Demystifying Quantum Physics

[zaybu]

Hmmm.....here we are at 34 pages, and I don't see that QM is any more 'demystified' than at the beginning. In fact.....

Unfortunately you've been dealing with Spinkles who believes in spooky action at a distance, which was debunked here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3332934-post352.html

He is from the "old" school, and has a tenous grasp on the subject.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Unfortunately you've been dealing with Spinkles who believes in spooky action at a distance, which was debunked here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3332934-post352.html

He is from the "old" school, and has a tenous grasp on the subject.

... Says the guy who got his MS in the 60s.

 

[zaybu]

... Says the guy who got his MS in the 60s.

Keep reading Legion's post and emulate his ad hominem attacks, as if this is going to prove your theory of spooky action at a distance.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Keep reading Legion's post and emulate his ad hominem attacks ...

... Says the guy whose previous post is an ad hominem attack.

 

[zaybu]

... Says the guy whose previous post is an ad hominem attack.

Stating a fact is not an ad hominem attack.

 

[johnhanks]

Stating a fact is not an ad hominem attack.

[BUTT-IN MODE] Technicality: fact or not, it's an ad hominem attack if it's irrelevant to the attackee's argument. Stating the fact that Bill Clinton was an adulterer would still have counted as an ad hominem attack if used against him in a political debate.

How relevant or irrelevant you consider your attacks on each other to be I leave you to wrangle about.[/BUTT-IN MODE]

 

[zaybu]

[BUTT-IN MODE] Technicality: fact or not, it's an ad hominem attack if it's irrelevant to the attackee's argument. Stating the fact that Bill Clinton was an adulterer would still have counted as an ad hominem attack if used against him in a political debate.

How relevant or irrelevant you consider your attacks on each other to be I leave you to wrangle about.[/BUTT-IN MODE]

Thanks. Some of our ad hominem attacks has been more about teasing each other than real insults, but you do make a good point.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

[BUTT-IN MODE] Technicality: fact or not, it's an ad hominem attack if it's irrelevant to the attackee's argument. Stating the fact that Bill Clinton was an adulterer would still have counted as an ad hominem attack if used against him in a political debate.

How relevant or irrelevant you consider your attacks on each other to be I leave you to wrangle about.[/BUTT-IN MODE]

I stand corrected. Zaybu's accusation wasn't ad hominem, just inaccurate.

 

[zaybu]

I stand corrected. Zaybu's accusation wasn't ad hominem, just inaccurate.

I stand corrected, Spinkles belief in spooky action at a distance is totally unfounded, totally unproven, totally unjustified.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I stand corrected, Spinkles belief in spooky action at a distance is totally unfounded, totally unproven, totally unjustified.

This implies you originally thought Spinkles was right about spooky action. Another contradiction.

 

[zaybu]

Originally Posted by zaybu
I stand corrected, Spinkles belief in spooky action at a distance is totally unfounded, totally unproven, totally unjustified.

This implies you originally thought Spinkles was right about spooky action. Another contradiction.

Nope, I thought Spinkles was trying to demystify quantum physics, instead he was mystifying it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Nope, I thought Spinkles was trying to demystify quantum physics, instead he was mystifying it.

It will always be mystifying to those who lack the ability or willingness to understand.

 

[zaybu]

It will always be mystifying to those who lack the ability or willingness to understand.

Then stop talking about yourself, and get some edumacation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Then stop talking about yourself, and get some edumacation.

Not all of us were born early enough to get our edumacation in the 1960's, like you and rest of the "younger generation". I'm from the "old" school, which means this millennium.

 

[zaybu]

Not all of us were born early enough to get our edumacation in the 1960's, like you and rest of the "younger generation". I'm from the "old" school, which means this millennium.

It might not occur to you that the word "old" does not necessarily refer to age but to a certain kind of mentality, which you have demonstrated with great splendor. If you were a man of integrity, and I'm not holding my breath on this, you would re-title this thread as " How can I help you to mystify Quantum Physics "-- signed Mr Spinkles.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It might not occur to you that the word "old" does not necessarily refer to age but to a certain kind of mentality, which you have demonstrated with great splendor. If you were a man of integrity, and I'm not holding my breath on this, you would re-title this thread as " How can I help you to mystify Quantum Physics "-- signed Mr Spinkles.

It might do you some good to hold your breath occasionally, instead of expelling it incessantly, not only on this but on a whole range of topics. If you have a substantive objection to anything I wrote in the OP, or elsewhere in this thread, please quote the offending post and I would be happy to discuss it with you.

