Quantum physics disproves evolution?!

[sionep]

Phenominalism, for those new, proposes that since we experience the universe via sence data, that only the sence data can be considered "real". basically, everything is a kind of illusion and if you don't experience something it dosn't exist.

It can easily get extreme.

One trouble is when you realise that nothing exists but that you make it so. This is trouble as soon as you consider the existance of others like yourself.

I have first heard about this new theory in about 1998 , which is challenging Quantum Mechanics (QM). It is called TEW (Theory Of Elementary Waves) and it has been developed by Dr. Lewis Little. I saw a video of him, doing presentation on TEW at CalTech. What he claims, that QM can be explained in a causal and objective manner. This means that the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' by Bohr, Heisenberg is wrong. However according to the derivations of his TEW equations, it comes up exactly the same as the QM equations. The difference is that he refutes the 'Schrodinger's Cat Paradox' and 'Wave-Duality'. Photons, Electrons, Protons, etc... are real particles according to TEW.

The main argument of TEW is that QM has been wrong all along since the assumptions are made where waves-or-particles are moving forward from source to the detector such as in the double slit experiment. With this assumptions from QM, it means that photons is wave and particle simultaneously until measured. TEW argues that photon is a real particle at all time and there is not an instant of time that it exist as a wave as proposed by QM in particle-wave duality. TEW says, that there is a reverse wave that travels from the detector towards the source. In this way, it still satisfies the OBSERVATION of a single photon diffraction patterns. So, for TEW, it means that 'Uncertainty Principle' is out, 'Non-locality' plus 'Quantum Entanglement' are also out. He also derived 'Relativity' via TEW and also explain how the two are links. He claims that TEW explains WHY the speed of light is constant irrespective of observers speed. He promised that he is designing some 'thought experiments' which will enable experimentalists to test out TEW and its predictions. TEW definitely puts back objectivity to Physics in which QM (subjective) throws it out since its birth. This makes objectivist happy since common sense is back to Physics where cause-and-effect must be accepted as the fundamental truth.

I am a bit skeptic about the kind of reverse-wave that TEW is based on since it claims that is a sort of 'Omnipotent' entity which is present everywhere in the Universe. This sounds like 'ether' which was already rejected in the early last century. However , I will keep an open mind on this as the derivations by TEW is exactly the same results with QM, but TEW says that wave travels backwards to the source rather than from source to the detector as proposed by QM. The backward traveling waves is the one that interferes with the forward moving real particle as a photon, electron, etc.. thus, forming interference patterns at the detector. This explains that if the source shoots a single photon one at a time through the double-slits, and allows to build up over time, then we still see the diffraction patterns appearing on the screen (detector) behind the double slits. That is why he dismissed that the single photon interference is due to particle-wave duality. Particle-wave duality is an interpretation which avoids paradox as just described above such as a single photon interfering with itself. TEW says that the single photon scenario is basically a forward moving photon (a real particle) thus interferes with the reverse-wave coming from the opposite direction originating from the detector.

The only test for TEW is to conduct experiments to prove its predictions.

"Theory of Elementary Waves"
- http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.html

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I love how in the forum linked originally, everybody seemed to confuse the word "liberal" (they used the term "libs") for the word "scientist". The charge that ID is not a scientific alternative to evolution comes from the scientific community not the democratic party. Liberals just happen to be enlightened because us northern yankee liberals actually respect science and don't want to see the day when the bible is taught as a scientific textbook!!!

Creationists always fail to realize, or have been misled to believe that there is no serious scientific debate over the occurrance of evolution. They don't debate whether atoms or gravity exists either.

The position of science on the occurrance of evolution is best expressed this way: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", Theodosius Dobzhansky

 

[Indolent Wretch]

Entanglement

So, for TEW, it means that 'Uncertainty Principle' is out, 'Non-locality' plus 'Quantum Entanglement' are also out.

I thought 'Quantum Entanglement' had been demonstrated under laboratory conditions, which means his theory would have to have another mechanism by which the effects of entanglement could be explained.


