Quantum Physics

One of the most common mistakes about Quantum Physics is the Schroedingers Cat experiment.

This type of "experiment" is sometimes mentioned to demonstrate how strange things are with Quantum Physics. but what many people don't understand that Schroedinger's Cat was actually a thought experiment that Schroedinger used to demonstrate how many subatomic prioperties of Quantum Physics do NOT apply to macroscopic objects.

Now, about What the Bleep Do We Know (from a post I made elsewhere):

It's been doing the rounds for a little while now but has some seriously flawed science in it.
Firstly the whole thing is the product of a cult (in America) based around a woman who channels a being called Ramtha (who is 35,000 years old).
Here is Ramtha's website
The three directors are students of Knight's Ramtha School of Enlightenment in Yelm, Washington

It also plays on a rather interesting feature of Quantum Physics. Basically that feature is that pretty much anything the layperson thinks they know or has understood about Quantum Physics is incorrect.
While reading about this I found out that lots of things that I thought I understood were outdated concepts already in Quantum Physics, but the field moves very rapidly and most of the new thinking is not in the popular textbooks.

The majority of What the Beep Do We Know is based on outdated theories and some very selective science.

Here are some comments on it
Eg:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>One of the scientists who was in the film and had never appeared at the school is Dr David Albert Professor and Director of Philosophical Physics at Columbia university.
He has stated in several venues that his views were totally misrepresented in the film. He claims that in over 5 hours of interviews he explained to the film makers why their concept of how Quantum Physics works has virtually no support in the scientific community.
He even called in to a radio program the director was on to discuss this and was cut off. The host of the show said this was done because it was "negative"
so much for no good or bad, that is unless it is convienent.</div>

A review looking at the spiritual and psychological observer related aspects

Review with an eye on scientific reductionism

Another review pointing out "the good parts of the movie don't include its keystone contention that the macro world of our daily existence is subject to the influence of human observers, just like the subatomic quantum world"

Scientific American review

Quantum Mechanics is terribly abused by people comparing it to paranormal abilities.
The thinking sems to go: Quantum Mechanics is weird but true. Paranormal abilities are weird. Thus paranormal abilities must be true.

As a rough guide I would say that if someone can explain the maths behind their Quantum Mechanics claim to paranormal phenomena, then they are worth listening to. If they can't then they don't really know anything more about QM than, say, you, me or the man in the street.
The more you read about it the more realise how fearsomely complicated it is.

(Oh, and apparently the film also perpetuates the "We only use 10 per cent of our brain" myth. Which is pretty much unforgiveable these days)
 
Mariah said:
Ducktape and Ddobson, you're above my head here. Talk down to me, please.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need to be talked down to :), but in an effort to simplify (and betray some of my own lack of in-depth understanding in the process, most likely)...

Quantum physics has demonstrated that a subatomic particle split into two parallel particle/wave structures will seem to "materialize" in the place where we look for it, and simultaneously "cease to exist" in the other place where we would expect to find it. Where we happen to look for it (by putting something in its way), we find it; we never find it in both places, and we never "miss" it where we look. It's a bizarre behavior, but it has only been shown to occur at the electron/photon level, and there are at most two places where we would find it if we looked for it.

Quantum physics, therefore, has not demonstrated that (despite the popular Schrodinger example) a cat is not physically in one of two boxes until someone opens one of the boxes and sees whether it's there. The cat's in one box or the other from the moment it's put there. Nothing in quantum mechanics theory or experimentation suggests it has the ability to simultaneously exist in both places.

Bottom line - subatomic particles, yes; "real" objects in our day-to-day world, no.
 
saying that QM has no effect on the macroscopic world is like saying that the attitue of individual voters has nothing to do with what government will be elected in a democratic country.
 
DuckTapeFileMan said:
saying that QM has no effect on the macroscopic world is like saying that the attitue of individual voters has nothing to do with what government will be elected in a democratic country.
Click to expand...
Well firstly no-one stated that. The real world certainly follows the rules of QM. Just not the ones you are thinking of.

When new agers start talking about Quantum Physics, they aren't referring to the dull stuff that applies to macroscopic level that looks a lot like Newtonian physics, they are ALWAYS talking about the stuff that applies solely to subatomic particles.
All the 'weird' stuff.

No macroscopic objects can display superpositioning or entanglement or any of the other exciting quantummy things they are referring to.

To say that would be like saying that because an individual voter can touch his nose then it follows that a democratic country can touch its nose.

Different behaviour, different levels.
 
yes, I see that but brain chemistry is hardly on the large scale.
I don't know how the brain works but it seems to me that some of the weirdness at the quantum level might apply to how the brain works. That is just my opinion speaking as an
ex-determinist.
 
Ducktape said:
saying that QM has no effect on the macroscopic world is like saying that the attitue of individual voters has nothing to do with what government will be elected in a democratic country.

Mariah says:
So, Ducktape, you're saying QM does affect the macro. Or maybe you're saying it's just feasible. An example?

__________________
 
DuckTapeFileMan said:
yes, I see that but brain chemistry is hardly on the large scale.
I don't know how the brain works but it seems to me that some of the weirdness at the quantum level might apply to how the brain works. That is just my opinion speaking as an
ex-determinist.
Click to expand...
And I think we have already discussed this at length in another thread.

I even provided links that explained that 'consciousness' was not involved in Quantum Physics.

But this is an excellent example of what happens when someone doesn't know anything about Quantum Physics, but feels they can develop a theory about Quantum Physics based on no knowledge of its models or mathematics.

And let me reiterate that I am not saying your theory is wrong, but that it goes against what actual experts in the field say.

It would be as if you told us that your opinion is that evolution operates by microscopic gnomes changing the genetic code of animals.
It doesn't fit the facts, and has no evidence, but you are entitled to your opinion.
It just wouldn't very helpful to anyone attempting to learn about the field.
 
Mariah said:
Mariah says:
So, Ducktape, you're saying QM does affect the macro. Or maybe you're saying it's just feasible. An example?
Click to expand...
If I can just answer this:

Quantum Mechanics describes the mechanics of ALL objects from the tiny subatomic particles to planetary orbits (some exception with aspects of black holes I believe).
But it does not work the same at different scales. So properties of subatomic particles cannot be related to real world (macro scale) objects.

We could describe the orbit of the moon around the earth with QM, but the maths would be so horrendously complicated that we use the less accurate Newtonian Mechanics, which describes real world objects accurately enough for everyday purposes.

So QM certainly describes the nature of large scale objects, but the important distinction is that that does not imply that large scale objects behave like small scale objects.

Or that because a sub-atomic particle behaves a certain way that it can be scaled up to imply that a large scale object will becave the same way.

DuckTapeMan's society analogy works very well actually. A nation is made up of people, but a nation cannot do everything an individual person does. Different rules at different scales.
 
Mariah said:
Thanks, Kopji! You've given me a lot to peruse.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. There is an article in the June 2005 issue of 'Discover' that might interest you:

http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-05/cover/

'Discover' is a widely read magazine for ordinary people (like us) who are interested in science.

The online version requires a subscription to read the complete version. Besides the focus on Penrose, the article includes a pretty good description of the various quantum ideas. It might be at a local library or used book store.

Good luck!
 
Ashles said:
One of the most common mistakes about Quantum Physics is the Schroedingers Cat experiment.

This type of "experiment" is sometimes mentioned to demonstrate how strange things are with Quantum Physics. but what many people don't understand that Schroedinger's Cat was actually a thought experiment that Schroedinger used to demonstrate how many subatomic prioperties of Quantum Physics do NOT apply to macroscopic objects.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Plus it was a thought experiment that has never been (and in principle could never be) carried out.

Btw, here is one more skeptical review of "What the bleep do we know!? ;)
 
Kopji said:
You're welcome. There is an article in the June 2005 issue of 'Discover' that might interest you:

http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-05/cover/

'Discover' is a widely read magazine for ordinary people (like us) who are interested in science.

The online version requires a subscription to read the complete version. Besides the focus on Penrose, the article includes a pretty good description of the various quantum ideas. It might be at a local library or used book store.
Click to expand...
That was a good article. Plus, Penrose’s new interpretation does not require consciousness to be involved.
 
RichardR said:
Btw, here is one more skeptical review of "What the bleep do we know!? ;)
Click to expand...
Good review.

And this JZ Knight/Ramtha woman really is wacky, isn't she?

It makes you wonder why Ramtha never communicated with anyone before now.
Imagine how great it would have been if we'd heard about Quantum Mechanics from a channelled entity in the middle ages, rather than having to theorise it ourselves and then have some 'being come along and say "Yup that's right. Just like that." like some particularly incompetent office manager.
 
sounds like a rubbish film made by a bunch of woowoos.

it doesn't prove that the laws of physics and creatures with free will are not interrelated though.


I'm glad I don't believe that molecules are concious but some people must find it hard to come to anyother conclusion.


If you think you understand free will, then you don't understand free will.
 
Thanks for all the stuff, you all.
Richard, I was unable to open the Discover mag article, but will try again later. Thanks for the link.
 
Mariah said:
Ducktape said:
saying that QM has no effect on the macroscopic world is like saying that the attitue of individual voters has nothing to do with what government will be elected in a democratic country.

Mariah says:
So, Ducktape, you're saying QM does affect the macro. Or maybe you're saying it's just feasible. An example?

__________________
Click to expand...

I think Ducktape is just saying that as matter is collections of subatomic particles, the properties of matter are determined by the behavior of those subatomic particles.

Atoms bond together the way they do because of quantum mechanics. There is a periodic table, with elements organized into columns by their chemical properties, because of quantum mechanics. Helium is inert while oxygen is flammable because of QM. The semiconductors that make up all modern integrated circuits exist because of QM.
 
Rppa, thanks for the clarification about micro/macro in QM!
I need all the help I can get on my mission, and I'm grateful to have found it among those of you in this forum and in the Science/Math one.
 
DuckTapeFileMan said:
If you think you understand free will, then you don't understand free will. [/B]
Click to expand...

I should have said, if you understand conciousness then perhaps you don't really understand conciousness.
Free will,on the other hand, is just one of those things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom