Quantum Mechanics in the news!
Stephen Weinberg and Gerard ’t Hooft(a pair of Noble Laureates that helped deepen the strangeness of QM) are further roiling our lack of understanding of quantum phenomena. Since the article from whence I pulled the names of two of the movers and shakers of 20th century QM does a reasonable job of misunderstanding these two new interpretations of QM, I'll merely provide links.
Quantum entanglement has always fascinated me since I first read about it as post-grad trying to get a better handle on the the physics behind the smallest semiconductor gates allowable. No, it was not part of the curriculum, but I am always unsatisfied in not knowing natural phenomena. I dived right into the heady brew of QE as fun. Even using Feynman diagrams(which were hugely beneficial in most other areas of QM) I had issues with QE. No treatment seemed satisfactory. Perhaps now that has changed. I'm not going to try and assimilate these new explanations into my now older and enfeebled mind. Perhaps after the dust has settled I may put a toe in the water.
I should point out that during my post-grad work I could only pass the physics tests where QM properties were found. It took several years of being in the field before I had any sense that this stuff was real, and how much of it fit together.
When my mind was engaged in something entirely unrelated the darkness became less so. I am still fascinated by what I feel is the greatest achievement of human thought; The Standard Model. Enough about geeky extra-curricular physics play. Here's the dope.
The article in Sci-News
Here's where the lifting gets heavy :)
Weinberg's Abstract
Hooft's Abstract
Given that Steven Weinberg is a lucid and engaging writer, there is likely to a book on his new paradigm at some future time. This humble blogger finds that popular treatments of QM are almost meaningless, unless the book or lecture gets into the underpinning mathematics. Really, who wants that? Only someone that has done the mathematics peculiar to QM would want that. This really defeats the purpose of popular treatments.
My two favorite physicist's that deepened our misunderstanding of QM are Richard Feynman ans Murray Gell-Mann. I owe more of my own misunderstanding of QM to these two giants of the field than perhaps all others combined.
Quantum entanglement has always fascinated me since I first read about it as post-grad trying to get a better handle on the the physics behind the smallest semiconductor gates allowable. No, it was not part of the curriculum, but I am always unsatisfied in not knowing natural phenomena. I dived right into the heady brew of QE as fun. Even using Feynman diagrams(which were hugely beneficial in most other areas of QM) I had issues with QE. No treatment seemed satisfactory. Perhaps now that has changed. I'm not going to try and assimilate these new explanations into my now older and enfeebled mind. Perhaps after the dust has settled I may put a toe in the water.
I should point out that during my post-grad work I could only pass the physics tests where QM properties were found. It took several years of being in the field before I had any sense that this stuff was real, and how much of it fit together.
When my mind was engaged in something entirely unrelated the darkness became less so. I am still fascinated by what I feel is the greatest achievement of human thought; The Standard Model. Enough about geeky extra-curricular physics play. Here's the dope.
The article in Sci-News
Here's where the lifting gets heavy :)
Weinberg's Abstract
Hooft's Abstract
Given that Steven Weinberg is a lucid and engaging writer, there is likely to a book on his new paradigm at some future time. This humble blogger finds that popular treatments of QM are almost meaningless, unless the book or lecture gets into the underpinning mathematics. Really, who wants that? Only someone that has done the mathematics peculiar to QM would want that. This really defeats the purpose of popular treatments.
My two favorite physicist's that deepened our misunderstanding of QM are Richard Feynman ans Murray Gell-Mann. I owe more of my own misunderstanding of QM to these two giants of the field than perhaps all others combined.