And hello to everyone, may I say how much I've enjoyed reading this board and this site and look forward to posting from now on.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

He probably thinks that Schrodingers Cat is a real experiment that backs up what he is saying.

Whereas everyone knows that if you try and put a cat in a box against its will, it is not the cat that is going to end up half dead!

 

[Mojo]

Whereas everyone knows that if you try and put a cat in a box against its will, it is not the cat that is going to end up half dead!

Remember Kate Charlesworth's "let's just make it a thought experiment" cartoon in New Scientist?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

And hello to everyone, may I say how much I've enjoyed reading this board and this site and look forward to posting from now on.

Welcome

 

[Molinaro]

Someone should ask him to drop his Copenhagen interpretation based arguments and show how his arguments are equaly valid in the other QM interpretations.

 

[Rolfe]

The theory of Quantum Woo Mechanics:

Quantum Mechanics, since so few really understand it, can be used to argue for any proposition.

Oh dear.

Extract from a letter printed in today's Veterinary Practice.

Homoeopathy and other disciplines under the "Energy Medicine" umbrella have scientific basis according to quantum physics - a branch of physics that allopathic medicine refuses to recognise. Just because allopathic medicine doesn't understand this subject does not mean we do not exist within the world it describes. The fact of the matter is that homoeopathy and energy medicine techniques work regardless of our ability to "prove", understand or explain exactly how they work and regardless of the lack of financial clout required to fund the suggested trials. Once there is some understanding of quantum physics, Randomised Clinical Trials (RCT) can be seen to be flawed....

I'm completely tired of this. I've read (or tried to read) the homoeopathy papers that do violence to quantum theory, and I have some understanding of why they are inapplicable to the situation (the word "metaphor" in the titles is perhaps a good hint). However, they just keep coming out with this claim. Ashles, is there any simple form of words one can use to get over the point to the impressed audience that this is essentially crap?

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

Oh dear.

Extract from a letter printed in today's Veterinary Practice.

Homoeopathy and other disciplines under the "Energy Medicine" umbrella have scientific basis according to quantum physics - a branch of physics that allopathic medicine refuses to recognise. Just because allopathic medicine doesn't understand this subject does not mean we do not exist within the world it describes. The fact of the matter is that homoeopathy and energy medicine techniques work regardless of our ability to "prove", understand or explain exactly how they work and regardless of the lack of financial clout required to fund the suggested trials. Once there is some understanding of quantum physics, Randomised Clinical Trials (RCT) can be seen to be flawed....

Who wrote this nonsense? Any of the usual suspects we might have heard of via the BVVS site or wherever? Or would disclosing their name count as "conduct disgraceful..."?

Edited because I couldn't type three simple sentences without a typo!

 

[BillHoyt]

Who wrote this nonsense? Any of the usual suspects we might have heard of via the BVVS site or wherever? Or would disclosing their name count as "conduct disgraceful..."?

I'd expect the author to be one of the many vets whose minds have been emptied of brains and replaced with woo jello. Look around the internet or pet sites. Homeopathy, acupuncture, energy medicine, chiropractic, etc., are all rapidly growing "veterinary" fields. Some practitioners have zero qualifications, but others were originally trained as vets.

Better yet, attend a dog, cat, or horse show. Visit the booths. Count the number of woo vendors at the shows and the incredibly positive response they receive from ignorant pet owners and pet breeders.

{edited to add scare quotes. -wjh}

 

[Rolfe]

Bill is perfectly correct. With the proviso that in the UK it is illegal to treat an animal unless you are a veterinary surgeon, so all of these woos are in fact qualified vets.

This one is a particularly appalling example, though in fact his name never really registered before. Since he has chosen to go public and seems quite proud of himself, I see no reason not to name and shame. Roger S. Meacock, BVSc, MRCVS, qualified from Bristol in 1992 (makes him about 36). Now of "Natural Healing Solutions", in Wiltshire.

The rest of the letter is really quite something, among other things he demands that he be compensated for loss of livelihood for the rest of his working life if the Cascade regulations prevent him from using his woo-woo methods. In your dreams!

