Tag Archives: joke

Another Quantum Joke, and Schrödinger’s waves derived

4 Replies
Quantum mechanics joke. from xkcd.

Quantum mechanics joke. from xkcd.

Is funny because … it’s is a double entente on the words grain (as in grainy) and waves, as in Schrödinger waves or “amber waves of grain” in the song America (Oh Beautiful). In Schrödinger’s view of the quantum world everything seems to exist or move as a wave until you observe it, and then it always becomes a particle. The math to solve for the energy of things is simple, and thus the equation is useful, but it’s hard to understand why,  e.g. when you solve for the behavior of a particle (atom) in a double slit experiment you have to imagine that the particle behaves as an insubstantial wave traveling though both slits until it’s observed. And only then behaves as a completely solid particle.

Math equations can always be rewritten, though, and science works in the language of math. The different forms appear to have different meaning but they don’t since they have the same practical predictions. Because of this freedom of meaning (and some other things) science is the opposite of religion. Other mathematical formalisms for quantum mechanics may be more comforting, or less, but most avoid the wave-particle duality.

The first formalism was Heisenberg’s uncertainty. At the end of this post, I show that it is identical mathematically to Schrödinger’s wave view. Heisenberg’s version showed up in two quantum jokes that I explained (beat into the ground), one about a lightbulb  and one about Heisenberg in a car (also explains why water is wet or why hydrogen diffuses through metals so quickly).

Yet another quantum formalism involves Feynman’s little diagrams. One assumes that matter follows every possible path (the multiple universe view) and that time should go backwards. As a result, we expect that antimatter apples should fall up. Experiments are underway at CERN to test if they do fall up, and by next year we should finally know if they do. Even if anti-apples don’t fall up, that won’t mean this formalism is wrong, BTW: all identical math forms are identical, and we don’t understand gravity well in any of them.

Yet another identical formalism (my favorite) involves imagining that matter has a real and an imaginary part. In this formalism, the components move independently by diffusion, and as a result look like waves: exp (-it) = cost t + i sin t. You can’t observe the two parts independently though, only the following product of the real and imaginary part: (the real + imaginary part) x (the real – imaginary part). Slightly different math, same results, different ways of thinking of things.

Because of quantum mechanics, hydrogen diffuses very quickly in metals: in some metals quicker than most anything in water. This is the basis of REB Research metal membrane hydrogen purifiers and also causes hydrogen embrittlement (explained, perhaps in some later post). All other elements go through metals much slower than hydrogen allowing us to make hydrogen purifiers that are effectively 100% selective. Our membranes also separate different hydrogen isotopes from each other by quantum effects (big things tunnel slower). Among the uses for our hydrogen filters is for gas chromatography, dynamo cooling, and to reduce the likelihood of nuclear accidents.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, June 18, 2013.

To see Schrödinger’s wave equation derived from Heisenberg for non-changing (time independent) items, go here and note that, for a standing wave there is a vibration in time, though no net change. Start with a version of Heisenberg uncertainty: h =  λp where the uncertainty in length = wavelength = λ and the uncertainty in momentum = momentum = p. The kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 p2/m, and KE+U(x) =E where E is the total energy of the particle or atom, and U(x) is the potential energy, some function of position only. Thus, p = √2m(E-PE). Assume that the particle can be described by a standing wave with a physical description, ψ, and an imaginary vibration you can’t ever see, exp(-iωt). And assume this time and space are completely separable — an OK assumption if you ignore gravity and if your potential fields move slowly relative to the speed of light. Now read the section, follow the derivation, and go through the worked problems. Most useful applications of QM can be derived using this time-independent version of Schrödinger’s wave equation.

Surrealism Jokes

What is it that is red and white, polka-dotted, filled with moisture, and hangs from trees in the winter?

 

Unity

 

Is funny because …… it’s more true than truth. Whatever claims to be unity must include the red and white, polka-dotted, moist items that hang from trees. Otherwise it wouldn’t be unity. Surrealism jokes should not be confused with Zen Jokes. Eg this. and that.  As a practical matter, you can tell surrealists from Buddhists because surrealists are drunks and have hair. And you know why Dali wore a mustache?

 

To pass unobserved

Dali's mustache without dali; notice how the mustache obscures the man.

Dali’s mustache without Dali, from Dali’s Mustache, the only book (to my knowledge) about a part of an artist. There are many books about Picasso, for example, but none about his left foot.

See how it’s true. The mustache takes the place of the man, standing in for him, or here the lack of him. Surrealism sees the absurd dream realism that is beyond the surd. “If you act the genius you will be one.” See? It even speaks for him, when needed.

Dali and his mustache agree, they love art for art's sake.

Dali and his mustache agree, they love art for art’s sake.

