Quantum Physics
- Thread starter Mariah
- Start date
Mariah said:
I would learn some quantum mechanics - then you'll understand it enough to know whether they know what they're talking about.
Also consider that the value of quantum mechanics, like all science, is in its ability to explain our observations of the universe. Our theories are determined by reality, not the other way round. If quantum mechanics really is predicting various new age phenomena, then it isn't a very good theory.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,585
Mariah said:
I'm not sure how helpful this will be, but one way of approaching the problem is noting that such "New Age" junk that attempts to use quantum mechanics never actually uses any math. Quantum mechanics, despite its weirdness, is ultimately a mathematically rigorous theory. Its predictions come from that math, and while you may hear people try to claim that there are inherent uncertainties in quantum mechanics (you're often working with probability distributions), there's no uncertainty about the equations themselves. If you can't do the math, you can't make a prediction. If you can't make a prediction, then you're just talking out your backside.
The other approach, of course, is that quantum mechanics is only useful to the extent that it actually describes observable reality. If there's a discrepency between the theory and reality, then the theory is wrong, not reality. So if they've got extraordinary claims, then there should be experimental proof, regardless of what the theory says. And experimental proof doesn't consist of annecdotes, it consists of controlled experiments with rigorous protocols.
They're bound to have neither the math nor the experiments to back up their claims, but it's likely to be highly nontrivial to get them to realize either of these things.
JamesM wrote: If quantum mechanics really is predicting various new age phenomena, then it isn't a very good theory.
Mariah writes: I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Yes, I agree I should learn some quantum mechanics. Can you recommend a site or a book? What I read years ago was woo woo, I think: Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li Masters, etc.
If there's a book about quantum written for the express purpose of challenging new age, I'd like to know. There's an idea. I'll check Prometheus Books. Can't trust what you find on Amazon by any other publisher.
I am a complete scientific illiterate, I'm sorry to say.
Thanks for the reply.
Mariah writes: I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Yes, I agree I should learn some quantum mechanics. Can you recommend a site or a book? What I read years ago was woo woo, I think: Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li Masters, etc.
If there's a book about quantum written for the express purpose of challenging new age, I'd like to know. There's an idea. I'll check Prometheus Books. Can't trust what you find on Amazon by any other publisher.
I am a complete scientific illiterate, I'm sorry to say.
Thanks for the reply.
Zig wrote:
Quantum mechanics, despite its weirdness, is ultimately a mathematically rigorous theory. Its predictions come from that math, and while you may hear people try to claim that there are inherent uncertainties in quantum mechanics (you're often working with probability distributions), there's no uncertainty about the equations themselves. If you can't do the math, you can't make a prediction. If you can't make a prediction, then you're just talking out your backside.
and
And experimental proof doesn't consist of annecdotes, it consists of controlled experiments with rigorous protocols.
Mariah writes: yes, this, as well as the rest of what you wrote, is something I can begin to sink my teeth in a bit. I'll learn it like a catechism. Thanks, much.
Quantum mechanics, despite its weirdness, is ultimately a mathematically rigorous theory. Its predictions come from that math, and while you may hear people try to claim that there are inherent uncertainties in quantum mechanics (you're often working with probability distributions), there's no uncertainty about the equations themselves. If you can't do the math, you can't make a prediction. If you can't make a prediction, then you're just talking out your backside.
and
And experimental proof doesn't consist of annecdotes, it consists of controlled experiments with rigorous protocols.
Mariah writes: yes, this, as well as the rest of what you wrote, is something I can begin to sink my teeth in a bit. I'll learn it like a catechism. Thanks, much.
Mariah said:
What I mean is, there just isn't very much evidence for new age things out here in the real world. I'm not saying there's no evidence, but to my mind, the evidence is slim at best. So, if someone did some sums and discovered that somehow telepathy just "falls out" of quantum mechanics, QM must be wrong because there just aren't many telepaths out in the real world, and quite possibly there are none.
I'm afraid I've never got along with popular science books - they always leave me more baffled than when I started. I think this is particularly acute with QM, because it is very mathematical, and built on solid foundations of classical physics, which is also very mathematical.
My honest belief is that if someone really wants to learn some aspect of QM you would need to start by:
1. Learning some maths (calculus, and probably at least up to vector calculus).
2. Getting to grips with classical mechanics.
3. Getting to grips with classical electrodynamics.
These steps are necessary because in my opinion, QM is hard enough as it is without also having to take on all at once integrals, vectors, vector fields, the concept of Hamiltonians and the interesting things that happen when magnetic and electric fields interact. Finally...
4. Then learn some quantum mechanics.
I'm a chemist, so the QM I'm thinking about would begin with the deeply unglamorous world of the 1D particle in a box and work up to the dizzy heights of electronic structure theory and such heady delights as triple zeta basis sets and Møller-Plesset perturbation theory.