Oh yes, and he's clearly been to the same school as Neil/Bach. He likens using controlled trials to investigate the effects of homoeopathy to trying to hear with your taste buds.

However, there is a corker of a reply from Mike Nelson, and a corker of a letter underneath it too, although I say it myself!

Edited to add: Look what I just received by email from a colleague!

Roger Meacock is, of course several orders of magnitude madder than your average badger he claims not to be the usual type of homoeopath as he uses the Elyra machine to do the job for him -http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm - you stick a bit of the patient in one end, a bottle of sugar pills in the other end & lo! The sugar pills magically (sorry quantum physically) acquire ALL the homoeopathic properties required to treat EVERYTHING that ails it. Don't worry thought, if you can't afford the £8,200 for the full version you can get the remedies for your I-pod!
Jeez..

Rolfe.

 

[CurtC]

I've read (or tried to read) the homoeopathy papers that do violence to quantum theory, and I have some understanding of why they are inapplicable to the situation (the word "metaphor" in the titles is perhaps a good hint). However, they just keep coming out with this claim. Ashles, is there any simple form of words one can use to get over the point to the impressed audience that this is essentially crap?

I'm not Ashles, but a point you might try is that Quantum Mechanics may be counter-intuitive, but it is definitely precise. Plug in the conditions, crank through the equations, and QM predicts exactly what will happen, even if it doesn't seem to make sense to us. So if someone is saying that QM supports his fanciful ideas of homeopathy etc., the natural question is: show me the equations that predict those results. If you don't have equations, you can't possibly claim that QM supports your ideas.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not Ashles, but a point you might try is that Quantum Mechanics may be counter-intuitive, but it is definitely precise. Plug in the conditions, crank through the equations, and QM predicts exactly what will happen, even if it doesn't seem to make sense to us. So if someone is saying that QM supports his fanciful ideas of homeopathy etc., the natural question is: show me the equations that predict those results. If you don't have equations, you can't possibly claim that QM supports your ideas.

Lionel Milgrom thinks he has the equations. Well, equations at any rate. Care to give me your expert opinion on these?

First paper
Second paper
Third paper

They seem to go back to an earlier paper by some whackjobs (including a homoeopath) who dreamed up something they called "weak quantum theory". It makes my brain hurt, but the screamingly annoying thing is that woos like Meacock seem to think this lot gives them carte blanche to declare that it has been proven that homoeopathy works by quantum physics (example, on Otherhealth), and unfortunately regulating bodies and so on have a habit of nodding sagely or at least considering the matter an open question. I'd be grateful for any pointers as to how to explain to the said regulating bodies that this is a load of dreck.

Rolfe.

 

[chrisjeans]

Lionel Milgrom thinks he has the equations. Well, equations at any rate. Care to give me your expert opinion on these?


Rolfe.

Ugh. I notice that he wrote those beauties while in the Chemistry Department at Imperial College, London. Having received my PhD from that same department, I am somewhat shocked that they are (were?) supporting that kind of nonsense. I will have to look into just what he's doing there.

 

[sionep]

I thought 'Quantum Entanglement' had been demonstrated under laboratory conditions, which means his theory would have to have another mechanism by which the effects of entanglement could be explained.


And hello to everyone, may I say how much I've enjoyed reading this board and this site and look forward to posting from now on.

Welcome to the club.

You are correct, that 'Quantum Entanglement' has been demonstrated first at Innsbruck in Austria in the late 1990s , I think it was 1997. It was the modern version of 'Aspect experiment' in which the Innsbruck team used a double delayed version of that experiment.

The paper for that experiment is listed in the following page:
- http://th-physik.uibk.ac.at/qo/pub/pub97.html

I did not read their original paper, but I did read a version that was submitted to for publication in the "Physics Today" magazine, which is similar to New Scientists.


