Do you ever have one of those days where you find yourself idly wondering about the nature of quantum mechanics? Yeah, me either. But I read a lot of stuff by people who do, and while I felt like I had at least a rudimentary grasp of what they are talking about, now I’m not so sure. Because I don’t think about it unless I’m actively reading something by an astrophysicist or a theoretical physicist – or listening to Sheldon. Do I really understand any of it? Or do I just recognize, on the page, a group of words that seem to go pretty well together, and I just run with it?

I asked Siri to define quantum mechanics:

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 principal.

Sure.

Perhaps I should start more simply. The word quantum is interesting in its own right, and it’s quite the qualifier (I know…). Following is the definition from my father’s copy of Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1965. I chose this particular aged tome because I thought there might be some interesting differences between its now largely antiquated entries and those in my new dictionary sources (OED and Dictionary.com). It turns out all three definitions are basically the same, but the old one says it far more succinctly.

Quantum  2a: one of the very small increments or parcels into which many forms of energy are subdivided  b: one of the small subdivisions (as velocity) of a physical magnitude.

Of course.

This is only the physics definition. In the non-physics realm it refers to (hopefully, not surprisingly) “quantities,” as well as, in adjective form, something “sudden and significant.” But one of its quantitative uses, according to the Brit dictionary, is, “the least possible amount that can suffice; there is not a quantum of evidence for your accusation.” Or, for all you Bond lovers, not a quantum of solace.

~I move that we make this use more widespread, i.e. “I just need you all to find a quantum of common sense!”~

Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but for me the last definition, “the least possible amount than can suffice,” puts the physics definition in better perspective; a quantum is the smallest possible measurement of the phenomena being observed (at least for now…), which allows me to extrapolate that quantum mechanics examines the functions and interactions of things on their smallest scale. Quantum theory, then, would take what is learned about the behavior of things on that very small scale and postulate how and why those very small interactions impact the universe(s) as a whole. My definition might make some physicists cringe, but I don’t think they would disagree (I checked – they did not disagree, but they did cringe a little).

Think about that; something so infinitesimally small that our tiny human brains cannot fully conceive of it in any definitive way, influences the function of the entire universe, which is so infinitely large that our tiny human brains cannot fully conceive of it in any definitive way. That, in my opinion, is miraculous. And yet here we are, on our insignificant speck of space dust, fighting wars about who owns what, who should control what, who should worship what and how to do said worshipping. If any sort of god exists, they are wildly disappointed in us.

This curiosity about all things quantum was initially piqued when I saw an ad for the reboot of Quantum Leap, and I remembered watching the original with my mom when I was a kid. I realized from my aforementioned rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics that a quantum leap had nothing to do with “leaping” across time into other people’s bodies. That usage refers only to the magnitude of what is happening: “a huge, often sudden, increase or advance in something.” Even that definition is loosey-goosey, but I see where they were going with it. The bigger question is, even though I had fun watching the original with my mom, it was super cheesy 80s TV, which was part of its charm. It was by no means great TV. Why does Hollywood continue to insist upon rebooting what was only mediocre to begin with? If they must recycle, perhaps something about a quartet of quirky quantum physicists who are pursuing, if querulously, answers to the queries that will further, without qualm, our quest to unravel the quandaries of the universe?

I’d watch that.