Remember a couple of weeks ago when I said I wasn't going to do any guest request posts on particle physics? You don't? Then, uh, never mind. Actually, I don't even know what particle physics really is. I'm assuming it's the physics of subatomic particles, but this might be an inadequate description.
I do know that physics, and quantum physics in particular, has been every blessed place I turn lately, and I'm guessing it's high time to nail this sucker down. Except as it's all about indeterminacy, that's probably the one thing you actually can't do. We'll see.
But don't worry. This time around, I'm only looking at the actual word 'quantum'. With maybe a few random thoughts.
So, what exactly is 'quantum'? Here's my very sketchy idea of it. Quantum physics is the physics based on the data that comes from being able to study matter at the subatomic level. It 'overrides' the theories of classical physics, and is pretty wild stuff. But why 'quantum'? I think quantum refers to a subatomic called a quanta. I also think its etymology may be Latin. Okay, enough of this humiliation. Let's find out the truth.
***
Okay, I'm relieved that quantum is actually a plural noun from quanta, yet chagrined that I failed to discern the underlying relationship to 'quantity'. A 'quanta' is the smallest possible discrete unit of any physical property. It comes from the Latin quantum, "how much" or "amount". Around 1610, it came to mean "one's share or portion" in English. It was recoined for modern usage by Max Planck in 1900, when he sought to account for the way iron changes color when heated, which is not accounted for in classical physics. He explained this by positing that radiation existed in discrete units rather than continuous waves, just as matter does.
Obviously, none of this is new stuff, even if I am just getting around to it. There is a surprisingly entertaining and coherent article from a 1930s edition of Scientific American that I stumbled across in my researches. Interestingly enough, the current issue has as its cover story "Living in a Quantum World". Which leads back to my recent interest. As this recent issue has it, we are used to thinking that quantum mechanics applies mainly to the subatomic world--i.e., one which, in our daily life, we need not particularly concern ourselves. Classical physics works well enough. But apparently most physicists now concur that there is no gap between the subatomic world and the day to day one--it's only that they're finally able to see the effect on a larger scale as well.
I am not really of a scientific bent, so of course my real interest comes through literature. We've been doing a little Finnegans Wake reading group here in Santa Cruz, and more and more its become apparent to us that the at the time relatively new understanding of quantum physics influenced Joyce in writing the book. In fact, as I just learned in the beginning of a paper written by Andrzej Duzsenko on Joyce and quantum physics, its clear that Joyce, who wrote the Wake between 1923 and 1939 was highly influenced by this revolution in scientific thought, as were many other artists of the time.
Nevertheless, my sense is that it is only now that real understanding of the implications of this new model are truly beginning to work their way through our collective consciousness. Or am I just behind? Maybe all the rest of you switch frequently from the mindset of classical physics and the mindset of quantum physics. If so, please enlighten me how it's working out for you. And if you've tried any quantum jumping, let me know that too. Just don't send them any money on my account.
Or from my account either.
***
Oh, the blog plug. Let's do a fast one for Brian O'Rourke , who has been a bit out of blog land of late, due to new fatherhood, but who seems to be returning a bit, a habit I hope to encourage. Brian is one of those freewheeling blogs where I've learned a bit about everything from beer pong to great movies, but right now he's doing one of his hallmark features called "Promote Whatever You Want". I suppose there are some restrictions, like not promoting, say, napalm, but the only real rule is that you can't promote him. On the blog. So technically, I'm not cheating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
three quarks for muster mark
ReplyDeleteVery nice riposte, even if I don't know what preciesely a quark is yet, and we haven't gotten that far in the Wake yet.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry--you haven't given anything away...
Somehow I think this link might help in reading Joyce.
ReplyDelete"www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/18612/2066/2"
A search for
"deixis james joyce" might also do the trick.
The Wake is, to me, the equivalent of trying to capture anti-matter... not for the faint of heart.
That does look like a helpful link.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm lucky to be doing it with friends who have a certain amount of tenacity that I myself might lack, and also that we read it in a pub where a pint of something is ready to hand.
It also helps that we have a lot of commentaries, and probably most importantly, that we don't take ourselves too seriously.
My mistake is now clear. I studied Joyce while cold sober and with a growing awareness that, if I had lived in the society he described, the last thing I would want to do would write it all down.
ReplyDeleteThe literary rows of history are always entertaining, however, and this is a useful set of links to Wyndham Lewis... a writer who seems to have taken himself very seriously indeed.
There was a programme about the role of the dramatist in society on Irish TV last night. If you look for links to "Fintan O'Toole" you might find some helpful reading.
Sorry... the link
ReplyDelete"www.unirioja.es/wyndhamlewis/htm/links.htm"
Thank you. I haven't had time to check it out yet, but will get to it after a busy graduation weekend ahead.
ReplyDeleteHaving a pint nearby certainly does help most things. Maybe I should remember that if I ever attempt quantum physics beyond this post.
ReplyDeleteVery cute kitten picture by the way.
So you're not only a dog person, then.
ReplyDeleteI think the quantum idea of reality is where we're all going. Hopefully, there will be some populizers who will make it accessible to the rest of us.
Enjoyed this! And I see that cats, who are into everything now, are also into quantum physics.
ReplyDeleteI do like cats, other people's cats that is, to a degree, but I am definitely a dog person.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I have a friend with a 10 year old boy that explained quantum physics to me, in a way I could actually understand for a change. His idea of recreational reading is Phyics for Dummies and he completely knew what he was talking about as far as I could tell.
I do like cats, other people's cats that is, to a degree, but I am definitely a dog person.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I have a friend with a 10 year old boy that explained quantum physics to me, in a way I could actually understand for a change. His idea of recreational reading is Phyics for Dummies and he completely knew what he was talking about as far as I could tell.
Cats are definitely ahead of us when it comes to understanding quantum physics, Kathleen. It really pretty much clears up the whole nine lives thing. They probably just hop back and forth between different states.
ReplyDeleteGlenna, yes, I think out of the mouths of babes is going to be our way in.
ReplyDeleteMy sister was recounting this weekend how my nephew would argue over doing homework by telling her that in an alternate universe, he wouldn't have to do it.
And one of my professors got a kick out of a conversation he had with a child prodigy a few years back. The man was waxing enthusiastic about the giant quantum leaps that were being made and the little boy looked at him (probably with pity) and said, "But Paul, a quantum leap is actually very, very small."
I am glad to have given up on Joyce years ago. The Bloomsday festivities are a bit of fun every year in Dublin.
ReplyDeleteQuantum physics are no joke, if the shenanigans related to the Hadron Collider are anything to go by.
"wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/11/72198"
I wonder why Joyce decided that housewives were so daft, however. Molly Bloom is unlike any person I have ever met.
Yes, I've seen some stuff about that collider, although what I chiefly remember is that the first time around, it broke down.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about Molly, and I do in fact struggle a bit with Joyce's view of the feminine in general, but there is a lot more to be gained from him, at least for me.