So how many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?  The fish.

by R. E. Buxbaum, June 14, 2013

Religion vs Philosophy joke

6 Replies

“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn’t there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” ~ H. L. Mencken

The distinction joke here is more sad than funny, I would say. It speaks to the inability of people to grapple with the big questions of their life in any really rational way. We’d like to be able to communicate directly with God, and have him speak back, but we can’t quite, and at some level we’d be too small for the interaction. We’d like to be able to stop evil with our religion, by holding up a cross, say, or by squirting holy water, but we can’t. I suspect it’s better that way, but sad. We’d like to know how and why the universe came to be, and what happens after death, but our best rational efforts are helpless. All of this is as they should be, says the philosopher, and he’s right, but it’s sad that it is and that he is. And then the theologian (rabbi, priest, imam) says he’s got all the answers and all the powers too. It’s too sad for words.

The philosopher in this joke is (I imagine) a PhD scientist, like me. While rational thought is great, and a PhD scientist can actually predict quite a lot that will happen in some cases, we have no real clue as to why things happen — except in terms of other things that we can’t explain: forces, gravity, electrons. It seems clear that the answer to the big-issue questions can not be found in science or rational philosophy. Nor can science deal well with one-time events like the creation of the universe, or unmeasurable items like where the apparent zero-point energy of quantum mechanics comes from. Untestable, one time events are the basis of religion and not science: science is the opposite of religion.

We thus turn to the theologian. In a sense, he has the answer: it’s God, Jesus, Jihad, prayer… Perhaps these words mean the same thing, or perhaps something different. A theologian can talk about this for hours. He has all the answers, but when he’s done, he’s left them as incomprehensible as before. Likely he is as confused as we are, but he doesn’t know it, or show it. While something like God does seem to underly the concept of time, or creation (the big bang), a one-word answer, like “God” isn’t really an answer. Even though there appears to be a God, God doesn’t seem contained within the word — he’s not there. And calling “God” doesn’t give us the power we’d want: it does not save the drowning, or cure disease.

Though the theologian will likely tell you miracle stories, and show you a pretty picture: long-haired Jesus, seated Zeus, or a dancing woman with the head of an elephant, that’s God and it isn’t. The reason people believe the theologian, is optimism: we hope he knows, though we know he doesn’t. Besides, the theologian has a costume and an audience, and that helps. He keeps on talking till he wears the audience down. Eventually we believe he sees the black cat in the dark room called God. Eventually we don’t care that he can’t do anything on the physical plane. Theologians work in pairs to increase their believability: one tells you the other is much smarter and holier than you; the other one tells you the same about the first. Eventually, you believe them both — or at least you believe you are stupider and eviler than they are.

A wise and good philosopher or theologian is very hard to find. He doesn’t talk too much, and instead lets his fine example do the teaching. He does charity and justice (Gen. 18:18) and makes good lemonade from the lemons life gives him. He will admit that he doesn’t really know which set of words and bows actually open up God’s warehouse (or if any are particularly effective) “God speaks within a cloud” (Ex. 40:34, etc.); “[His] thoughts are not our thoughts,” (Is. 55:8, etc.). “No man can see my face and live” (Ex. 33:20).

What percentage of leaders are like this? “In a thousand, I have found one leader of men”, says Solomon (Eccles 7:28). “The other 999 follow after the women” (Groucho Marx).

My hope with this blog post is not to diminish the good of rabbis, priests, or other theologians, but rather that you will not finish reading the post thinking you are stupid or evil for not understanding your theologian’s many words. Also, I can hope that you will seek justice, help the downtrodden, and make yourself into something of value. Then again, you might be tempted to run off to a bad theologian — to someone who will encourage you to pray long and hard, and who will get you to pay him for a picture of God that only he can provide — that is, for his special picture of the black cat, in the dark room, that can never be photographed.

Robert E. Buxbaum; Amateur philosopher, and maker of a good glass of lemonade.

Zen Buddhist Joke

How many Zen Buddhists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Four: One to screw in the bulb;

One to not screw in the bulb;

One to both screw in the bulb and not screw in the bulb.

And one to neither screw in the bulb, nor not screw in the bulb.

Is funny because Buddhism aims at enlightenment — something that occurs by the simultaneous destruction and non-destruction of the darkness. Ah you got it: I hear one hand clapping.

Statistics Joke

A classic statistics joke concerns a person who’s afraid to fly; he goes to a statistician who explains that planes are very, very safe, especially if you fly a respectable airline in good weather. In that case, virtually the only problem you’ll have is the possibility of a bomb on board. The fellow thinks it over and decides that flying is still too risky, so the statistician suggests he plant a bomb on the airplane, but rig it to not go off. The statistician explains: while it’s very rare to have a bomb onboard an airplane, it’s really unheard of to have two bombs on the same plane.

It’s funny because …. the statistician left out the fact that an independent variable (number of bombs) has to be truly independent. If it is independent, the likelihood is found using a poisson distribution, a non-normal distribution where the greatest likelihood is zero bombs, and there are no possibilities for a negative bomb. Poisson distributions are rarely taught in schools for some reason.

By Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, Mar 25, 2013. If you’ve got a problem like this (particularly involving chemical engineering) you could come to my company, REB Research.