Quantum Physics

Mariah

Thinker
M
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
227
Anytime I try to approach the definition of Naturalism or Rationalism with anyone, I get the "but quantum physics has shown...." routine. I understand 99 percent of everybody doesn't know what quantum physics is about, yet they leap at it to support their New Age conclusions.

What can I say to them?
 
quantum physics have shown that New Agers don't know what the *bleep* quantum physics have shown.
 
Lol, yeah. Frustrating, isn't it?

Look up late 19th century newspaper articles on electricity and you'll see similar things written. Think radiation of the early to mid 20th century (the resulting super-hero trends in comic books, changing because of gamma rays...). Next it was DNA technology. Now, heading into 21st century, we get the quantum physics line.

Speculation always carries the same weight as theory to people who can't grasp science. Unfortunately, that means all 'unknowns' are equal to them as well.

Smile and avoid conversations with people who can't discuss things rationally. If there are others around who don't lack such senses, then tell them that science advances predictability, and that until quantum phsyics and general relativity are married in a single theory, we don't use the former to make predictions on the latter.

Athon
 
Mariah said:
Anytime I try to approach the definition of Naturalism or Rationalism with anyone, I get the "but quantum physics has shown...." routine. I understand 99 percent of everybody doesn't know what quantum physics is about, yet they leap at it to support their New Age conclusions.

What can I say to them?
Click to expand...

Ask for the maths. If you can't say it in equations it isn't quantum physics.
 
Dredred wrote: "quantum physics have shown that New Agers don't know what the *bleep* quantum physics have shown."

Mariah writes: I'd love specifics if you care to give them. I know about the movie "What the Bleep" but did see it.


Geni wrote: Ask for the maths. If you can't say it in equations it isn't quantum physics.

Mariah writes: What they think they know is that the maths show we don't know what we think we know. I'd love to know how to counter that.

I think I need you all to recommend a good website or book on the subject, something for dummies. I read tons of stuff on the subject years ago, (The Tao of Physics, Wu Li Masters, etc.) but now I don't trust what I read. I can't tell if it's actually endorsing woo or not.


Athon wrote: Smile and avoid conversations with people who can't discuss things rationally.

Mariah writes: I do, but I'm trying to write about it.

Thanks for the replies, all.
 
Mariah said:
Mariah writes: I'd love specifics if you care to give them. I know about the movie "What the Bleep" but did see it.
[..]
I think I need you all to recommend a good website or book on the subject, something for dummies.
Click to expand...

I was just joking. I can't give you specifics, I haven't seen the movie either and about all I know about quantum physics is from a book I once read about it. Since you want book recommendations i'll recommend it to you. It was very informative, well written and easy to understand for laypersons like me and you. It was called "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat", the author is John Gribbin.
 
Mariah said:
Mariah writes: What they think they know is that the maths show we don't know what we think we know. I'd love to know how to counter that.
Click to expand...

Don't ask them to TELL you what the maths show. Ask them to SHOW you the maths. "Which equation shows it? Can you talk me through the proof?"

If they confess to not knowing, offer to lend them books about Quantum physics, or at least to recommend some.

They are then left with three options :

1) Try to prove what they said, in which case they will look like a horse's behind.

2) Decline proof and refuse your offer, in which case they look like a dishonest horse's behind.

3) Accept your offer, in which case they just might possibly learn something about quantum physics.

And in all three cases, they effectively conceed that they don't know what they are talking about.
 
From reading this bulletin board it is important to ask:
"In what way does quantum physics support your theory?"
or, "In what way do the theories of quantum physics support your hypothesis?"

I have found that there are some key misconceptions about quantum physics the largest of which comes from philosophy based upon QM : IE the Observer Hypothesis.

Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle is based upon the fact that you can't measure the position and velocity of a subatomic particle without using some other sort of particle to interact with it. This gets conflated with the idea that therefore the Observer is somehow intergral to the creation of reality, which is a mistake, the observer is essential to Observation of reality.

The second biggest mistake is to misunderstand the Coppenhagen interpretation to state that all things can exist in all states. So that somehow there are no constraints upon the nature of material reality and somehow an electron can become an elephant because of 'superposition'.

The really wierd stuff in misinterpretation generaly has to do with SPECULATION about the potential ramifications of quantum theory such as the 'future handshaking' notion so often touted in homeopathy and other alternate healing. It is generaly based upon speculation concerning the use of entrained particles, as discussed in the double slit experiments and then convoluted through some vauge wish fulfillment to be an aspect of quantum reality. At best these are speculations about the potential for the use of quantum reality that become conflated as proven fact.

Then they ignore the really cool implications of quantum theory, like the fact that an electron is a particle whose size is bounded by the speed of light and it's potential ineraction with other charged particles.

Or that particles really do show up in places based upon probabilility, although that often is conflated with particles making a 'consious choice'.
 
Thanks, Dancing David. That is really helpful. I've read it several times since you posted it and will read it again.

