I have heard alot about this and i have searched several web sites and the information i have collected contradicts its self. what is it?
I’m not an expert in this yet, so maybe someone else could answer more fully. Until then…quantum is just an amount of something - more specifically, the smallest unit of something. For instance, in physics, you can have a quantum of light (which is just the visible region of a much larger electromagnetic spectrum). This quantum of light is refered to as a photon. Quantum physics is the next step up from classical Newtonian physics, in that it could offer explanations Newtonian physics cannot account for.
What exactly did you find that contradicted itself?
some sites said there were 7 dimentions, some said 11, some said 26. I am only 16 so the lingo is quite advanced form me but each one justified for the number of dimentions in different ways.
those are very advanced super string theories… very theoretical
you should start with more basic quantum theory
look for max planck, einstein, pauli, heisenbergh, …
well basicly it starts with the assumption that energy isn’t continuous, but there are energy levels, energy comes in packages, not as a continuous flow…
actually einstein disagreed, but nevertheless he helped it by giving a solution to the foto-electric effect
he said; “God doesn’t play with dice” because he didn’t agree with several consequences of quantum theory…
willem
Quantum mechanics (physics) is also sometimes refered to as wave dynamics. It tries to “quantify”, or take discrete measurements and kind, turn them into continuous particles represented as waveforms. It generally only applies directly to small distances, but then again, if the “stuff” that makes up the universe can be represented as a waveform…so could the entire system, concieveably.
There’s lots of reasons why they do this, and it winds up being the case that it is fairly accurate in its measurements in lab tests (even though the results seem kinda funky at first though… like superposition). Instead of being teeny tiny points of charge or spin, they’re waves of energy in space. This allows for all sorts of neato things we can do, like theorize on “particles” because the nature of these sinusoids (waves) are rather restricted in nature.
And since Dark Magus is being such a dip, I’m going to reference you to wikipedia even though I never read the article.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
As for dimensions… concievably there’s an infinite number. I mean, mathematically, one can find a 26th dimension (last I heard, that was the highest prooved)… but it’s also not a problem to concieve of a 6000th dimension. It’s a bitch to prove, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In fact, if you could prove that there are infinite dimensions, absolutely, it may make some of the talk of dimensions dwindle all around… because you cannot have a dimension to a natural power X without all subsequent dimensions (X-1, X-2, X-3…3,2,1,0) existing as well.
Superstring theory requires 10 because of the way the Ramalamadingdong (sorry, I cannot remember it’s name) function computes its modes. It’s a math thing, take their word for it.
However, one idea which is rarely touched on is that, while yes, dimensions may be limited at a microscopic range, has anyone ever considered that at the super-macroscopic range, it’s possible that another dimension is necessary as well? I don’t know… would be interesting to get some data on that, but alas, our range is restricted to our known universe.
I’m moving this to natural sciences. Please email Ben, myself, or the staff with any questions.
well, that was nice. rafa gave you a screen full of jargon and “smart-guy-sounding” wordage, but couldn’t seem to answer your question concerning Quantum Mechanics.
check this out:
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p07.htm
here’s some essential reading:
http://www.emr.hibu.no/lars/eng/cat/Default.htm
(a synopsis of that, basically):
http://www.telp.com/philosophy/qw2.htm
i’ll be back with more, if necessary! i’m “on the clock” so i can’t give you anything in my own words at the moment. 
-DickMagus
What DIDN’T I answer? If you read the original post, he’s already gone through the web searching for information on it, so what good are all those links? They only say the same thing that’s repeated 100000 times across the web.
I think you’re just acting like this because you’re petty and childish, and definetly jealous of my superiority! 
God, though… seriously, what the fuck is your problem? 
Was I not direct enough for you, now?
Ok, how’s this? Some superstring particles require 10 dimensions to be “looped”. Some superstring particles require 26. They both can exist, but in different dimensional spaces. Base superstrings are 10. So, we need AT LEAST 10 to prove superstring theory. However, ideally, there will be more.
rafa, seriously …i’m at least HALF joking around when i say things like that. but i still didn’t think you answered the question very well …the things you were saying we’re of high quality but considering this person is asking “what is quantum mechanics?”… what you threw at him just won’t gonna help. and as a teacher, i’m pretty well tuned in to pedagogical methods.
the truth is, i like gettin’ people fired up. well, mostly you. and since you did mention my name, well it was only a matter of time! but its becoming less and less funny, so i’ll e-chill out.
That’s QM in a nutshell. What is it? That’s it?
As for the contradictions in terms of dimensions, that’s superstring theory. I think I summed up the apparent contradiction with that alright.
Well, appology accepted. This is the third post, I believe, where you have claimed I was being “pedantic” or missing a point when I felt I was dead on. Maybe you should start concerning yourself with your own posts.
oooh now there’s a zinger. are my posts really that shitty? no wait, don’t answer that. i think what you said was totally perfect… but very sophisticated… again, not that i disagreed with what you said, i just thought it wouldn’t be accessible to a newcomer to QM.
-Nit Mc Pick
I do apreciate both of you taking the time to anwser my question and i do aprecitate multiple sources, but my god you two need to take a step back… swallow your pride.
hahhaha yes we do this from time to time. i do consider us e-friends though… despite the apparent hostility. its just the mixture of both our personalities. i’m sure we could all hang out and drink some alcoholic beverages and have a grand ol’ time though.
i can respect that
Quantum physics gives new mathematical laws needed to calculate new empirical findings. Thats it. You dont have to look around source upon source to understand it, its right there in any chemistry book. Energy comes in packages (not a totally radical idea in-itself, you only have to look at democritus and the great polymoth liebniz), it is quantized, meaning you can use any specific instument and graph each individual elemental finger print. Electrons (which bind everything together) are waves meaning were all one big interconnected wavelength (maybe not dark matter and dark energy but that a different topic and theory even). You can calculate the wavelength of anything, even yourself, its just were too big to be considered a “wave” and you’d have to be super-inert, meaning the sentient world “is” more particle, more newtonian.
I wonder what science would look like today if newton had the equipment to diffract electrons? Would he of been able to think up a instument capable of not influencing the electron’s motion? Well, thats if his ideas were really his own in the first place. I watch a interesting program: it was about his great quote “if it is because i have seen furthur, it was because i was standing on the shoulders of giants”, well the person that quote was sent to was the person who came up with most of newton’s theory’s, or so they say.
Best waiting for quantum computers to unify and advance science anyways.