Quantum Bullsh*t

[pantheory]

 

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a mathematical system primarily involving statistics to primarily determine the probability of interaction events in the world of subatomic particles -  such as light, protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos and all of their anti-particles. QM is the best mathematical system we have to determine the probability of events involving known particle interactions with each other, and with larger matter particles such as atomic nuclei.

 

The problem is that there is no consensus theory to explain Quantum Mechanics; just a large group of theories, many of which have little recognition -- and some sound like pure BS IMHO. There have been little advances concerning quantum theory in the last 50 years. The particle physics involved has been denigrated by many including Einstein, with words such as  woo-Physics, quantum quackery , quantum mysticism, quantum BS, etc. Some of the theories relate to metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness,  intelligence, religion, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.Quantum mysticism is criticized by non-believers with expert knowledge of quantum mechanics., to be  pseudoscience and quackery. 

 

This even goes into product marketing campaigns such a quantum computers, etc, etc. It can even be a joke in that our normal laptop computers are in a sense quantum computers since electricity uses electrons which are sub-atomic quantum particles. What they are referring to when they say quantum computers, is the characteristic called quantum entanglement, which Einstein called "spooky actions at a distance." It's certainly possible to make a better, faster, or better data protection device, but in the end it will be nothing amazing as is presently believed -- or as the majority of technologists will someday realize IMO.

 

https://cdn-sourcebooks.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/downloads/excerpts/Quantum Bullshit_excerpt.pdf

[Moonobserver]

On 2/21/2023 at 4:53 PM, pantheory said:

 

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a mathematical system primarily involving statistics to primarily determine the probability of interaction events in the world of subatomic particles -  such as light, protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos and all of their anti-particles. QM is the best mathematical system we have to determine the probability of events involving known particle interactions with each other, and with larger matter particles such as atomic nuclei.

 

The problem is that there is no consensus theory to explain Quantum Mechanics; just a large group of theories, many of which have little recognition -- and some sound like pure BS IMHO. There have been little advances concerning quantum theory in the last 50 years. The particle physics involved has been denigrated by many including Einstein, with words such as  woo-Physics, quantum quackery , quantum mysticism, quantum BS, etc. Some of the theories relate to metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness,  intelligence, religion, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.Quantum mysticism is criticized by non-believers with expert knowledge of quantum mechanics., to be  pseudoscience and quackery. 

 

This even goes into product marketing campaigns such a quantum computers, etc, etc. It can even be a joke in that our normal laptop computers are in a sense quantum computers since electricity uses electrons which are sub-atomic quantum particles. What they are referring to when they say quantum computers, is the characteristic called quantum entanglement, which Einstein called "spooky actions at a distance." It's certainly possible to make a better, faster, or better data protection device, but in the end it will be nothing amazing as is presently believed -- or as the majority of technologists will someday realize IMO.

 

https://cdn-sourcebooks.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/downloads/excerpts/Quantum Bullshit_excerpt.pdf

From the way I read the intro by this "Chris" guy, who implies that he's a physicist, he seems to hold quantum theory in high regard and to criticize only the commercializing of it. He states:

 

"No one has ever seen an atom with their eyes. An atom is a name we give to a thing that appears in our *theories*. You want to imagine it's a *real* thing. But it isn't. It's an idea."

 

While he urges caution in judging what to take seriously about QM, it doesn't look to me like he's dismissing quantum theory as "woo".

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Moonobserver said:

From the way I read the intro by this "Chris" guy, who implies that he's a physicist, he seems to hold quantum theory in high regard and to criticize only the commercializing of it. He states:

 

"No one has ever seen an atom with their eyes. An atom is a name we give to a thing that appears in our *theories*. You want to imagine it's a *real* thing. But it isn't. It's an idea."

 

While he urges caution in judging what to take seriously about QM, it doesn't look to me like he's dismissing quantum theory as "woo".

 

Based upon the use of a specially designed electron microscope, with specially designed techniques, individual atoms have been seen. Here is a photo in the link below.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-the-highest-resolution-atomic-image-ever-captured/

 

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is primarily a statistical system to predict the probability of events in the quantum realm. It is the best such system for prediction of probablilites we have for the quantum realm. Albert Einstein said that this system would pale in comparison to another system that could predict what events will occur under the same circumstances, and be able to predict quantitative values to these events, which we can't. But that's not what makes QM  Bullsh*t. For this there aren't any quantum theories that have a consensus approval, and few if any have an understandable logical basis to them. Here are some of these QM theories that are all competing with each other to explain the events of the quantum world.

