A lot of nothing.

Observations, or should I say references to the insignificant.

I have spent the past five years or so blinding grasping at the ideas of quantum mechanics. As soon as I think I’ve clenched my fist tight enough to have a grip, I find myself a hold of “old news”. At some point I am sure I will feign some understanding about the topic and post an outdated pile of ideas, until then I want to talk about how science has changed.

It really all started in 1920, this is the point when people should have realized that things were changing, science was no longer across the wide catechism from religion. I should first define the terms I am using. Science to me is the quest for an understanding of interactions. These interactions can be between anything as long as they interact. Religion to me is a quest for a spiritual growth and understanding of our “role” in all of this mess. To find happiness beyond discord must be an investigation of consciousness. Basically classically speaking science is searching for order on the outside, religion is searching for order on the inside.

This is not rue any more. Science and religion are slowly beginning to blur the once obvious line that separated them. This, believe it or not, started in 1920, a time when it became obvious that nothing could overshadow this new science.

Think of all the things we learn about in history class…most evolve around political changes or movements. They continually reflect man’s ability to slaughter itself and then justify the reasons. Depending on the side you found yourself the justification either made sense or it did not. Although we learn specific dates and events how many of us saw the cycles? Someone moves into an area that they “don’t belong” or they make something new that “everyone” wants or doesn’t want; we pose and posture into our positions, we claim we will never fight but find a peaceful resolution, we fight, we justify. We then take a break and rebuild waiting for the next cycle to begin.

It doesn’t change. Sure the reasons and the way we do it change, but its basic essence is still there. That is not true of science. Its essence is not there anymore. Yes, we use the old essence still, only because it is much easier than the new. Think about teaching a ninth grader that the car goes 5m/s because we have consciously created a reality in which rules exist to allow this to happen. I am getting ahead of myself here, so let me back up a little. I should take a second to say that I am typing this off of the top of my head, and refuse to reread it, so if I go astray, or have no general path, I apologize.

I believe it was Feynmen that said something to this extent, “When you try to talk about things so small you have no direct reference in which to speak of them. They do not behave like clouds or billiard balls or weights on springs” (Dan if you read this I will buy you wings to find this quote, I am pretty sure his first name was Richard). We can’t think about them like normal, we have to change our very thought process, to begin to understand how much we don’t understand. Stop for a second, think about how amazingly difficult this is to do. Take everything you have ever learned, put it on the table, and pick an entirely new book that has a new way to explain EVERYTHING. If you move to fast you will get heavier, time is not constant, light is a wave… no particle… no wave… no particle…well maybe both depending on how you “look” at it, you can put the same thing in two spots at the same exact time but not really know where it is, there is no reality only what you perceive to be reality. All of this started in 1920. No, it was not Einstein.

It started with a scientist with the last name Kirchoff (or something like that). He was sitting by a radiator and became interested in how that heat was transferred. No, we are not talking about just radiation, he knew that, he was interested in an idea of how hot does something have to get in order to emit radiation. You can liken it to a light bulb with a dimmer switch, if the wattage is low it might be warm, but not glow. If the wattage is high it will emit radiation in the form of light. To make a long story short he guessed that it had to be related to temperature only. That means we would glow if we got hot enough, anybody want to talk about instantaneous combustionJ He couldn’t get the math to work. This is where Plank stepped and formulated a mathematical expression for this relationship. In his theory he claimed that energy came in little chunks. This might not seem like a big deal, but it opened a door, a new method of looking at things.

Ok, now Einstein comes in. He found a math error made by Plank, and went looking for a different solution using Plank’s idea of energy bundles.

A mistake, a math error? What does this have to do with war and religion and science? Well, this is when the photoelectric effect was finally discussed. The what?? Yeah that’s right I said photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect basically says if light is a wave, and I shine it on a piece of metal long enough an electron will fly out. The problem is that this is not true. Instead, light is a bunch of little packets (photons) that deliver energy. If light is to dim, not matter how long you shine it on a piece of metal, the photons will not have enough energy to knock an electron out. They tried it and found Einstein was correct. Light does act like it is made of little packets if you shine it on a piece of metal, although light acts just like a wave when it travels through different substance. So, in theory it is both, just depends on how you look at it.

Quantum mechanics depends on how you observe it. Heisenberg actually mathematically found an uncertainty constant because we can either know how fast something is moving, or how big it is, not both, not at the same time, not in the new world of quantum mechanics.

Let’s blow this idea up to a larger example of Schrodinger’s cat experiment. For the sake of time I am going to change it a little so I don’t have to explain nuclear ½ lifes along the way. Let’s say you put a cat in a steel room and you can’t see or hear inside. At some point either food will be released and the cat will be fine or poisonous gas will be released and kill the cat. There will be a point when you do not know if the cat is alive or dead, it is at this time that the cat, in theory, is both alive and dead at the same time.

Alright if you made it this far, you are a real trooper. Now I will try to make some sort of connection, albeit probably unsuccessfully.

If the observer changes the observed at the most basic level of existence, why not on a larger scale? Why do we not force the cat to either be alive or dead by observing it?

Believe it or not, I am not done, I am just releasing you from suffering any more…for now. In theory I am forcing you to do something elseJ Much more to come for the few that are still interested.

I apologize for this post, I know it says a lot, and nothing at the same time. I promise I will finish this thought later for anyone boredJ

I also apologize for the innumerable errors I made in this post. It has been a little while since I have read the history, so if you know more, or better, please tell me.