[stana (OP)]

Hey guys. Im kinda wondering its complicated..so can someone give me a basic explination into what it is please?

Thanks

[neilep]

It's not easy is it ?

I can't help you except to say that it deals with the weird and wonderful science of physics at the atomic level, the behavior of atomic particles at the atomic level.

Ask any physicist about the ' measuring ' problem and it's hair ripping out time.

Something to do with the fact that the very act of a person observing an atomic particle has an affect on it. It's as if the particle knows it's being observed !

See ?...well confusing or what ?

[opus]

I only know that if you think you understand it............you don't!!

[lyner]

There seem to be a lot of people like that!
It's incredible how definite some of the statements are that we read on forums like this one.
I'm always happier to lay down the law when it comes to classical Physics; there are a few things of which we can be pretty sure - within their limits - like Newton's Laws of Motion and Snell's law of refraction.

[lightarrow]

There seem to be a lot of people like that!
It's incredible how definite some of the statements are that we read on forums like this one.

Especially if Nobel Prize Richard Feynman says this on 1985.

[Soul Surfer]

The simple level answer is that matter and energy have to come in defined lumps and cannot be continuously divided into smaller and smaller pieces.  the detailed rules are complicated and best given in answers t more specific questions or looked up in a text book

[opus]

How does this tie in (sorry ) with string theory then soul surfer?

[Soul Surfer]

A lot of the aspects of quantum physics are similar to classical continuous physics.  This means that there is a sort of underlying classical idea that describes what is going on inside the "quantum box".  The original idea describes point like particles with no physical size.  But this has problems when you get to very high energy events because the mathematics does not make sense because values become infinite.  By allowing the point particles to be slightly extended like little strings or surfaces makes the mathematics much more tractable but makes the possible options for solutions to the equations much greater.

[opus]

Thanks soul surfer- Is the 'quantum box' the place where tiny protons (?) can leap from 'floor ' to 'floor', thereby dictating the density, and/or size of the particle?

[Soul Surfer]

I have used the term "quantum box" to refer to things that go on inside the limits of observation set by the uncertainty principle.  This defines the limits of position and momentum or energy and time of observation of a particle or group of particles below which it is impossible to know exactly what is going on.  Within this area quantum theory says what is happening is a superimposed mixture of everything that it is possible to happen.

[Eagle333]

After all, Einstein called it the spooky theory...it was hard to define...it is hard to know what's going on when the same particle is in two places at the same time....

[lyner]

You have to avoid carrying your preconceptions with you into Quantum land. The particle isn't in two places at once. It COULD  be in one of two places. Until you have actually detected it in one place or the other, you just don't know. It cannot be measured / detected in both places - so it's not in either before you observe it.
The odd thing is that the probability of it's turning up can be found by treating it as a wave, being diffracted by its surroundings. The probability of it being found somewhere is given by the amplitude of a wave of the appropriate wavelength.
Treat it all as a game with unexpected rules and, after a while, it doesn't won't seem so odd. Remember - the rules that you 'know and love' about the world were not obvious to previous generations.

[opus]

It's incredible how definite some of the statements are that we read on forums like this one.
Hmmmmm!

[Eagle333]

Actually, that is true. It is the possibility...

[rhade]

Sorry, guys, but if I may say so, I don't think the above is answering the question that was actully asked, and has side tracked into the uncertainty principle, which is a linked, but slightly different issue.
To that end:-
At the turn of the previous century, (19th. to 20th.) Max Plank, a German mathematician, postulated the theory that energy exists as particles (quanta) as well as waves. The equation that detemines the energy of a single quantum is still called Plank's constant in his honour.

[DoctorBeaver]

...there are a few things of which we can be pretty sure - within their limits - like Newton's Laws of Motion ...

Moti Milgrom may disagree with you on that point  []

[lightarrow]

Sorry, guys, but if I may say so, I don't think the above is answering the question that was actully asked, and has side tracked into the uncertainty principle, which is a linked, but slightly different issue.
To that end:-
At the turn of the previous century, (19th. to 20th.) Max Plank, a German mathematician, postulated the theory that energy exists as particles (quanta) as well as waves. The equation that detemines the energy of a single quantum is still called Plank's constant in his honour.

I appreciate your effort and your interest for physics but you have to correct several things in your post.

[DoctorBeaver]

I don't see that the Uncertainty Principle can be called a side-track. It is a fundamental and crucial part of quantum physics. It would be like saying that fluid dynamics or Newton's laws of motion are not really a part of classical physics.

The term Quantum Physics does not simply pertain to quanta of energy; it is an umbrella term that encompasses many fields - Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electro-Dynamics, Quantum Chromo-Dynamics, Quantum Loop Gravity, etc. The study of all of these is subject to the Uncertainty Principle.

[JP]

The Uncertainty Principle is certainly one of the fundamental features of QM that distinguishes it from classical mechanics.  It's also one of the best ways to demonstrate how counterintuitive quantum mechanics can be.  However, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "fundamental" to the theory itself, since the Uncertainty Principle is a result of postulates that give rise to the theory, and not the other way around.

[DoctorBeaver]

The Uncertainty Principle is certainly one of the fundamental features of QM that distinguishes it from classical mechanics.  It's also one of the best ways to demonstrate how counterintuitive quantum mechanics can be.  However, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "fundamental" to the theory itself, since the Uncertainty Principle is a result of postulates that give rise to the theory, and not the other way around.

I humbly bow to your greater understanding of the subject. But could QM still work without the Uncertainty Principle? Is it not an integral part of the mathematics of QM without which any calculations would give nonsense results?