Is Quantum physics believable?
93504
The predictions of quantum mechanics are incredible, it is true. Especially in the more extreme reaches, like quantum electrodynamics, and quantum gravity, and quantum chromodynamics, and quantum teleportation, etc. Absolutely amazing. \n\nHowever, as much as these predictions do not agree with our intuition, they have been verified over and over and over for decades and decades. So although it seems like nonsense, it appears to explain what we observe, and to make predictions which we can verify. \n\nSo is it believable? I guess it depends on what you mean by believable. It certainly does not agree with our day to day experiences and intuition. Is it repeatable, and does it make predictions that we find useful? Yes.
1005234
One man by the name of A. Einstein believed that a unified theory is possible. As you know he did a pretty good work on general theory of relativity.  His explanation of gravitation perhaps was not complete (we need that unified theory to figure exactly what gravitation is) but it was much better then say the older Newtonian idea.  At the same the, as Albert was developing the general theory of relativity, the Quantum Mechanics (QM) became to emerge as serious science. The QM scientist beloved that the behavior of subatomic particles is probabilistic. Einstein heard that ad protested with a statement: “I do not believe God play dice with the Universe” to which Niels Bohr answered “Albert, do not tell God what to do” (Or something like that). So the fit between deterministic macro world and probabilistic micro world has begun.\n\nToday physicists s are trying to marry the macro world, where very week gravitational force act, to the micro subatomic world of QM.  The string theory seems to have the mathematical tooling to allow both of these worlds to exist within a single model.\n\nYou can find more info in \nThe Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene \n\nWho by the way I heard had an excellent documentary on NOVA, PBS.\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html
427866
>we know that physically one photon can not pass through the two slits at a time\n\nThat's kind of the whole point of considering the single photon case of the double slit experiment: it give results that don't match classical predictions, and so it becomes a good argument for quantum mechanics.  \n\nIf light were a classical particle, then yes, it can't go through both slits, and you'd end up with two overlapping Gaussian bands of light, and not an interference pattern if you summed up the results of many single photon experiments \n\nIf light were a classical wave, you'd get an interference pattern, but you'd expect the energy from it to be spread out all over the detector or photographic plate, just very faint.  \n\nWhat actually happens when this experiment is done is that the energy gets delivered to the detector all in one place, as if light is a classical particle.  But, the locations where the energy gets delivered, if the experiment is done one photon at a time and the results are stacked up, conforms to the interference pattern you'd expect from a classical wave.\n\nSo, we have something that matches neither a classical particle nor a classical wave in  behaviour.  \n\nBut, in quantum mechanics we have a description of something that does fit this behaviour.  That is, we have a wave which, when measured, has to provide energy in quantized steps.  To get from the wavelike portion to the particlelike portion, we have to recognize that there isn't a completely deterministic answer but rather a statistical one.  So, while this model descibes what a real photon does in the double slit experiment, it can't predict the exact behaviour of a specific given photon.  As best we can tell so far, this isn't just a shortcoming of the theory, it's actually how physical reality operates.\n\n\nEdit:  Ramblingman, it can be done with either an electron beam or a photon beam.  Both will show the same sort of effect, but traveling electrons will have a much shorter wavelength than light.  Quantum mechanics works for both things that were classically considered as waves, like photons, and things that were classically considered as particles, like electrons.
63744
B only seems impossible because you're looking at it from a small, everyday perspective.  Read a book on quantum phenomenon and you'll discover that particles literally appear out of no where everyday, and we take this as completely normal.  The Universe and Everything is far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for.
484232
According to quantum mechanics, an object exists for you only when you are aware of its existence. Otherwise it is a probablitly.\nI will give an example: If you look away from your computer to say a TV, then the computer object has ceased to exist and TV has started existing. But the you who is looking at TV is different from the previous you who was looking at the computer, because when the computer ceased to exist, so did you and so did the universe frame containing you, computer and the elements like light that made looking at computer possible. Now you, TV and the process of looking at TV is happening in a different universe.\nNow if you again turn your head to look towards computer, you will cease to exist with the TV universe and enter a third universe identical to the first universe. But how do you see the same computer if you are entering the new universe, then this is one of the less known uses of our memory, that is being used by the universe to make fools of us.
836672
science people say so...\nbecause with measurements, everything is quantized.... and if something can't be quantized, like ghosts, then they are not real, or of no interest...\nbecause science people are interested with matters of consequence...
93296
I want it to be, along with other phenomenon, so I'd be happy to see real proof.  I've seen proof of some kinds of ESP that was undeniably "Something", so why not.
820204
under quantum mechanics...\nit's a thought experiment, called the EPR paradox...\nthis paradox is more severe or seious than schroedinger's cat paradox...\n\nquantum mechanics says that a motion of a particle can be deermined by its wave function, thus the results of an experiment or probabilities or predictions...\n\nbut E, P and R thought that this is true only with statistical distributions of the particles tested by the experiment (the properties of particles)...
707791
Besides the classic standard model of quantum mechanics, there's the superspace version where all possibilities happen in alternate universes.  Then there's string theory and its higher dimensional cousin m-theory.  As far as I know, that last is most current.  Recent Nobel prize for it at Institute of Theoretical Physics at UC Santa Barbara.  But see link as well.
246571
Quantum Physics The Science is us we they me I you and our perception and control over our reality here on earth.Using our minds the way it shoulb be hopefully we will be able to see all the connections.We will I am thinking about it right now.
170874
Most physicists (like Feynman) will tell you it's definitely a particle.  I think they're full of crap, and it's a wave.  The fact that it can only be absorbed and emited in discrete packets doesn't necessarily mean that it really travels as a particle, and the notion of a particle flies in the face of the double-slit one-photon experiment.
296222
It's curious that you associate miracles to quantum theory. As your reasoning seems to go, a mystery can be explained only by adding up another mystery.\nLet alone quantum mechanics, that is a serious theory, did you ever think that miracles may not exist at all?\nThe James Randi Educational Foundation offers a prize of one million dollars to anybody who is able to show a miracle or any other kind of phenomenon not explained by ordinary science. To date, nobody has retired that prize.
1151689
The Aether does not exist.\n\nThe Quantum Aether Dynamics Institue exists only to con the gullible and stupid out of money.\n\nPut your credit cards away and learn some real physics.
340728
This is one of the best questions i have come across.In fact most Physicists have taken this cue for unravelling the problems of quantum mechanics. Look at the universe. Everything is moving in eleptical orbits. The sea shore is never straight and so are the trees, mountains and the rivers. The big bang and oscillating universe theory talks of tangential motion arrived through circular motion.\nStraightness is unnatiral!
455124
The answer is a definite Maybe.\nAs for the space elevator, my understanding is that to complete one, we would need an ultrathin, ultralight, flexible material wit a tensile strength surpassing all we have now. Quantum Physics is THE tool for people who design new materials. Without using quantum physics, it would all be simply trial and error.\nTime travel is a very slippery subject and I can't comment on that. Right now we have no idea how to begin thinking about it.\nMolecular transport, as in beaming stuff the Star Trek way?\nI'd say there's a lot of problems with that, but quantum physics is the very starting point. All that happens to molecules is subject to quantum laws. Therefore I don't know if qf can bring those things abot. However, nothing else can.
85703
If it is genuine, I think it will be impossible to demonstrate it.  \nIf it is not genuine it will possible to demonstrate it.\n\nSo we will only be sure after they say that is not genuine.
362081
Not much;  quantum mechanics is pretty much taken for granted (by physicists, NOT philosophers!) as the framework of almost all of modern physics (but gravity's another story...).  In that sense almost all physics research these days is "quantum" physics.  However, there is still some interesting work being done with phenomena that are distinctly quantum mechanical, such as Bose-Einstein condensation, quantum entanglement, and the like.\n\nI'd just like to point out that in the past 100 years since quantum mechanics was "born", no experiment has been performed whose results are not consistent with quantum mechanics.