Quantum Physics

[Cuddles]

If you really are completely scientifically illiterate, the "Uncle Albert" series by Russell Stannard could be worth a look. They're aimed at younger people really, but because of that they describe relativity and quantum mechanics in very easily understandable terms, although obviously not as accurately as more advanced books.

 

[dogjones]

Have a read of this article. I think it will really help you - it's very clearly written and very interesting. I find it quite an effective medicine for the New-Ague!

 

[Dumbledore]

What can I say to all the people who fall back on the quantum physics thing to support their New Age conclusions? I know they don't understand it enough to know what they're talking about, but I don't understand it enough to counter them. Help?

Sigh my mother is an astrologer, I am a electrical engineering and physics double major in college. I have grown very use to hearing new age arguments, I usually choose not to refute her arguments so I don't hurt her feelings.

First of all as others have posted you are not going to win any New Agers over by seriously discussing QM. But you can get a basic non-mathematical understanding, as much as anyone can understand QM, of QM. I would try "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "Schrodinger's Kittens" both by John Gribbin. Both these books offer a great explanation of QM phenomena in a non-mathematical way. Expect to be confused, QM is inherently confusing, but the confusion just means you are well on your way to learning about the baffling world of QM.

Finally, the fast and dirty way to deal with New Agers and their arguments dealing with QM is that QM deals with describing and predicting the atomic and subatomic world. So astrology, reiki healing, telepathy, psychics, etc, any of that stuff is not supported by a theory that deals with the atomic and subatomic world period. Lastly if you cannot drag something into a laboratory and prove that it exists or works, you cannot prove it scientifically. So this excludes the New Age QM argument outright, in which you cannot prove in the laboratory. P.S. I have committed the fallacy of saying science proves anything, it cannot, you can only disprove with science, but when it comes to New Age beliefs dealing with QM those can't be disprove either, i.e. there not scientific beliefs or assertions.

 

[Ashles]

Isn't one of the biggest issues that they are often ascribing properties and behaviours they have heard about QM that ONLY apply to subatomic particles to macro scale objects?

Like entanglement and superpositioning etc?

Also I know people like to say that we should know the maths for QM to refute nonsense claims, but is this really true? Are there not many (relatively) simple aspects and properties of QM that can be grasped by the average layperson that would in themselves demonstrate why some of the New Age claims don't hold up to evan a cursory analysis?

E.g. an understanding that Schrodinger's Cat is not meant to be a real experiment but was posited to illustrate pretty much the opposite of how people often interpret it? (I.e. he was saying don't get the scale issue confused otherwise you would end up with a ludicrous example like this)

 

[Mojo]

I would try "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "Schrodinger's Kittens" both by John Gribbin.

Of course, if you're going to cite Gribbin's books in published papers it might be an idea to spell his name correctly!

 

[Mojo]

Isn't one of the biggest issues that they are often ascribing properties and behaviours they have heard about QM that ONLY apply to subatomic particles to macro scale objects?

Like entanglement and superpositioning etc?

Also I know people like to say that we should know the maths for QM to refute nonsense claims, but is this really true? Are there not many (relatively) simple aspects and properties of QM that can be grasped by the average layperson that would in themselves demonstrate why some of the New Age claims don't hold up to evan a cursory analysis?

E.g. an understanding that Schrodinger's Cat is not meant to be a real experiment but was posited to illustrate pretty much the opposite of how people often interpret it? (I.e. he was saying don't get the scale issue confused otherwise you would end up with a ludicrous example like this)

They seem to be proposing something called "Weak Quantum Theory" to get around the scale issue: see, for example, this section of the paper I linked to above, and in particularly with respect to reference [21].

It might have been a bit more credible if he'd managed to get the units of Planck's constant (J s, not J s^-1) right. Or maybe not.

 

[shpalman]

The "Weak Quantum Theory" paper is nicely analysed in this thread.

 

[Dumbledore]

Isn't one of the biggest issues that they are often ascribing properties and behaviours they have heard about QM that ONLY apply to subatomic particles to macro scale objects?

Like entanglement and superpositioning etc?

E.g. an understanding that Schrodinger's Cat is not meant to be a real experiment but was posited to illustrate pretty much the opposite of how people often interpret it? (I.e. he was saying don't get the scale issue confused otherwise you would end up with a ludicrous example like this)

The whole point of QM is that you cannot apply it to macro objects. The physics that applies to macro objects is Newtonian and Relativity not QM. QM only applies to the atomic and sub-atomic ever, it is invalid in any other scale or realm!

Schroedinger's Cat was meant to be a thought experiment to show the ridiculousness of QM by our normal Newtonian standards of physics and our normal perceptions. In fact this experiment in of itself shows the bizarreness of QM quite clearly, and why many people have a hard time with QM.

 

[Cuddles]

The whole point of QM is that you cannot apply it to macro objects. The physics that applies to macro objects is Newtonian and Relativity not QM. QM only applies to the atomic and sub-atomic ever, it is invalid in any other scale or realm!