The Copenhagen interpretation; Quantum information theories; Relational quantum mechanics; QBism; Many worlds; Consistent histories; Ensemble interpretation; De Broglie–Bohm theory; Quantum Darwinism; Transactional interpretation; Objective collapse theories; Consciousness causes collapse (von Neumann–Wigner interpretation); Quantum logic; Modal interpretations of quantum theory; Time-symmetric theories. There are also lesser known and lesser accepted interpretations including the many Local Hidden Variables hypothesis.

Yes, the commercialization of QM is an added level of BS,, although the B.S. of commercialization is easily understood by the well-educated reader in this field.

Quantum Mechanics in not a logical theory, or as Richard Feynman put it

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.'

 

He also said that: "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

 

Richard P. Feynman

 

https://www.azquotes.com/author/4774-Richard_P_Feynman/tag/quantum-mechanics

 

[Moonobserver]

5 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Based upon the use of a specially designed electron microscope, with specially designed techniques, individual atoms have been seen. Here is a photo in the link below.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-the-highest-resolution-atomic-image-ever-captured/

 

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is primarily a statistical system to predict the probability of events in the quantum realm. It is the best such system for prediction of probablilites we have for the quantum realm. Albert Einstein said that this system would pale in comparison to another system that could predict what events will occur under the same circumstances, and be able to predict quantitative values to these events, which we can't. But that's not what makes QM  Bullsh*t. For this there aren't any quantum theories that have a consensus approval, and few if any have an understandable logical basis to them. Here are some of these QM theories that are all competing with each other to explain the events of the quantum world.

The Copenhagen interpretation; Quantum information theories; Relational quantum mechanics; QBism; Many worlds; Consistent histories; Ensemble interpretation; De Broglie–Bohm theory; Quantum Darwinism; Transactional interpretation; Objective collapse theories; Consciousness causes collapse (von Neumann–Wigner interpretation); Quantum logic; Modal interpretations of quantum theory; Time-symmetric theories. There are also lesser known and lesser accepted interpretations including the many Local Hidden Variables hypothesis.

Yes, the commercialization of QM is an added level of BS,, although the B.S. of commercialization is easily understood by the well-educated reader in this field.

Quantum Mechanics in not a logical theory, or as Richard Feynman put it

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.'

 

He also said that: "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

 

Richard P. Feynman

 

https://www.azquotes.com/author/4774-Richard_P_Feynman/tag/quantum-mechanics

 

So, surely you're not suggesting that all of quantum mechanics is BS just because there are various theories about it.....right?

 

I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying.

[pantheory]

No, Quantum Mechanics is the best and only system we have for calculating probabilities in the quantum realm. However the explanations of it are devoid logic for the most part. The explanations trying to explain the logic of it are its bullsh*t parts.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/08/11/this-is-why-quantum-mechanics-isnt-enough-to-explain-the-universe/?sh=35c35c451e86

[midniterider]

On 4/23/2023 at 6:25 PM, pantheory said:

No, Quantum Mechanics is the best and only system we have for calculating probabilities in the quantum realm. However the explanations of it are devoid logic for the most part. The explanations trying to explain the logic of it are its bullsh*t parts.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/08/11/this-is-why-quantum-mechanics-isnt-enough-to-explain-the-universe/?sh=35c35c451e86

 

What are your thoughts on the Nobel Prize awarded in 2022 for quantum nonlocality work? 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/

[pantheory]

18 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

What are your thoughts on the Nobel Prize awarded in 2022 for quantum nonlocality work? 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/

 

That's a good question. The proof of "non-locality" is based upon misunderstanding of the foundations of Quantum Mechanics (QM) which are simply wrong. QM is a statistical and theoretical mathematical system that works well for making probability predictions of events, primarily in the quantum world. But, there understandings of the events involved in this world are gravely lacking, so they have often come to illogical conclusions; In this case a few of those misunderstandings led to the Nobel Prize, unfortunately. But the experiments they performed were still very ingenious based upon those misunderstanding, ingenious enough to convince the Nobel committee

[midniterider]

What are the illogical conclusions? Observer causing wave function collapse? 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

It's the old point of contention, midniterider.

 

 

Pantheory holds the view that the universe should be understandable on his terms.

 

And when other people understand it in ways that he can't accept, they are (as far as he's concerned) being illogical and drawing illogical conclusions.

 

He and I have argued this several times and he still hasn't been able to adequately answer this question.

 

"Why should the universe be understandable on your terms?"

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

On 6/26/2023 at 3:33 AM, walterpthefirst said:

It's the old point of contention, midniterider.

 

 

Pantheory holds the view that the universe should be understandable on his terms.

 

And when other people understand it in ways that he can't accept, they are (as far as he's concerned) being illogical and drawing illogical conclusions.

