Indecision Leads to a Decision

I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about what to post today and it was that indecision that led me to today's topic. Decisiveness.

I've held tight to the knowledge that decisiveness is a male trait for quite some time. That is not to say that a woman cannot be decisive, on the contrary, it is quite common among the fairer sex. When I say that decisiveness is a male trait I mean that it is noticeable when it is lacking in a man. A woman has the luxury of being able to be indecisive (or act indecisive, which is far more common) and still remain desirable to men. I would say that this does not hold true in the opposite direction.

There are a very large number of factors that play into attraction. While it surprises me how many men aren't aware of this, confidence is #1 on the scale for the majority of women. In most cases that confidence comes out of not being terribly worried about the outcome of life's many experiences. Not caring can be a great way to start the engine of confidence. It is our level of decisiveness, however, that will steal our thunder.

No matter how confident we are when entering into a new 'situation' with a woman, she will always test us. Most of them will never admit to it, but half of the nonsense she puts you through is purely to test your reaction. They say that actions speak louder than words, and women are hard-wired to put that concept to the test. These tests take a number of forms, from bringing up a reference to a relationship level (ie, marriage) to which you have obviously not progressed, just to see how much you get freaked out, to asking you some innocuous question about something that doesn't matter to anyone and then overreacting to whichever answer you give to see how you'll handle a mood-swing. Some of these tests will become more obvious the more you see them and others will come so far out of left field that your only response will be a blank stare. Oddly enough, a blank stare is always the wrong reaction.

The most common place we men screw up is in the decisiveness category. When hanging out with your friends the most common thing to do is, "I don't know, what do you want to do?" If you ever say this to a woman, and I find out about it, I will hunt you down, slap you in the nose with a newspaper, and say "NO." Just because you don't care what you do on any given night when hanging out with a girl doesn't mean you have to tell her that. Most of us are just so happy to have the chance to spend some time with someone who doesn't fart and then scoop and feed us that we can't think of anything normal to do. Well, start smaller. Dinner is a pretty normal thing to do. Make a decision now about which restaurants you like to sit down and have a meal at. If you're really smart you'll ask questions of your partner about what types of food they do not like. If you ask her what she does like to eat it's just another way of asking her what she wants to do. If you know what she does not like, you can avoid those foods when YOU MAKE THE DECISION.

In the end this isn't a complex concept. When a girl asks you what you want to do, answer the question. Don't say, "I don't know," or "I don't care." These answers get translated into your opinion about your relationship with her by her female mind so fast your head will spin. Just answer the question. If she doesn't like your choice, hopefully she's confident enough to let you know. Here's a nice example I like to use when I'm trying to drive the point home with a guy:

Woman: "Where shall we go for dinner tonight?"
Man: "I'm in the mood for a nice steak. How about Texas Roadhouse?"
Woman: "There's too many peanuts there. The place is always messy."
Man: "Alright, how about some Chinese? I know this place on the corner of Knapp and the Beltline that has a great buffet."
Woman: "A buffet?" (Quizzical look)
Man: "Heh, fine. I have one more idea, but if you shoot this one down too I'm just going to sit you down in the car and drive someplace."

At this point, give her one more option, and then follow through on your claim. Most of the time she'll agree with the third choice, choose one of the other two places, or suggest her own idea. No matter what the outcome, you come across as someone willing to make a decision, which is ultimately the most important thing in a situation like this.

Probability and the Wave Function

While I discuss this topic in my recent paper entitled, "The Power of Small Things," I don't cover it with much in the way of my personal flair.

Anyone who has ever watched poker on TV or played it at home knows that life is full of random chance. While a great deal of experience can teach us the percentage chances of a card coming up when we want it, these probabilities alone do not allow us any kind of control over the deck, just a chance to gamble on the odds.

The same is true on the Quantum scale. Quantum Mechanics is predicated upon the thought that we cannot know the outcome of a system with multiple possible outcomes, each with a finite probability of occurance, until we have observed it. What this means to most of us is that we don't know what that next card is until we see it. Things tend to get a little weirder on the quantum scale though. Common sense tells us that the next card in the deck is going to be the same no matter what. Whether we look at it or it's mucked as a result of a fold that card is still the same. When we start looking at particles the size of electrons, however, it isn't that simple.

All matter on the quantum scale exists in a state referred to by scientists as a wave function. While this can mean a literal wave under certain conditions it more commonly refers to all the places that particle can be at any given moment in time. Due to the complex interactions of particles on the quantum scale, this wave function has to include all the possible routes a particle can take to get from its initial position to its final position. This includes a straight line, a curved line, direct teleportation, and traveling into outer space and back again. Luckily all of these possible paths are compared to their probabilities of occurance, which tends to weed out the weird results. Ultimately we're left with a wave function that strongly suggests the simplest path, with all the more unlikely scenarios represented by small probabilities.

