Is quantum physics bunk?

[Songtsan]

http://www.darkmoon.me/2015/quantum-physics-is-bunk-says-top-quantum-physicist/

[thelerner]

Don't know, but I think you might need more input then one physicist to declare a vast scientific theory debunked.  Plus the article gets way side tracked by religious implications.  

[Mandrake]

Don't know, but I think you might need more input then one physicist to declare a vast scientific theory debunked. 

 

Seconded. The OP-post displays ignorance of scientific evidence and the scientific method in general.

 

 

M

[Taomeow]

Seconded. The OP-post displays ignorance of scientific evidence and the scientific method in general.

 

 

M

 

I spent a good more-than-half of my life among physicists, mathematicians, and in houses where I had a hard time squeezing my herbal encyclopedias into any shelf space not occupied by books on quantum mechanics (which is incidentally the correct term -- there's no such thing as "quantum physics.")  I can attest to the fact that people who don't have the foggiest about the subject matter of this science or its methods have much more reverence for its purported infallibility than people who actually do it.  

Edited March 21, 2015 by Taomeow

[GrandmasterP]

QP is so 20th century.

Superstring theory is the only game in town nowadays.

[Geof Nanto]

There are two fundamental views on the nature of ‘reality’; namely realism and constructivism.  A simple realism argues that reality is as it is and it can be cognised and represented as such. This view underpins the scientific method and obviously has much validity - as, for instance, our technology testifies.

 

On the other hand, a constructivists view of reality posits that ‘reality’ only emerges as a result of construction by an observer. This does not mean that there is no reality, but that it emerges as a reality only when it is observed.  From this perspective the  assumption that there is such a thing as objective knowledge is flimsy. Commenting on Michael Frayn’s   ‘The Human Touch: Our Part in the Creation of a Universe’,  John Banville writes  “The universe plainly exists independently of human consciousness; but what can ever be said about it that has not been mediated through that consciousness? What can ever be wordlessly seen of it that is not dependent upon the existence of a single viewpoint from which to see it? What can be understood of it without the scale and context of human purposes, or the instruments of human thought?.”

 

I'm no expert on quantum mechanics, but to my mind it seems to exist on the boundary of these two views; namely at this subtle level of 'matter', measurement of 'reality' and construction of 'reality' cannot be separated.

[Marblehead]

I have almost no knowledge of quantum physics but it is my understanding that the theories work very will at the quantum level.  But when they are applied at the macro level they are pretty much a failure.

[Taomeow]

I have almost no knowledge of quantum physics but it is my understanding that the theories work very will at the quantum level.  But when they are applied at the macro level they are pretty much a failure.

 

Which is the same thing as serving chocolate ice cream and sewing needles in one scoop and ignoring all objections.  Tailors do make good use of sewing needles.  Kids love chocolate ice cream.  So why not mix them together and call this product Tailor's Ice Cream...  er...  Modern Physics.  That, after all, IS the scientific method some of our contemporaries are so proud of that has been applied to the field so far.   

[voidisyinyang]

My first year of college I took quantum mechanics. The harvard trained quantum physicist said the problem is that quantum physics should be taught first since it's the foundation of physics. Everyone learns the old classical physics first and so are brainwashed in thinking that way and so have the wrong foundation for science.

 

http://www.templetonprize.org/esprelease.html

 

So then I've read tons of quantum physics books over the years - I recommend that link - his book. Bernard D'Espagnat.

 

Basically you can logically infer formless awareness from quantum physics - but since it is western science quantum physics always has to convert the infinite potential back into a symmetric math as classical physics using the Poisson Bracket (the symmetric math equation).

 

So that's why all the faster than the speed of light signals get dismissed by mainstream classical physics.

 

So then if you get into quantum biology - you find that these ftl (faster than light) signals do exist - for plants and considered for birds also.

 

Quantum biology was considered bunk - I got booted off the top science blog, PZ Myers for promoting quantum biology and qigong back in 2006 or so - but then in 2012 Scientific American did a cover story on quantum biology.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.njit.edu%2F~simeone%2Fvedral.pdf&ei=LAoOVdqDIce4ggTtv4LgCQ&usg=AFQjCNGdvg17137T9UEA0nbuE04pdCD4aQ&bvm=bv.89060397,bs.1,d.eXY

 

 So that's the pdf link for that article on quantum biology.

 

Yeah so basically photon entanglement as ftl signalling has been proven to be real but since it can't be replicated by technology - it always has to be measured after the fact using classical measurements - and so only through qigong or meditation can a person access it. haha.