What about all this string theory stuff and its supposed implication in alternate universes, the kind of thing even that Oriental physicist on the Science Channel touts?
 
Robert Novella
The Connecticut Skeptic
http://www.theness.com/articles/quantumconfusion-cs0203.html

...The success of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and its apparent irrationalities have not been missed by believers of the paranormal, anxious for scientific justification of their beliefs. They have appropriated it to explain a host of psychic phenomena, including e.s.p., remote viewing, and the belief that human consciousness can control the content of reality. The fact that QM is bizarre, however, does not mean that it can be used to explain bizarre theories. Unusual behavior in the microworld does not necessarily translate into the macroworld; in fact there is no evidence to suggest that QM can be used as an explanation for paranormal phenomena...
Click to expand...
 
They’re usually confusing an interpretation of QM with the actual theory. Most interpretations, especially those that say human consciousness changes reality, cannot be falsified and so are not part of the scientific theory.

You need to ask them exactly what they mean, and then ask them which experiment proves the thing they are saying is true. Most people won’t be able to do that, and if they can’t explain the experiment they say proves their point you can then just say they are probably confusing the theory of QM (scientific) with an interpretation of QM (not scientific). Remember, if it’s their claim they should be able to describe the experiment(s). If it can’t be shown by experiment it’s not falsifiable, not part of the theory of QM and not science.

It helps if you have read some QM books too. ;)
 
The American Institute of Physics website contains many articles on quantum physics. A search using the word 'quantum' yields over 3000 hits.

A similar search using the word 'paranormal' yields... 3.

Two of the hits mention the same disclaimer about astrology being entertainment only.

The third is a book review by James Randi...

Books
Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, and Other Pseudoscience
Georges Charpak and Henri Broch (translated from French by Bart K. Holland)
Johns Hopkins U. Press, Baltimore, MD, 2004. $25.00 (136 pp.). ISBN 0-8018-7867-5
Reviewed by James Randi

With the media so full of glowing accounts that deal with nonsense such as children with x-ray vision, we need to be better armed and informed. Knowledge helps filter out whatever truth might be contained in an attractive story about a spoon being bent by staring at it or about some new guru who has the secret to eternal life or can communicate with the next "UFO" that darts across the sky.

Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, and Other Pseudoscience by Georges Charpak and Henri Broch is one of those books I wish I'd written. Charpak is a physicist at CERN who won the 1992 Nobel Prize in Physics for his invention of several particle detectors, and Henri Broch is a physics professor at the University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis in France who also teaches zetetics, the scientific investigation of paranormal phenomena. The authors approach the subjects as dedicated and qualified scientists. I, on the other hand, have to do it from a different direction. My expertise lies in the art of deception. I come from the conjuring profession, and I apply my knowledge of trickery to unravel the deceptions that cunning fakers use to deceive and swindle their victims. Charpak and Broch use their academic training to examine the logic and rationality of each case they dissect. I'm pleased to see the excellent book they've written...
Click to expand...
 
Not all things in the universe can be described by maths especialy at the macroscopic scale but that does not mean that quantum physics doesn't apply the the macroscopic level.
 
The most useful anti-QM-abuse arguments I've heard (none original with me, nor particularly well stated here) are:

- Quantum Physics has not discovered or established anything new at the atomic or molecular level; there is consequently no impact to reality at the scale on which we operate

- Human consciousness has nothing at all to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; the "position collapse" is a purely mechanical process

- The speed of light as a real limitation is further confirmed by quantum physics
 
ddobson said:
The most useful anti-QM-abuse arguments I've heard (none original with me, nor particularly well stated here) are:

- Quantum Physics has not discovered or established anything new at the atomic or molecular level; there is consequently no impact to reality at the scale on which we operate

- Human consciousness has nothing at all to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; the "position collapse" is a purely mechanical process

- The speed of light as a real limitation is further confirmed by quantum physics
Click to expand...

are you really saying that there arent Wibble and Wobble particles the interaction betwixt the two causes conciousness? I NEED PROOF.
[TIC]
 
Dancing David said:
Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle is based upon the fact that you can't measure the position and velocity of a subatomic particle without using some other sort of particle to interact with it. This gets conflated with the idea that therefore the Observer is somehow intergral to the creation of reality, which is a mistake, the observer is essential to Observation of reality.
Click to expand...

Actually the fun things is that you can generalize that to any conjugated variable : time and energy, phase and intensity etc... The precision of the measurement one variable limit automatically the conjugated variable precision.

As an ex-quantum phycisist (*) I dislike particulary how many people misuse it without understanding anything about it. Usually some small discussion with them end by the inevitable "I read it somewhere" or "someone told me" or "I heard it", thus ending the dialogue by washing their hand on what they said and calling on the authority of their dubious source.

Anyway as a good book on QQM I recommend t he cohen-tanouji :). This was my QM bible while I was studying...

(*) I stopped and went into IT instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom