Q about QM spookiness

[Mudhammam]

When physicists talk about the spooky behavior of particles-waves, such as in the famous double-split experiment, are they only referring to the actions of individual particles? Or do those results also apply to particles that have 'clustered' with others, for lack of a better term (okay perhaps I need some help on that too--is it, again simply put, positive and negative charges, with gravitational and conservation laws, that caused atomic arrangements to emerge and so on and so forth until there are macroscopic objects?).

Thanks and sorry in advance for the naivety.

[The Grand Nudger]

Only "those particles". Ultimately, QM doesn't appear to apply beyond a certain point - or, more accurately, it's influence (whatever that may be) is dimished with scale.

If I understand you correctly (and it's a common idea, floating around the periphery of QM) you're wondering if QM could be applied to something like the things that "make up" you and I? Whether or not some QM spookiness applies on a "bigger level"?

(I'm being very very loose with language here)

[Mudhammam]

Only "those particles". Ultimately, QM doesn't appear to apply beyond a certain point - or, more accurately, it's influence (whatever that may be) is dimished with scale.

If I understand you correctly (and it's a common idea, floating around the periphery of QM) you're wondering if QM could be applied to something like the things that "make up" you and I? Whether or not some QM spookiness applies on a "bigger level"?

(I'm being very very loose with language here)

Yeah, basically.

A third Q. Is it possible that wave collapse occurs with measurement by the brain and would that somehow imply that each FIRST conscious or unconscious 'observation,' by whatever mechanics in the brain that effect wave collapse, is responsible, in a sense, for 'creating' the object that other brains then apprehend, INCLUDING the brain?

Also, when it comes to physics, all the language sounds loose to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

I''m seeing a bit of "observation" wafting - with implications to consciousness. Keep in mind, that when you see the term "observation" or observer - with regards to QM - they don't mean what we might intuitively feel that they mean. One particle can be an "observer" with regards to another particle. So any wondering of what effect consciousness might have on QM can start on very, very shaky ground.

But to delve further, I would have to invoke a greater power than my own. I refer to ( a quote often attributed to) the venerable Feyman
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Hope somebody comes along to satisfy your questions in ways that I cannot.

[Mudhammam]

I''m seeing a bit of "observation" wafting - with implications to consciousness. Keep in mind, that when you see the term "observation" or observer - with regards to QM - they don't mean what we might intuitively feel that they mean. One particle can be an "observer" with regards to another particle. So any wondering of what effect consciousness might have on QM can start on very, very shaky ground.

But to delve further, I would have to invoke a greater power than my own. I refer to ( a quote often attributed to) the venerable Feyman
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Hope somebody comes along to satisfy your questions in ways that I cannot.

I was not aware of that. That brings a little clarity. How did they come to that? Seems like an odd application of 'observer.'

[The Grand Nudger]

Why? In my understanding, when these things interact, it is at the moment of their interaction in which any definitive statement can be made with regards to their status. From thenceforth those interactions pile up into a sort of wall of likelihood or inevitability (the reason that things don't seem to be spooky when viewed as a part of a set or whole in the same way that they do when considered individually) - they might even be interacting (or interfering) with themselves- their own "observers". In this manner our consciousness qualifies as something which can interact - but not because of any innate property of consciousness not shared by a single particle of anything else (and certainly less likely to do any interacting prior to all other possible interactions - IOW probably didn't lay a single brick in that wall of likelihood).

as I mentioned, my knowledge is frayed at this end, I really hope we get a more concise response than my own.

[Mudhammam]

Well thanks that's definitely some food for thought.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, you could read the chapter on the famous double slit in "A Brief History of Time" and I think it would explain to you why they use the word observer, and what it means in context (if and when they do use it). Like anything else, scientific language is specific - so long as you're privy to the specifics.

-Just dug it out of my bookshelf because I recall it being fairly approachable.

[Mudhammam]

Ah, you could read the chapter on the famous double slit in "A Brief History of Time" and I think it would explain to you why they use the word observer, and what it means in context (if and when they do use it).

Alright. On the subject of books, have you read Brian Greene's An Elegant Universe? I've wanted to pick that up for a long time but like anything I've read by Hawking, I fear it will lead to me further scratching my head.

[Angrboda]

Reading about the different interpretations of QM on Wikipedia might be helpful. It doesn't provide any definite answers, but it does show where they're trying to carve nature up and somewhat why.