 

But the Law of Phase Harmony modeled by de Broglie is pretty awesome - and actually debunks Einstein in the sense that again quantum physics is the foundation of science - de Broglie questioned relativity in order to figure out the Law of Phase Harmony. Because under relativity - time slows down as things approach the speed of light - but as classical physics a slower time means a lower frequency yet the speed of light is based on a higher frequency or smaller wavelength. In other words the Law of Pythagoras - the basic inverse proportion of frequency and wavelength is violated by relativity. So that's how faster than light signaling had to be empirical true.

 

So - but the thing is the ancients knew that already - science is based on a bad foundation that mathematicians know about - Borzacchini calls it the "pre-established deep disharmony." So you can consider quantum physics to be the opposite extreme of qigong Tai Chi training - it discovers the same truth but through the opposite means, using symmetric math, while qigong uses complementary opposites. I've researched this foundation of science as a lie about non-western music theory. In quantum physics it's just called Fourier Uncertainty - or time-frequency uncertainty.

 

But anyway I would say 99% of the quantum physics books out there are not worth reading that much because again they stay stuck in the western science framework. Bernard d'Espagnat does a great job reviewing quantum physics and then he goes outside of it based on logical inference of formless awareness.

 

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho is the best on quantum biology - her new article is great on http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F1099-4300%2F16%2F9%2F4874%2Fpdf&ei=KwwOVcuAK8efgwSZ6YCgDw&usg=AFQjCNF3_-qaVYbDZShpS__Yf1WQTXPUzA&bvm=bv.88528373,d.eXY&cad=rja

 

pdf link - basically she argues this is the secret science that explains qigong energy.

 

It's fascinating stuff.

 

Also makes sense.

 

yeah that link has a section on acupuncture meridians based on quantum science - a peer-reviewed science journal. haha.

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[voidisyinyang]

[Seeker of Wisdom]

It's pretty obvious that this Goswami guy isn't a real physicist, from what he says about the Large Hadron Collider.

 

Fuck knows what the thing does – no one does. Firing particles at each other at the speed of light can’t end well. I’m just worried now we took the joke too far.

Particle collisions happen all the time in the upper atmosphere, and throughout the universe, and at much higher energies than in the LHC. This has had no effect. The only difference in the LHC is that it has measuring equipment!

 

Reading one side of an argument is no way to reach a reasoned conclusion.

 

*edit* silly me, should have read further.

 

I have just learned that the website that published the above article specializes in satirical spoofs. So quantum physics fans can relax! The above article was satire.

That appears to be the only solid fact on the whole page.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Marblehead]

Reading one side of an argument is no way to reach a reasoned conclusion.

Hehehe.  So true but oftentimes I just like my opinion so much better.

[soaring crane]

You (and everybody else who was actually believing the claims of that text to be real)

should first check your actual sources thoroughly with your discriminating mind,

instead of blindly believing every word you read.

(Must be the "guru boy mentality"...)

The actual source of the text is the following website with "breaking news" like these:

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/category/breaking-news/

Do I need to explain further as what this text has to be considered?

 

Beat me to it. This is like quoting Onion articles. That kind of language in a Goswami quote should be an immediate red flag that sends you to the source (which is included at the bottom of the text!). A quick perusal of the other links on that webpage says all that needs be said.

 

Goswami has been doing this for a long time; he's trying to reconcile his religious beliefs with his scientific experiences. His book are well received, afaik.

[thelerner]

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if some established quantum physics is bunk and much of its theoretical outliers.  It's sciences most sexy, hip, paradoxical field verging on science fiction.  There's a certain elitist swag to claiming full understanding of some of the more out there theories. 

 

Course that's just one version of me speaking.  The others would probably disagree depending on who observed. 

[Songtsan]

Ahh! Caught!

 

I didn't read the whole thing...was in a funny mood

 

I have read some stuff by him before though....he has interesting opinions..

 

Glad someone around here pays attention though

[9th]

QP is so 20th century. Superstring theory is the only game in town nowadays.

 

I only know some passing info on Superstring theory, and therefore it seems pretty ridiculous.  It seems pretty difficult to get an understanding on the idea of "10 dimensions" without some serious mathematical theorization.  As an abstract correlation to ancient metaphysics, it seems interesting - as are all the correlations between all kinds of other knowledge in modern physics.

 

Im not sure how much practical experimentation has gone on in this area as well, I just dont follow it that closely, although I did hear that the discovery of a possible Higgs boson at the LHC was considered revolutionary, then just a mistake, then confirmed again, etc. etc.  So thats probably a step in the right direction.

 

The standard model of particle physics is a view of all the particles and forces in the universe that explains the connections among them. Its underlying logic consists of deep mathematical symmetries that are believed to rule the interactions among elementary particles. The model is explained through quantum field theory—an amalgam of quantum mechanics and Einstein’s special theory of relativity. (If the general theory of relativity were to also be incorporated into this framework, it should lead to an understanding of quantum gravity.)