The point of this thread is simply to clarify some misconceptions that arise when self-described mystics like Deepak Chopra talk about quantum mechanics. My goal is to make it accessible to everyone and avoid subtleties at the edges of scientific consensus, which in my view are irrelevant to the purpose of this thread.

 

[zaybu]

It might do you some good to hold your breath occasionally, instead of expelling it incessantly, not only on this but on a whole range of topics. If you have a substantive objection to anything I wrote in the OP, or elsewhere in this thread, please quote the offending post and I would be happy to discuss it with you.

The point of this thread is simply to clarify some misconceptions that arise when self-described mystics like Deepak Chopra talk about quantum mechanics. My goal is to make it accessible to everyone and avoid subtleties at the edges of scientific consensus, which in my view are irrelevant to the purpose of this thread.

I do not question your intentions. But your position on spooky action at a distance would make you ill-equipped to accomplish the task you have laid out for yourself. Isn't it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I do not question your intentions. But your position on spooky action at a distance would make you ill-equipped to accomplish the task you have laid out for yourself. Isn't it?

I honestly don't think so. Do you? We both acknowledge that quantum mechanics is a theory of probability, does that mean, as some mystics like Deepak Chopra would like to say, that "anything is possible" and we can therefore draw wild conclusions about what can happen in our everyday (classical) experience? No, quite the contrary. Just because quantum mechanics says the position of a baseball is uncertain in principle, does not imply that it is actually very uncertain at all in practice.

The same is true of quantum nonlocality: if you grant that it is true (for the sake of argument), that does not in any way imply that two macroscopic system (such as human brains) can become "entangled" so that thoughts are transferred instantaneously (which is what some mystics like Deepak Chopra would like us to believe). In practice, large macroscopic systems are never going to get entangled in any significant way. It's an extremely delicate effect, that's why Nobel prizes are given out for experiments which carefully prepare particles in entangled states, carefully separate them without letting them interact with their environment (which would destroy the entanglement), and try to measure the effect. And it's a very weak effect at that, much weaker than classical Newtonian "nonlocality" as I discussed in this post.

Wouldn't you agree with that much?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you were a man of integrity...

Are you claiming to be one? A person of integrity, that is? Do you think lying about having a PhD is something a person of integrity would do?

Is flouting an expertise of quantum physics (including quantum field theory and other branches apart from the basics of QM one might obtain as an undergraduate) by noting your years of experience teaching children at the Montreal Catholic School Commission something that someone of integrity does?

Let's grant for the sake of argument we're all idiots who know nothing at all about physics or science or mathematics, while your expertise is unmatched by anyone in the world. I don't recall Mr. Sprinkles lying about his credentials, or making misleading comments about years of experience teaching which (unless you were teaching graduate level physics to kids) can't possibly be relevant to your claims of expertise.

I can't possibly match the ways in which Mr. Sprinkles has both shown the numerous inaccurate (and often conflicting) statements you've made about quantum physics and also the restraint he has shown when dealing with someone whose invective is matched only by an unparalleled inability to admit to being wrong. So I have no expectations of getting you to admit this or to receiving anything other than insults about my ignorance.

What I can do, however, is use the posts you've made on this thread and show that you are a liar. That much requires no physics, no references to poor Alice and Bob, no reference to spins, etc. It's simply an easily shown fact.

Which means we can compare the lies you made about your expertise with the truth and not reference any technical aspects of physics at all. What claims, then, to integrity do you possess?

 

[zaybu]

I honestly don't think so. Do you? We both acknowledge that quantum mechanics is a theory of probability, does that mean, as some mystics like Deepak Chopra would like to say, that "anything is possible" and we can therefore draw wild conclusions about what can happen in our everyday (classical) experience? No, quite the contrary. Just because quantum mechanics says the position of a baseball is uncertain in principle, does not imply that it is actually very uncertain at all in practice.

The same is true of quantum nonlocality: if you grant that it is true (for the sake of argument), that does not in any way imply that two macroscopic system (such as human brains) can become "entangled" so that thoughts are transferred instantaneously (which is what some mystics like Deepak Chopra would like us to believe). In practice, large macroscopic systems are never going to get entangled in any significant way. It's an extremely delicate effect, that's why Nobel prizes are given out for experiments which carefully prepare particles in entangled states, carefully separate them without letting them interact with their environment (which would destroy the entanglement), and try to measure the effect. And it's a very weak effect at that, much weaker than classical Newtonian "nonlocality" as I discussed in this post.

Wouldn't you agree with that much?

Can you really wonder if you believe that spooky action at a distance exists, and then mystics grab onto that idea to believe that such force could be harnessed by the mind? One idea is not that farfetched from the other.