TEW is not denying the observations. FACTS are FACTS. It is saying that such entanglement must be explained in a causal manner not the 'spooky-action-at-a-distance' that haunted Einstein. The 2 correlated particles seem to communicate instantaneously with NO physical means of connection according to QM entanglement. This implies that such communication travels faster than light. TEW's derivations arrives exactly as Quantum Mechanics (QM), however the outrageous claims of QM that reality does not exist , until you look. An example here from John Gribins book of 'Schrodingers Cat' , where he described of how Einstein mentioned to a colleague (I think, it was Neil Bohr or Werner Heisenberg) during a conversation in the 1940s while the two were walking in a park. "Look at that tree Neil. Do you think that the tree just suddenly appeared at that location, because you are looking at it". Einstein, then went on "It disturbs me that QM, proposes that things are not real unless you look" . When Bohr turned to Einstein to continue their conversation, Einstein, then went on again. "Neil, tell me if you think that if the tree is still there or has disappeared since you are looking at me but not at the tree". Now, there is the weird of how
QM is. TEW is supposed to be more of solving such paradoxes or philosophical absurdities. The matrix mechanics of QM is still intact in TEW only the sign of the wave function is changed from moving forward to reverse motion. The main emphasis of TEW is the interpretation of QM that is wrong, not the mathematics and also not the experimental observations.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Lionel Milgrom thinks he has the equations. Well, equations at any rate. Care to give me your expert opinion on these?

Expertise is not required. Just read the title of the first paper. He is presenting, he says, QM as a metaphor for homeopathy.

What of it? That doesn't make homeopathy less imaginary. I can use QM as a metaphor for the activities of fairies. The way they pass through locked doors is like quantum tunnelling. The way fairy gold turns to dross in the morning is like atomic decay. The way they dance in rings is like electrons orbiting a nucleus. And, above all, their spooky magic powers which we don't understand remind us of quantum theory, which seems spooky and magical to researchers into fairy science (fairyology? fairyopathy?) because they don't understand it.

Therefore, quantum theory proves the existence of fairies. Either that, or metaphors don't constitute proof of anything.

 

[c4ts]

Fairies can jump orbits when they dance? Cool!

 

[Dr Adequate]

The position of science on the occurrance of evolution is best expressed this way: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", Theodosius Dobzhansky

That's succinct, yes.

But I think the best way to express it is like this:

"Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy." --- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

From SkepticWiki's big file o' quotes. That looks like a consensus to me.

 

[CurtC]

Lionel Milgrom thinks he has the equations. Well, equations at any rate. Care to give me your expert opinion on these?

It's been about 23 years since I had any of this in college, but Dr Adequate is correct - he has presented a QM as a metaphor for homeopathy, without actually doing any of the math that would relate to homeopathy. The three papers are a sham, attempting to lose the reader in a bunch of technical stuff, as opposed to actually trying to communicate.

There is much time spent on conventional QM, but there is never any math done relating to the patient-practitioner-remedy, except the stupid equation that basically says:

effect = a * practitioner + b * patient + c * remedy

Except he uses Greek letters to obfuscate it. I hope that helps.

 

[Rolfe]

Ugh. I notice that he wrote those beauties while in the Chemistry Department at Imperial College, London. Having received my PhD from that same department, I am somewhat shocked that they are (were?) supporting that kind of nonsense. I will have to look into just what he's doing there.

Pretty, pretty please! I would dearly love to know what the rest of the college think about this. Someone else here said that his actual research topic was porphyria?

Dr. Adequate and Curt C, I'd sort of got that far. In fact, in an editorial in the relevant issue of the journal, Peter Fisher (the editor) actually cautions that homoeopaths mustn't refer to this sort of theory without acknowledging that it is a metaphor. Nevertheless, although I've pointed this out ad nauseam in veterinary journals, the vet homoeos just wait a couple of months and then pop back up with the claim that homoeopathy has been proven to work by quantun mechanics. Then the regulatory bodies and editors sort of glaze over and assume that they wouldn't be saying that if there wasn't some subsance to it.

Sigh. I suppose there's really no succinct refutation of such arrant nonsense.

Rolfe.