One of the more interesting possible results of this concept is something called the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), introduced by Hugh Everett in 1957. When broken down to the most general sense, this interpretation of Quantum Mechanics says that any time a 'quantum experiment' occurs the world (defined as the Universe in which we reside) splits off into multiple worlds, where the multiple outcomes of the experiment each occur, in proportion to the probability of each outcome. Essentially this means that every outcome from every decision made (since a decision being made is far more complex than a quantum experiment) occurs. We only experience the outcome of our particular decision because we are the version of ourselves that made that decision.

When viewed this way probability takes on a whole new meaning. Maybe there's a world where the last card in the 2009 WSOP was a Queen instead of a Seven and Darvin Moon went on to win the braclet. Of course, that's the beauty of the MWI, since there is a finite probability of that occurring it means there HAS TO BE a world where Joe Cada lost.

I haven't decided upon a topic for Friday yet. If anyone has an idea, feel free to share.

A3 Paper "The Power of Small Things"

The Power of Small Things:

How the Discovery of Quantum Mechanics Affects the Modern World

            It feels like new technology is developed and put onto the market every day. Whether it is a new type of automobile, a new piece of hardware for a computer, or a new tensile material that is only one atom thick, technological progress is an integral part of society. The path of technological advancement is a long and winding road, stretching back to the dawn of mankind. Many great men and women have contributed to the collective scientific knowledge of humanity. From the creation of fire to the superstring theory; humanity has come a long way.

            One stop on the road of advancement with a great deal of relevance to our modern world was the discovery of Quantum Theory. This progression of physics came out of a desire to understand the world at its most basic level. Quantum Theory gave way to the study of Quantum Mechanics (QM), which is defined as: “the branch of mechanics that deals with the mathematical description of the motion and interaction of subatomic particles, incorporating the concepts of quantization of energy, wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and the correspondence principle” (The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, 2009). This new area of physics opened up a host of new doors for technological advancement.

            To better understand how QM has had such a marked affect on modern society one must first understand some of the basics of the theory. When scientists first began to look more closely at the interaction of matter on the quantum scale they realized that matter possesses a trait called wave-particle duality. Essentially, this means that to determine the location of matter as it moves we need to examine its wave function, represented by Figure 1 below, rather than just make assumptions based upon previous observation. Feynman (1948) put forth a pair of rules to describe this concept:

I.                   If an ideal measurement is performed, to determine whether a particle has a path lying in a region of space-time, then the probability that the result will be affirmative is the absolute square of a sum of complex contributions, one from each path in the region. (p. 8)

II.                The paths contribute equally in magnitude. But the phase of their contribution is the classical action (in units of ħ); i.e., the time integral of the Lagrangian taken along the path. (p.9)

In layman’s terms, when a particle moves from one place to another it can follow many different paths. The path that is observed is the sum of all possible paths, including the most logical, shortest path and a path that takes the particle to the moon before it gets to its destination. The key is that each of these paths is multiplied by its probability of occurring. Without direct observation we have no way of knowing what path the particle took to reach its destination just that it arrived.

            This concept of a wave function for particle motion has prompted some scientists to postulate that because all paths are possible, all routes must occur. When this statement is viewed from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) it is entirely possible that every route will be taken. The MWI implies that at any given moment that includes a ‘quantum experiment’ (any circumstance which has two or more possible outcomes that each have separate, finite probabilities of occurrence; essentially all moments) our world will split into two or more separate world, each corresponding to an individual outcome of the ‘quantum experiment’ (Vaidman, 2002). The MWI also leads to the Probability Postulate: “The probability of an outcome of a quantum experiment is proportional to the total measure of existence of all worlds with that outcome,” (2002, para. 28) and the Behavior Principle: “We care about all our successive worlds in proportion to their measures of existence” (2002, para. 52). To complicate things further, under normal conditions a wave function collapses under direct observation. That is to say, when we take a look at the particle as it moves, we can see the path it chooses. However, if we choose to look at this through the eyes of the MWI, no wave function collapse is necessary because all paths will still be taken, we just get to see which version of the world we live in as it occurs, rather than making assumptions based on probability (Aguirre, et al, 2010).

            Another result of this relative uncertainty brought into play by QM is an interesting thought experiment proposed by Erwin Schrödinger, seen below in Figure 2.

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The q-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts. (Trimmer, 1980, p.328)

The purpose of the thought experiment was to show how ridiculous QM can be when applied to ‘normal sized’ objects. It also served to show that without direct observation we cannot know what is occurring inside of a system with multiple possible results without observing it. The Schrödinger’s Cat paradox also led to a discussion between Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein in which a concept called Quantum Entanglement (QE) was discussed. While the specifics of QE go beyond the scope of this discussion, it bears mentioning as QE may eventually lead to instantaneous communication over any distance.