If that sounds a bit dry and boring, well, it often is. But it does put in perspective the sort of thing that quantum mechanics is about. You'd get a different answer from a physicist, but that's why I think it's a pretty hopeless task to take on QM ideas in the New Age without doing some serious homework.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Even if you do your homework, all it will enable you to do is to identify the New Ager's argument as nonsense. You won't be able to get them to understand why their argument is nonsense because (and I pretty much guarantee this) they will certainly not have done enough homework themselves to be able to understand your rebuttal. So you'll still be left with the question from the first post in this thread: what do you say to them?JamesM said:
Certainly, although I'm not sure how profound how it is.Mariah said:
As a chemist, the sort of particles I'm interested in are electrons and more importantly, how they behave at the level of molecules. Physicists are interested in the quantum behaviour of all sort of particles, although plenty are interested in chemicals, too.
Even in chemistry, the application of QM differs. Someone else might tell you that electronic structure was dull as dull pie, and quantum reaction dynamics is where the action is.
There's not so much as a sniff of the supernatural, though.
GrnMtSkeptic
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 220
Mariah said:
The Unconscious Quantum:
Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology
by Victor Stenger
This might be tough, even for the above book which is more along the lines of popular science than QM text. Sample chapters available at http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/meta.html if you want to check those out before you buy.
-Bob
Mojo said:
If you know QM you can say "I doubt that very much".
If you don't know QM, you shouldn't say anything at all. Repeating what someone else has told you with no understanding is even worse, how does that differ from the new age proponent?
I mean, we're all agreed that skepticism is a process, not a series of 'right' answers, so "I don't know" or silence is appropriate on some occasions.
James M:
If you know QM you can say "I doubt that very much".
If you don't know QM, you shouldn't say anything at all. Repeating what someone else has told you with no understanding is even worse, how does that differ from the new age proponent?
Mariah:
You're right. You are so right about that.
If you know QM you can say "I doubt that very much".
If you don't know QM, you shouldn't say anything at all. Repeating what someone else has told you with no understanding is even worse, how does that differ from the new age proponent?
Mariah:
You're right. You are so right about that.
GrnMtnSkeptic wrote: This might be tough, even for the above book which is more along the lines of popular science than QM text. Sample chapters available at http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/meta.html if you want to check those out before you buy.
-Bob
Mariah writes: I'm reading this now, the excerpts via the link you gave. Thanks, it's great! I may link to it via my website.
-Bob
Mariah writes: I'm reading this now, the excerpts via the link you gave. Thanks, it's great! I may link to it via my website.
JamesM said:
As for the maths part I'd just like to suggest a special emphasis on statistics and probability as this is very fundamental to the theory. Also it might be an advantage to have heard of differential equations, even if you don't know how to solve them (although the method of separation of variables is rather easy to learn and can come in handy). Also some basic knowledge of complex analysis and multivariable analysis. Some basic linear algebra can also come in handy if you ever come across the matrix mechanics version. I could probably go on and on but I'll stop here. You'll probably find out what you need to learn as you go.
Anyway, just to sum up. The better background you have in math the more time you can spend on the mind baffling physics of QM which in itself can be hard to grasp, as Richard Feynman suggested:
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Well then you need a real expert to help you. Such as a New Age woowoo. I suggest the following approach. Keep your tone completely sincere throughout.Mariah said:
"Oh, I didn't know you knew quantum theory. Gosh, aren't you clever? I had a look at it once, but the maths just baffled silly old me. Would you mind... could you talk me through the derivation of the time-independent Schroedinger equation just one more time?"
Twenty Quantum Nutters
CurtC
Illuminator
I think Ziggurat's post above is excellent. Just to re-inforce it, quantum theory is really a mathematical equation that you solve for specific scenarios. This math is very well-defined. What stumps people about it is the interpretation of what's going on in terms people can comprehend based on a macro-thinking brains, and that just doesn't work. But QM itself is not mysterious or woo. If someone says that QM supports their notions, ask to see their math.
Also, Mariah, you can use the "quote" tag to indicate what other people have said when you reply to them. I can't figure out how to show you without it quoting the words in-between, but use quote and /quote, enclosed in square brackets, [].
Also, Mariah, you can use the "quote" tag to indicate what other people have said when you reply to them. I can't figure out how to show you without it quoting the words in-between, but use quote and /quote, enclosed in square brackets, [].
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Mariah said:
Ask them to produce, derive, and explain the equations that validate their claim. Because, as others have already said so well, QM is mathematically based and its predictions can be tested resulting in objective evidence.
I have not seen any New Age type be able to do that no matter how many QM buzz words they throw about!
shpalman
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 203
A nice paper was linked to here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2726338&postcount=34
It may not be that readable to a non-specialist but it's short and free so worth a try.
Lionel Milgrom's bluffing is on a whole other level, though: basically copy out some derivations (badly) from a textbook and then claim he has a metaphor/model/analogy for the action of homeopathy. I recommend the Sokal & Bricmont book - it concerns abuse of science by postmodern philosophers.
It may not be that readable to a non-specialist but it's short and free so worth a try.
Lionel Milgrom's bluffing is on a whole other level, though: basically copy out some derivations (badly) from a textbook and then claim he has a metaphor/model/analogy for the action of homeopathy. I recommend the Sokal & Bricmont book - it concerns abuse of science by postmodern philosophers.