanks for pointing this out, because I was under the assumption that this "could never" be visually scene...But for the most part it appears to be atomic based "unless there is more info in other discoveries."

On 12/27/2020 at 10:05 AM, John Cuthber said:

Just another example but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem

says that you can't have something stable and levitated in space by a magnetic field.
And it should be correct.
But, QM gives you a way round it.

So things like this are macroscopic quantum observations which you can set up for yourself.

 

I'm glad im actually getting "positive results"  thnks so much for this link..

I've seen similar videos but get very uttered with the narration and connection to my OP..

On 12/27/2020 at 10:32 AM, studiot said:

 

I will answer this for you as many others have this false impression that QM only applies to the very small.

This arises because the energy (transitions) involved are very small and therefore individually only affect very small particles.

So an individual quantum energy effect (transition) can only affect a minute part of a (large) macroscopic object.

However when lots of these small transitions all work together they can affect large objects.

The effects include our everyday Physics so this if I push a large block of metal, it is all the small quantum effects working together that hold the block together so that it can move as a solid body under Newton's Laws.

No esoteric Laws and effects are required.

The whole of our macroscopic world works as it does because QM is the way it is.

Hope this helps others as well.

 

Season's Greetings to all.

Very "Impressive Explanation!!!"

Best I've heard in all my studies!!!

My insight leads me thinking that...

Particles have a "choice" they can either work together or not, in effect of this "union" they effect the physical world??

Particle Wave, rings that bell..

Is this what you mean??

Also, you mention effects

"""restricted only""" on a "minute" part of large macroscopic objects due to transitions "quantum of energy."

"Sounds Like Limits dy/dx" to me

But is this minute 60*60 = 1 minute?

Sounds circular to me, ie angular momentum obviously..

This Minute...Earth time? Space Time?

 

 

On 12/28/2020 at 1:47 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Just to add to what has already been said: there is, in principle, no law of nature that stops macroscopic systems from behaving quantum-mechanically. The problem is only that you need to prevent decoherence from occurring - meaning you need to prevent the system in question from interacting with its environment. This is relatively easy to do for very small systems, but becomes exponentially harder the larger the system in question becomes. Putting a single atom into a superposition of states isn't too difficult, given a suitable setup; doing the same with (e.g.) an elephant is - for all intents and purposes - a virtual impossibility. 

How do you put an atom in a super position??

And to point it out, are the atoms "vertual copies" of itself?? As in the elephant scenario??

If this is the case, "I'm so surprised" the science community hasn't figured it out yet, or may have already!

Read exactually what you just said..🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

""You Seriously Need To Be Jocking"""

I’m too old to jock anymore 

2 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

The premise of my question deals on the "Reconciliation" of Gravity "Macro" and General Relativity "Macro."

Well, then you are very confused. You neglected to mention relativity or gravity, and macro scale GR has nothing to do with QM. The inability to reconcile GR and QM manifests at small scales and strong gravity.

The topic here is QM effects that can be seen at the atomic level or larger, in order to refute the premise of your question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you still need to do some work on your question posing.

And forget your assumptions, or insights, or whether it 'sounds like' limits and derivatives, or circular and angular momentum.
Also don't bother pointing anything out to people who understand this stuff much better than you can even imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, swansont said:

I’m too old to jock anymore 

Well, then you are very confused. You neglected to mention relativity or gravity, and macro scale GR has nothing to do with QM. The inability to reconcile GR and QM manifests at small scales and strong gravity.

The topic here is QM effects that can be seen at the atomic level or larger, in order to refute the premise of your question.

 

I assumed at these levels we "all knew what you just mentioned "accept the strong gravity note" atleast for me."" Maybe I should be more specific..Thnx for letting me know..

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

I guess you still need to do some work on your question posing.

And forget your assumptions, or insights, or whether it 'sounds like' limits and derivatives, or circular and angular momentum.
Also don't bother pointing anything out to people who understand this stuff much better than you can even imagine.

studiot has already illuminated my question with some very good points about "coorporation" something the science community needs dire help on!

I however would not jump so fast to judge my level of knowlwedge... 

 

It's just that when I read, tiny change in y over a tiny change in x, it makes me think "something in between" is shared and maybe that was what studiot "hinted" whom knows...

""I like the more simple approach I guess..""

 

If science did not have BIG GAPS, I would not be so confused on my so called "un-related facts" because they work just as good at marginal levels outside of the more theoretical guidance of "ideas."

"But I do get what your saying."

Edited by CuriosOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

It's just that when I read, tiny change in y over a tiny change in x, it makes me think "something in between" is shared and maybe thats was what studiot "hinted" Whom knows...

