Quantum physics per an ancient entity

[Interesting Ian]

Nowdays it can´t, AFAIK. But can you be sure that people´s behavior can not (or will not) be described by equations? Not even statistics?

A particular individual before they act? Maybe their behaviour can be but that would literally be an equation describing freely chosen behaviour. There is a distinction between this and all non-sentient physical existents in the Universe. For example the equations describing the orbits of the planets around the Sun would not be normally thought of as equations describing the freely chosen behaviour of the planets. The behaviour of sentient beings has a differing origin from non-sentient things.

And you wrote "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe the world ", and that´s why I wrote about the spectrum of scales described by each mechanics.

My statement "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe the world " is not equivalent to the statement "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe any part or aspect of the world".

And regarding whats being discussed, I am aware. Including that you -as well as most people who try to connect QM and paranormal phenomena- fail to acknoweledge the correct scale where QM "works". And it is stated at the place you linked. [/B]

But we know that very slight effects can have unlimited consequences. Have you not heard of Chaos theory? The butterfly effect?

 

[wipeout]

Interesting Ian,

I should make my use of realism clear. "Realism" here is the idea that properties exist for microscopic quantum particles in the way that we think of them existing for macroscopic objects. An example of that is for a macroscopic object like a spinning basketball we are able to measure one property (like rotation to the left or the right) or another property (like rotation upwards or downwards), both properties exist simultaneously and they can be used together in a consistent description (like the object is rotating to the right and upwards). That kind of realism is fine for classical physics. Quantum physics lacks this kind of realism for microscopic particle properties in significant ways. Just because we can choose between measuring different particle properties and we would get a value for either property doesn't mean that the unmeasured property has values which exist in the way they would for macroscopic objects. Properties lack the "realism" of classical physics. It's important to know about this lack of realism as otherwise, for example, it makes it seem as if EPR experiments involve faster-than-light influences between particles and it will allow people to reach many other unjustified conclusions like those.

This is the kind of realism that the people involved in the film needed to know about and needed to be talking about because the usual woo-friendly ideas about the universe being "all interconnected and instantaneously influencing itself at any distance" fall flat on their noses when the lack of realism in quantum physics is appreciated.

As to decoherence, yes, your description is a fine summary of the basic idea as how it's usually put across. Actually, at the moment, I'm trying to understand how much of decoherence is actually just a mathematical way of looking at things and how much is actually physical. I've got some way to go on that.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian,

I should make my use of realism clear. "Realism" here is the idea that properties exist for microscopic quantum particles in the way that we think of them existing for macroscopic objects. An example of that is for a macroscopic object like a spinning basketball we are able to measure one property (like rotation to the left or the right) or another property (like rotation upwards or downwards), both properties exist simultaneously and they can be used together in a consistent description (like the object is rotating to the right and upwards). That kind of realism is fine for classical physics. Quantum physics lacks this kind of realism for microscopic particle properties in significant ways. Just because we can choose between measuring different particle properties and we would get a value for either property doesn't mean that the unmeasured property has values which exist in the way they would for macroscopic objects.

I see absolutely no difference in the reality we should bestow for the properties of electrons and basketballs. Both are described by QM. Besides, what could it possibly mean to describe a property as unreal? It's complete and total nonsense.

Properties lack the "realism" of classical physics.

A vacuous assertion.

It's important to know about this lack of realism as otherwise, for example, it makes it seem as if EPR experiments involve faster-than-light influences between particles and it will allow people to reach many other unjustified conclusions like those.

Eh? The particles are entangled. Measuring the property of one electron, its spin or whatever, determines the spin of the other. So the moment of measurement determines the properties. Is that "influencing"? I don't know what you mean by "influence". There is no mechanism connecting the particles.

This is the kind of realism that the people involved in the film needed to know about and needed to be talking about because the usual woo-friendly ideas about the universe being "all interconnected and instantaneously influencing itself at any distance" fall flat on their noses when the lack of realism in quantum physics is appreciated.

Sorry, but QM destroys the mechanical philosophy. And you have given no indication what you could possibly mean by an 'unreal property'. The world does not entirely operate on mechanical principles. If that makes it "woo" {shrugs} then so be it.

 

[Correa Neto]

A particular individual before they act? Maybe their behaviour can be but that would literally be an equation describing freely chosen behaviour. There is a distinction between this and all non-sentient physical existents in the Universe. For example the equations describing the orbits of the planets around the Sun would not be normally thought of as equations describing the freely chosen behaviour of the planets. The behaviour of sentient beings has a differing origin from non-sentient things.

But note that an (empirical and based in statistical data) equation that predicts the behavior of an individual could be taken as evidence that the behavior is controlled by a certain set of "laws".

An analogy- quite often we can predict, based on statistical data, the behavior of a number of complex natural phenomena. Distribution of elements within an ore deposit or a region are the examples that come in to my mind, since thats the sort of stuff I´m familiar with. However, to create a mathematical model that can simulate say, the formation of the observed pattern, is much more difficult, given the number of variables and different proccesses involved. We know, however, what are the processes and controls involved, but we can´t -yet- simulate the actual formation of the pattern. Actually, nowdays people are starting to model the genesis of a number of deposits, with good results, but its not -yet- a widely used tool.

All the above is just to say that behavior predictability may be an evidence for control by a given set of rules or laws, thus creating problems for some free will concepts.

My statement "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe the world " is not equivalent to the statement "I'm afraid Newtonian Mechanics does not accurately describe any part or aspect of the world".

OK, but the fact is that Newtonian mechanics (and its developments, as well as electromagnetism, for example) can accurately predict and describe the behavior of macroscopic systems such as planets and human beings. QM and relativity are not the correct tools for these scales.

But we know that very slight effects can have unlimited consequences. Have you not heard of Chaos theory? The butterfly effect?

Yes, I have heard. A number of geological (like the ones I reffered about above) and meteorological systems can be seen as fractal systems. And I also have heard the many flawed assertions that were generated by misundertanding of it. The butterfly effect actually is about the initial conditions of a complex system.

To use the standard "butterfly effect example", small pressure or temperature changes within an atmospheric system may cause it to evolve to light rain, tropical storm or hurricane. The keys here are the words small (What can be considered small?) and may (Its a just a possibility, after all).

Also key is the fact that we can correlate pressure and temperature on a number of ways to the processes and variables controlling the atmospheric system. Can any QM set of processes, equations, etc. be applied to counsioussness or to paranormal phenomena? I mean not just vague sentences on non-determinism, but a mechanism that provides some predictability.

Please note that I am not demanding this from you specifically. It may come from any person who studies these fields and thinks that QM is somehow linked with it.

 

[RichardR]

I just saw the movie. It was not as bad as I thought regarding this thread. I couldnt see any reference to this ramtha character.

That's because the talking heads weren't introduced until after the end of the film. See this screenshot:

Taken from this skeptical review of What The (Bleep) Do We Know!?

 

[Sanamas]

You guys have all missed out on the most hilarious part of the movie. They introduced the work of Dr. Emoto, a Japanese scientist who shows that emotions can affect the physical world by taping the word "happy" to a flask of water, freezing it, then looking at the ice under a microscope for a crystal that shows happiness.

The whole movie, rather than teaching much of anything about science, is instead pushing the idea that the mind creates or at least directly influences reality.

 

[BPScooter]

Geez, this thread got away from me... sorry I'm not up on all the particulars of QM but seems to me like some are protesting too much.

I used to live in Seattle and had a friend in the landscaping business and told me some barely-memorable stories about his jobs down in Yelm for Ramtha's proxy back in the good old days. Sounds like Ramtha has now run out of money/power and needed another go around. Enjoy the film, buy the latest Microsoft product, etc.

 

[Jas]

You guys have all missed out on the most hilarious part of the movie. They introduced the work of Dr. Emoto, a Japanese scientist who shows that emotions can affect the physical world by taping the word "happy" to a flask of water, freezing it, then looking at the ice under a microscope for a crystal that shows happiness.

I think this might be the guy my neighbor was talking about, when she was talking about proof for homeopathy...something about pictures of she saw on the internet of ice-crystals or something. does anyone know if his 'work' is in any way used to authenticate homeopathy?

 

[Sanamas]

This week's commentary mentions him, and http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html has a more in depth look at the guy.

Here's a link from the Emoto's site about homeopathy: http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/etruth.html#6

Since then, I have studied homeopathy, and I have found that it is the only therapy in line with Hado theory, out of all the therapeutic treatments acknowledged as medicine.

 

[DavoMan]

I'm sorry come again. William Shatner???

I think I know why she picked William Shatner. Everyone knows Captain Kirk makes out with every hot alien chick he sees.

 

[Vim Razz]

To use the standard "butterfly effect example", small pressure or temperature changes within an atmospheric system may cause it to evolve to light rain, tropical storm or hurricane. The keys here are the words small (What can be considered small?) and may (Its a just a possibility, after all).

A very slight influence at a point of critical instability within a system can have pervasive effects. Most butterflies have absolutly no effect on the weather. For example: -- A tiny crack in a piston in your car'e engine can cause very large and unpredictable events. -- A tiny crack on your car's fender is something you are unlikely to notice. Ever. And I hate Michael Crichton for writing that [rule 8] book and making that [rule 8] movie and popularizing such a rediculously [rule 8] wrong interpretation on chaos theory!!!!!!!!! (even though the dinosaurs were pretty cool) Die, Ian Malcom!!! Die! Die!!!

 

[RSLancastr]

Well, I finally saw this thing. Or at least about the first half of it, which was all I could take.

The fact that this thing has gotten as much attention as it has is extremely sad.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Well, I finally saw this thing. Or at least about the first half of it, which was all I could take.

The fact that this thing has gotten as much attention as it has is extremely sad.

I feel the precise opposite. It's great to make people think about reality.

 

[Irish Murdoch]

Re: Re: Re: Quantum physics per an ancient entity

I feel, ancient sayings can be much more than today's sayings & & that can be a basis of todays ideas & sayings. Forms, languages & presentations can be bit differant, just indicative, indirect etc. Few entitled people, who can understand the real meaning, logic & can translate it in today's language can know it. The ancient mentionings can be an indicative science from prime to end...might have seen & indicated because our ancient people might have seen/felt envery quantum part & still furthur, by attaining extreme power of vision by meditations, concentrations or otherwise i.e. indicated as "Divya Drishti" infinite/exptreme power to see/feel. Every & all basics, seems to be already created & told long back at the begining after any destruction or big-bang, not possible in today's destructive phase. We can just change, mould here & there, change language & forms, re-search, dis-cover, invent...but can't create now....probably.

Sounds reasonable ...