This isn't quite true. There is no sudden cutoff where quantum physics stops being true, it is a continuum. What happens is that the effects become less and less obvious as the scale increases. An electron passing through a narrow slit will be diffracted. A human walking through a door will also be diffracted, but by such a small amount that it is impossible to notice (in fact, to get any noticeable effect the human would need to be walking so slowly that even the protons and neutrons in them would have decayed before they made it through). Classical mechanics is not a seperate thing from quantum mechanics, it is simply the limit of quantum mechanics at large scale. The same is true for relativity and Newtonian mechanics. They are not seperate things, Newtonian mechanics is just the low-velocity limit of relativity.

I think it is important to realise this, because simply stating that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to human scales seems entirely arbitrary to the layperson, and is probably one of the reasons why quantum quackery is so popular - people are told that it doesn't apply, but they are very rarely actually given a reason why this should be so, even though the reason is actually very simple. In addition, there are plenty of exceptions, such as superconductors and superfluids, where quantum physics is very obvious at large scales. These exceptions contradict flat statements that quantum physics doesn't apply, but can easily be explained when classical mechanics is understood as a limit rather than an arbitrary boundary.

 

[Beady]

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.

"Learn it like a catechism" means that you know it by rote and can regurgitate it at will, but not necessarily with any understanding. Far better to look your adversary in the eye and say, "Look, you don't know any more than I do about quantum mechanics; how can you explain how something works by invoking something you know nothing about?"

Look up Sam Harris' science cartoons (via Google) and find the cartoon where, in the middle of the equation, the scientist writes "Then a miracle occurs." Another scientist is saying, "I think you need to be more explicit in that step."

 

[blobru]

The worst abuses I see of QM (e.g., What the Bleep Do We Know? [not much]) in New Age spirituality usually follow this pattern:

In QM, an electron for example is a probability wave without definite location until we measure it; then the wave collapses to a particle.

Pretty weird, right? There are many ways to interpret this weirdness: one theory ("Subjective Copenhagenism") is that the act of measurement itself collapses the wave into a particle.

New-Agers just love this theory! And love to misapply it in their own beliefs.

So, original statement of one interpretation of QM...
electron (probability wave) --> measurement --> electron (particle location)

becomes...
electron (doesn't really exist yet) --> consciousness --> electron (definitely exists)
[All wrong! The electron does exist before and after it is observed; only its formal description has changed. Plus, 'consciousness' is not the same as 'measurement'.] In spite of this, New Agers declare:

Therefore, consciousness caused something to exist which didn't before! Consciousness creates reality!!!

They then expand their QM epiphany to the world around them:
reality (doesn't exist yet) --> conscious thought (about reality) --> reality (created by thought)

i.e.:
anything is possible! --> just wish for whatever you want!! --> and you'll get it!!!

which is The Secret, OMG! And after a certain idiot talk show hostess buys into the scheme, the drivel becomes gazillion $$$ gospel! (Wondering how much QM OW does in her spare time?)

Anyway Mariah, that's Quantum woo in a nutshell, as I understand it at least. Apologies for any errors -- I'm not a physicist (obviously). But I have run into the same thing you describe in your OP, so thought my unprofessional 'debunking' might be helpful.

 

[Jimbo07]

This isn't quite true. There is no sudden cutoff where quantum physics stops being true, it is a continuum. What happens is that the effects become less and less obvious as the scale increases.

I remember a 'fun' example second year problem. The idea was to calculate the 'fuzziness' of the boundary of a baseball (clearly, a macroscopic particle). Make some assumptions about the momentum, use Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the back of a napkin, a calculator and shake a chicken under the full moon and you get an answer on the order of 10^-34 m. The observability of quantum effects on a baseball is practically homeopathic!

 

[illogical]

most of the sophomore physics book have a section on relativity and QM. also surveys of physics, e.g. Fraser's The New Physics which has sections on particle and string theory. Feynman's Lectures on Physics volume III?

Serway's Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Young/Freedman, Halliday/Resnick/Krane. more advanced are books like Serway's Modern Physics. these generally are easier than dedicated QM and QFT books.

as far as popularizations, maybe Gribbins's books, but i prefer to read ones by experts.

 

[illogical]

Quantum woo in a nutshell

great book idea. i wonder if Zee would sue?

 

[Dumbledore]

This isn't quite true. There is no sudden cutoff where quantum physics stops being true, it is a continuum. What happens is that the effects become less and less obvious as the scale increases. An electron passing through a narrow slit will be diffracted. A human walking through a door will also be diffracted, but by such a small amount that it is impossible to notice (in fact, to get any noticeable effect the human would need to be walking so slowly that even the protons and neutrons in them would have decayed before they made it through). Classical mechanics is not a seperate thing from quantum mechanics, it is simply the limit of quantum mechanics at large scale. The same is true for relativity and Newtonian mechanics. They are not seperate things, Newtonian mechanics is just the low-velocity limit of relativity.