 

It is according to the standard model that the Higgs boson (which could be called the Higgs-Brout-Englert-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble boson, for the other physicists whose work contributed to its discovery) endows particles with mass.

 

Many of the massive particles are, in fact, fermions, and so the Higgs is believed to couple to them. But this could not be proved as long as the Higgs was not found to decay—directly—into any of them.

 

Enter the Tau

 

In the new research work, just published in the journal Nature Physics,physicists fired protons at each other (as the Large Hadron Collider does) and scrutinized the collision results to see if they could find leptons (fermions that are similar to the electron, including the electron itself). In particular, they were looking for the heaviest lepton known, called the tau particle. The reason for this is that the more massive a particle is, the stronger its coupling to the Higgs. The tau is 3,500 times more massive than the electron (weighing in at about 1.8 GeV). And indeed researchers spotted tau leptons with a high degree of certainty, proving a decay of the Higgs boson into leptons.

 

The new findings are at a level of 3.8 sigma. This means, roughly speaking, that there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that the results are a false positive. The physicists are now waiting to confirm the result at the more exacting (and standard in particle physics) 5-sigma level, which would mean the probability described above would be roughly 1 in two million.

 

More work will be necessary, in order to both obtain stronger statistical proof of the new findings, and further verify other properties of the boson. But it looks like we are finally getting pretty close to certainty that the Higgs particle exists, and it agrees with the theory that has launched the massive search for it.

 

[Songtsan]

What happened was I read this post here: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2805978/pg1 and I thought it was interesting sounding and I just reposted without looking into it.

 

Can you believe it!

 

I hate when people do that....really

[Marblehead]

 

I hate when people do that....really

Well, don't be looking at me to find someone who doesn't make a mistake now and then.  You would be looking at the wrong person.

[Nikolai1]

The basic epistemological assumption of the human being is the subject and object split, yet mystical experience reveals this to be an illusion.

 

In search of purity, the lesser philosophers, while tacitly endorsing this split, try to reduce everything down to of the two assumptions. Thus we have the two corresponding world views:

 

1 Realism, materialism, empiricism - reality is independent from us.

2 Idealism, constructivism, rationalism - we create reality from our own consciousness.

 

Quantum mechanics is a corpus of intellectual theory that in some places assumes worldview 1 and at other times 2, but this in in the most part unconscious. Physicists imagine that they are exploring reality empirically and that he observer effect is 'out there' as a feature of reality. They do not understand that the moment they recognise the observer effect they have become idealists - by that I mean, that they are understanding nature as a rationalist through mathematics and fitting reality to preconceived concepts.

 

The quantum and the classical will never be reconciled. It is logically impossible. The only reason they even attempt is because they are confused by the fact they all started with a physics degree and are operating within the same discipline. They are also confused because the physicist is typically a second rate thinker who hasn't the strength to absorb the insights of Immanuel Kant.

 

The highest thinkers approach reality directly and experientially because they understand the distorting nature of theory. They avoid the pitfalls of both realism and idealism. They don't synthesise the classical and the quantum, they completely transcend it.

 

There is a terrible modern habit of trying to use modern physics to validate the insights of the great spiritual teachers like the Buddha. As if Buddhism has now been empirically proven! It's a joke, really, but you hear it a lot, especially in new age circles.

 

Physics is an intellectual trap, which traps the second raters. Move on from it, if you can.

[Marblehead]

I liked that post except the part about Immanuel Kant.  I discarded him a long time ago.

[doc benway]

What happened was I read this post here: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2805978/pg1 and I thought it was interesting sounding and I just reposted without looking into it.

 

Can you believe it!

 

I hate when people do that....really

 

I always find it suspect when information on quantum mechanics is taken from a virulent anti-semitic and sexually obsessed source, but that's just me....

 

The beauty of modern physics methods and views (quantum mechanics, string theory,...) is that they seem to get closer and closer to my experiential frame of reference developed through years of Daoist and Buddhist practices. Very reassuring to see the scientific and spiritual paths converge, at least in my own limited interpretation and experience.

 

edit - corrected a few typos, it's early

Edited March 23, 2015 by steve

[Nikolai1]

By all means move on from Kant, but only if you've understood him first. Hegel ,Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Jaspers and kierkegaard were the five steps I took next.

 

But most physicists have yet to reach Kant.

[Marblehead]

By all means move on from Kant, but only if you've understood him first. Hegel ,Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Jaspers and kierkegaard were the five steps I took next. But most physicists have yet to reach Kant.

Seems you got all serious about it.  Hehehe.  I stopped at Nietzsche because I found the TTC.

[Marblehead]

Well, I did go on to Camus but we can never mention a Frenchman and a German in the same post.