I he didn't know, a 'reasonable' person would ask Studiot what he meant.
Studiot would be more than glad to help, and explain further.

A 'not so reasonable' person might start immediately making assertions about limits, derivatives, circular actions, angular momentum, and 'superimposing'.

Which one are you ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

But for the most part it appears to be atomic based "unless there is more info in other discoveries."

Everything is elementary-particle based. The Iguazu falls are atomic-based too, but they can be approximately understood without appealing to quantum mechanics. The phenomena that we pointed out to you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, MigL said:

I he didn't know, a 'reasonable' person would ask Studiot what he meant.
Studiot would be more than glad to help, and explain further.

A 'not so reasonable' person might start immediately making assertions about limits, derivatives, circular actions, angular momentum, and 'superimposing'.

Which one are you ?

 

My assertions comes from limited information by scientist and their books on it, of which I've spent $100.00s on...

They should say  y = x^2 is circular or "frequency based."

that y' = 2x is "distance based" or "intrigal based."

 

They should make note that our default base is 10..

 

They should say that calculus uses the "same rules" as geometry and not make it look vastly complex when in fact it's quite simpler than most imagine....

The issue im having is the "permiscuos" use to describe "the same thing."

 

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

I he didn't know, a 'reasonable' person would ask Studiot what he meant.
Studiot would be more than glad to help, and explain further.

A 'not so reasonable' person might start immediately making assertions about limits, derivatives, circular actions, angular momentum, and 'superimposing'.

Which one are you ?

 

I did ask studiot what they meant..

Did you read it??

Edited by CuriosOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

They should say  y = x^2 is circular or "frequency based."

that y' = 2x is "distance based" or "intrigal based."

They shouldn't, as they aren't.

And there you go again with base 10. Base 10 tells you nothing about a number. There's absolutely nothing "seven" in number "seventeen", for example. They are as much unrelated numbers as can be. Seems like you just don't want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

They should make note that our default base is 10..

Next time you are shopping and the cashier gives you change, you better make sure the change is in base 10.  You don't want to get screwed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, joigus said:

They shouldn't, as they aren't.

And there you go again with base 10. Base 10 tells you nothing about a number. There's absolutely nothing "seven" in number "seventeen", for example. They are as much unrelated numbers as can be. Seems like you just don't want to know.

Not at all....You make it sound as though nature has no underlining order, im almost insulted by this..

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Next time you are shopping and the cashier gives you change, you better make sure the change is in base 10.  You don't want to get screwed!

I guess this explains random prices..

What a unique system of permutations we have..lol

 

Edited by CuriosOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Not at all....You make it sound as though nature has no underlining order, im almost insulted by this..

I guess this explains random prices..

What a unique system of permutations we have..lol

 

You seem to be just trolling at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Very "Impressive Explanation!!!"

Best I've heard in all my studies!!!

Thanks, I really hope your  got something out of this because

4 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

My insight leads me thinking that...

Particles have a "choice" they can either work together or not, in effect of this "union" they effect the physical world??

Particle Wave, rings that bell..

Is this what you mean??

I didn't mention particles once.

Yes I did say effects.

4 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Also, you mention effects

I am using general English words for your benefit.

A quantum effect in a system occurs when some quantity (usually but not always some form of  energy) can only occur in certain specific values and not in any other value, even nearby that are only say 0.001% different.

These values are called (energy) states.

This means that when the system changes energy it can only change by the differences between allowable energy states.

Such quantities are said to be quantised for the system.

Another quantised  quantity is electric charge.

 

4 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

"""restricted only""" on a "minute" part of large macroscopic objects due to transitions "quantum of energy."

"Sounds Like Limits dy/dx" to me

But is this minute 60*60 = 1 minute?

Sounds circular to me, ie angular momentum obviously..

This Minute...Earth time? Space Time?

 

None of the rest of your musings have any relevence to anything I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Not at all....You make it sound as though nature has no underlining order, im almost insulted by this..

Oh, you can't possibly be this stupid. I'm not going to answer the other deliberately idiotic response you gave me in the other thread either. Bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joigus said:

Oh, you can't possibly be this stupid. I'm not going to answer the other deliberately idiotic response you gave me in the other thread either. Bye.

Because "you dont know."

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Thanks, I really hope your  got something out of this because

I didn't mention particles once.

Yes I did say effects.

I am using general English words for your benefit.

A quantum effect in a system occurs when some quantity (usually but not always some form of  energy) can only occur in certain specific values and not in any other value, even nearby that are only say 0.001% different.

These values are called (energy) states.