I think it is important to realise this, because simply stating that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to human scales seems entirely arbitrary to the layperson, and is probably one of the reasons why quantum quackery is so popular - people are told that it doesn't apply, but they are very rarely actually given a reason why this should be so, even though the reason is actually very simple. In addition, there are plenty of exceptions, such as superconductors and superfluids, where quantum physics is very obvious at large scales. These exceptions contradict flat statements that quantum physics doesn't apply, but can easily be explained when classical mechanics is understood as a limit rather than an arbitrary boundary.

You of course are quite right but from what I have found from New Agers is that they don't understand the distinction between an effect becoming arbitrarily small, so that we can't measure it or it not having any effect, and being told that QM doesn't effect the macro world. I agree with you of course that QM effects are in the macro world, they don't suddenly disappear, but if you tell New Agers this they will only use it to seed their arguments, no matter how much you explain the details of QM in the macro world and its insignificant small effect if their is any.

By defination New Agers do not posses the ability to distinguish and understand the subtleties of science in its details, they either don't want to or are unable to. New Agers want simple explanations for their most bizarre beliefs that they cannot support any other way, so they go after QM. I am not proposing lying about science, one should never do so, but omitting certain details, that they will not bother to understand fully, and that they will certainly will try to misconstrue is also wise. There is no need to hand New Agers ammunition for there arguments while discussing these issues with them. In short keep it clean and simple, even if QM isn't.

 

[Dumbledore]

most of the sophomore physics book have a section on relativity and QM. also surveys of physics, e.g. Fraser's The New Physics which has sections on particle and string theory. Feynman's Lectures on Physics volume III?

Serway's Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Young/Freedman, Halliday/Resnick/Krane. more advanced are books like Serway's Modern Physics. these generally are easier than dedicated QM and QFT books.

as far as popularizations, maybe Gribbins's books, but i prefer to read ones by experts.

I agree with you that actual physics books will give a far more accurate view of QM, but they do require a freshman background in physics and math, Gribbins books do not, and they give a basic idea of the concepts in QM. Which is more than enough to argue any New Ager into the ground!

 

[Mojo]

By defination New Agers do not posses the ability to distinguish and understand the subtleties of science in its details...

The irony here is that "subtle" is one of their favourite words. They use it to explain why something they insist exists can't be detected: "it's subtle".

 

[Cuddles]

but if you tell New Agers this they will only use it to seed their arguments, no matter how much you explain the details of QM in the macro world and its insignificant small effect if their is any.

By defination New Agers do not posses the ability to distinguish and understand the subtleties of science in its details, they either don't want to or are unable to.

I would disagree with these statements. Many new age types are not just blind believers or quacks, they simply don't understand. Explaining actual reality to them is likely to be far more effective than simply telling them they are wrong. No doubt the people who make up the stuff about quantum physics won't care, but many of the people who are suckered in by them can be helped by educating them.

As for new agers using this to help their arguments, as I said in my last post I think part of the problem is actually the opposite. Simply telling people that they are wrong, so there, does nothing to educate or convince them. If you can actually teach people why quantum physics doesn't apply the macro scale rather than simply telling them it is so, you will be much more effective at countering the woo.

At the moment I see the situation as bascially new agers say "It works, but we don't know how", scientists say "It doesn't work, but we won't tell you how". People just pick which one to believe, which is rarely going to be the scientists. If instead the scientists say "It doesn't work and this is why it doesn't work", it can only help the scientists and not the new agers.

 

[SomeGuy]

I remember a 'fun' example second year problem. The idea was to calculate the 'fuzziness' of the boundary of a baseball (clearly, a macroscopic particle). Make some assumptions about the momentum, use Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the back of a napkin, a calculator and shake a chicken under the full moon and you get an answer on the order of 10^-34 m. The observability of quantum effects on a baseball is practically homeopathic!

Yeah I remember in 2nd year of physics we calculate the chance a car would bounce back when it drove into a canal.

(With the following simplifications: The car is represented by it's De Brogli wavelength, and the canal is a simple gravitational potential well).

I don't know the exact answer anymore, but it made Avagadro's number look small.

 

[fls]

I would disagree with these statements. Many new age types are not just blind believers or quacks, they simply don't understand. Explaining actual reality to them is likely to be far more effective than simply telling them they are wrong.

I used to believe this, but ignorance seems to be an endless pit. I don't think the problem is that they don't understand, but rather that they don't want to understand. Surely you've tried this yourself? You make a concerted effort to explain, becoming increasingly detailed as they counter with attempts to leave themselves an out, until one or the other of you tires of it. It always devolves to a point where you are simply telling them they they are wrong. As beautifully put as your explanation about what QM means at a macro level was, a new ager wouldn't leave it at that. It would be countered with additional gobbledygook, leading you further and further down the path of "simply don't understand". You think you will be arriving at your destination just around the next bend, but the path has no end. It's not a difference in knowledge or understanding. It's a difference in approach to knowledge and understanding, or lack thereof.

Linda