            Another very important aspect of QM is a process called Quantum Tunneling (QT). QT allows high energy quantum particles to pass through barriers that would normally not allow penetration. This is possible due to the wave-particle duality of quantum matter. At low energies the electron wave will still rebound as in the Classical Picture (Figure 3), but as energy increases the amount of the wave transferred to the far side of the barrier increases. At sufficiently high energies the electron wave will ignore the barrier field completely and pass through as if it did not exist. The concept of QT was used in the creation of transistors, a technology in common use in all modern electronic devices. Grifoni and Hänggi (1998, p. 346) stated that driven quantum tunneling will likely be used in “quantum tunneling-dominated processes such as population transfer, energy transfer, tunneling probabilities, reaction rates, diffusion coefficients, or current voltage characteristics.” One must assume that many of the wireless electronic devices in widespread use today rely upon technology derived from QT research.

            Ultimately, all modern devices owe their existence to the discovery of Quantum Theory. Without all the tests conducted using radioactive materials in the late 19^th century and the subsequent discoveries regarding energy transfer and the makeup of matter at the smallest levels we would not possess such luxuries as cell phones, iPads, or flat screen HD TVs. While the concept of QT was not employed directly to create the transistor it did play a role in so much as the thought of electrons passing directly through a barrier gave rise to the idea of using a material that was not a direct conductor to modify the intensity of the electricity. In fact, silicon is still used as a semiconductor in most high tech devices today.

            Another piece of high tech hardware available as a direct result of QM, specifically QT, is the quantum tunneling composite. This material is “comprised [of] conducting particles in a polymer matrix, where resistance changes because of changes in particle-particle near contacts when the composite is pressed, stretched or twisted” (Patra, et al, 2005). Basically, the material is pressure sensitive in the sense that contact with a portion of the system can have a direct effect on the amount of electricity flowing from one part to another. This material is now being used in cell phones to allow for pressure sensitive interaction with touch screens.

            Even upon a cursory examination it is evident that QM has played a part in many of the technological advances of the past century. Without the creation of the transistor we would not be able to enjoy any of the computational devices we make use of on a daily basis. Even though many people have never learned a thing about QM we interact with the results of its rules on a daily basis. Ultimately even our own bodily functions rely upon quantum mechanical interactions. The discovery of this concept has allowed humankind to grow in ways never imagined by our predecessors. Given the speed at which our technology changes today, who knows what is next? Perhaps Quantum Entanglement will lead us down a path towards the very definition of the nerd’s dream: Teleportation.

           

References

Aguirre, A., Tegmark, M., & Layzer, D. (2010, August 5). Born in an Infinite Universe: a Cosmological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.1066v1.pdf

Feynman, R.P. (1948). Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Rev. of Mod. Phys. 20(367). Retrieved September 29, 2010, from http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/feynman48c/eng.pdf

Grifoni, M., & Hänggi, P. (1998). Driven quantum tunneling. Physics Reports 304. Retrieved September 29, 2010 from http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.catalog.lib.cmich.edu/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6TVP-3V7WTNG-1-3&_cdi=5540&_user=1349914&_pii=S0370157398000222&_origin=search&_coverDate=10%2F01%2F1998&_sk=996959994&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkzS&md5=6a04ef6656da43a27696ff8973798888&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from http://www.nersc.gov/

Patra, P.K., Warner, S.B., Kim, Y.K., Chen, C.H., Calvert, P.D., Sawhney, A., Agrawal, A., Duggal, D., Chitnis, P., and Lo, T-C. (November, 2005). Quantum Tunneling Nanocomposite Textile Soft Structure Sensors and Actuators. National Textile Center Annual Report. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.113.4152&rep=rep1&type=pdf

"quantum mechanics." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. 2009. Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved October 5, 2010 from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-quantummechanics.html

Quantum Tunneling. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/quantum_tunneling.html

Smashing Lists. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from http://www.smashinglists.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Schr%C3%B6dingers-cat.gif

Trimmer, J.D. (October 10, 1980). The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A Translation of Schrödinger’s “Cat Paradox” Paper. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124(5). Retrieved September 29, 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/986572

Vaidman, L. (2002). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 26, 2010, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#6.1

Introduction

Hello everyone!

As this blog was created directly as a result of a class I want my readers to know that there will be some posts of papers written by me specifically for the purposes of that class. While this will not be my primary focus in the long term it will be quite important for the next few months. Feel free to read these papers, they will be on topic, if a little bit heavy on the research side.

Many of you have already heard me talk about physics at one point or another but for those of you that have not, you can expect a note of humor and especially sarcasm to taint the otherwise scholarly work I'll be posting. It is my intention to choose a relatively small topic in physics twice a week and give a brief discussion of it, in an effort to create some conversation.

Questions on all topics are welcome, and suggestions for new topics are desirable as well.

For my first topic, which I will post on next Tuesday, 10/12/10, I'll be covering probability as it relates to Quantum Mechanics and the concept of a wave function.

Look forward to it!