This means that when the system changes energy it can only change by the differences between allowable energy states.

Such quantities are said to be quantised for the system.

Another quantised  quantity is electric charge.

 

 

None of the rest of your musings have any relevence to anything I said.

Well, i was told angular momentum is quantized, so the system you speak of must be orbiting at some angle within some time frame..

I was also told that the energy of a photon is "quanta."

 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Thanks, I really hope your  got something out of this because

I didn't mention particles once.

Yes I did say effects.

I am using general English words for your benefit.

A quantum effect in a system occurs when some quantity (usually but not always some form of  energy) can only occur in certain specific values and not in any other value, even nearby that are only say 0.001% different.

These values are called (energy) states.

This means that when the system changes energy it can only change by the differences between allowable energy states.

Such quantities are said to be quantised for the system.

Another quantised  quantity is electric charge.

 

 

None of the rest of your musings have any relevence to anything I said.

0.001% where did this come from???

How can you have more than 100% of anything???

I swear either the books i read are lieing are this science forum is lieing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

How do you put an atom in a super position??

Like so, to quote just one experiment amongst many, many that have been done to date:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0663-9

And they didn’t even do it with just one atom (which is nearly considered ‘easy’ these days), but with a few thousand of them simultaneously. Needless to say the superposition didn’t last for all too long (for reasons I pointed out in my post), but it does demonstrate the principle nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

very good points about "coorporation" something the science community needs dire help on!

Science has always relied on cooperation.
And, as the areas of science that are open to small scale experiments are sorted out, we move towards a world where massive collaborations like CERN are the way forward.

If scientists don't cooperate with you, it can't be because scientists are uncooperative, can it?

14 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

I however would not jump so fast to judge my level of knowlwedge... 

It's not a matter of "jumping"; you have made your lack of understanding really crystal clear.

A notable example is that you  didn't spell "knowledge" correctly.

 

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Science has always relied on cooperation.
And, as the areas of science that are open to small scale experiments are sorted out, we move towards a world where massive collaborations like CERN are the way forward.

If scientists don't cooperate with you, it can't be because scientists are uncooperative, can it?

It's not a matter of "jumping"; you have made your lack of understanding really crystal clear.

A notable example is that you  didn't spell "knowledge" correctly.

 

I see spelling errors all the time, as im sure do others...Why are you polluting my OP with this??

Please stop making it look as though "anyone" can join the goodole science team, it don't work like that.

Its more than "obvious" this science forum "LIES" and tries very hard to make "thinkers" feel stupid or try attacking the ego by noticing "spelling" errors or other "non important" points to diverge from truly saying..

Sorry we dont know the answer to your question...

I know other members read this and dont comment for fear of getting bad reputations...

 

 

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Like so, to quote just one experiment amongst many, many that have been done to date:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0663-9

And they didn’t even do it with just one atom (which is nearly considered ‘easy’ these days), but with a few thousand of them simultaneously. Needless to say the superposition didn’t last for all too long (for reasons I pointed out in my post), but it does demonstrate the principle nicely.

Can you state the reasons again?? Why the super positions did not last for long?

Edited by CuriosOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Please stop making it look as though "anyone" can join the goodole science team, it don't work like that.

Well... most people can.

But you do need to start by learning science.

Have you tried that approach?

35 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Its more than "obvious" this science forum "LIES" and tries very hard to make "thinkers" feel stupid

I have seen no evidence that we need to try at all, never mind "very hard".

What "LIES" have you seen?

36 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Why are you polluting my OP with this??

It's not possible for me to pollute the OP. I can't change it.

Do you know what the abbreviation means?

37 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

...or other "non important" points to diverge from truly saying..

You didn't answer my point about cooperation; you went off at a tangent of moaning about me correcting your spelling.

 

You did exactly the thing you accuse others of doing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Its more than "obvious" this science forum "LIES" and tries very hard to make "thinkers" feel stupid or try attacking the ego by noticing "spelling" errors or other "non important" points to diverge from truly saying..

This is very personally insulting. I'm quite frankly tired of your whining and cancerous attempts to justify your own lazy incredulity. So many people have gone out of their way to help you see past your own mental barriers to learning, and now you call it all lies. You take all their hard work and compassion for a fellow learner and piss all over it. I think you've been given enough slack to show you don't appreciate any of it.

It's quite clear you got EXACTLY the answer you were asking for, only you don't like it because it's clear you made a mistake. I appreciate the grace and style others have displayed in response to your childish foot-stomping, but it's clear no amount of patience can breach your carefully constructed palace of ignorance. Best of luck elsewhere, please don't waste any more of our time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.