 

He and I have argued this several times and he still hasn't been able to adequately answer this question.

 

"Why should the universe be understandable on your terms?"

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

IMO the universe is totally understandable whether my particular understandings of it are correct or not. My own Pan Theory says that everything in the universe is simple to understand if one has all the background information (pieces to the puzzle) -- which few Phd's ever do IMO !  Here is a paper I first wrote years ago,  regarding our misunderstands of major parts of modern physics, in this case quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology.

A big If, but if I am correct,  it will take the mainstream ages to figure even the simplest parts of modern physics out correctly. Why?  I think Joshpantera figured it out correctly. "Groupthink" theory is one of the biggest inhibitors of scientific progress, IMO. All of science involves perspectives. Some lead to a good understandings of reality, but others are simply wrong.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/groupthink.asp

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353588675_Theory_of_Everything

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

On 6/25/2023 at 10:56 PM, midniterider said:

What are the illogical conclusions? Observer causing wave function collapse?

 

Yes, that's just one of their almost countless misunderstandings of the quantum world. The wave function is only the mathematics.

In reality there is a real energy wave to it, which is a difference in the density of the wave in the background Zero-Point field (like an aether). The inventor of the wave function was Schrodinger, and via his thought experiment (Schrodinger.s Cat) he tried to show how ridiculous he thought the quantum paradigm was.

 

He left QM saying, "I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it (QM) -- in regards to how ridiculous he thought their interpretations were.

 

“I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I had anything to do with it.” – Erwin Schrödinger

 

“God does not play dice with the world.” – Albert Einstein

 

“Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word.” – Niels Bohr

 

“I think we can safely say that no-one understands quantum mechanics.” – Richard Feynman

 

“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” – Niels Bohr

 

All these quotes were from along time ago, but many theorists still believe in most of this BS. Maybe the worst illogical modern QM interpretation is called the "Many Worlds."

 

I think the correct concepts of QM are so simple they could be taught in grade school, mathematics aside -- with a good understanding of it available for high-school science majors.

 

See this link

 

 

[midniterider]

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Max Planck was a cool guy. But I disagree with the "consciousnesses" ideas of his. I think humans are just another animal. And our consciousness is just the same as theirs, It's just that our education and languages puts our awareness at a much higher level, for most people

 

Josh would have liked this discussion generally from your point of view.

[walterpthefirst]

midniterider,

 

 

Did you notice that Pantheory did not actually give a reason why the universe should be understandable on his terms - which was my actual question?

 

If you read his two replies he responds to with,  "IMO the universe is totally understandable whether my particular understandings of it are correct or not." Which is a circular argument. In my opinion I'm right about the universe being totally understandable, even if my understanding of it isn't. In other words, I'm right about the universe being totally understandable, but that is no more than an opinion I hold to.

 

In his reply to you he does pretty much the same.  "I think the correct concepts of QM are so simple they could be taught in grade school, mathematics aside -- with a good understanding of it available for high-school science majors." That's what he thinks.  That isn't a reason why these concepts are simple. 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

On the one hand, I dont think physics conforms to what we think is logical. I assume there were people in the early 1900s who thought airplanes were fantasy, doctors in the 1840s who thought Dr Semmelweiss was delusional for washing hands to protect patients from germs that nobody was yet aware of, etc. 

 

What is interesting though, is the denial of evidence and mainstream conclusions. Denial of the Nobel Prize. 

 

But then I got to thinking today, while I disagree with his treatment of the subject of QM, Pantheory is willing to step outside the box with his own theory and speculate about alternate interpretations. That's a good thing. 

 

I think people who go into the science business are interested in discovering new ways to improve our lives and uncover knowledge. I believe they want to speculate on the 'impossible' and then see if it really might be possible. 

 

But there's another breed of (amateur) scientist, the rigid scientist who must maintain the status quo, avoid new thought, must hold fast to current evidence, to not speculate on what 'could' be, who feels every idea is either evidence based, or it's unicorns and elves. I'm not talking about either of you. 

 

I've been spending time on another forum that is full of the rigid scientist types and I'm not sure what the point of them being there really is. Just so they can tell everyone who enters with an alternate viewpoint that they are wrong!  

 

Anyway, Walter what are your thoughts on the Nobel Prize for Quantum Nonlocality awarded in 2022? Or the observer effect and wave function collapse? 

 

https://www.fridayeveryday.com/scientist-wins-nobel-for-showing-that-reality-isnt-real/#:~:text=And even though the physical,Advanced Study at City University.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Hello midniterider.

 

Please understand that I'm just an untrained layman who's interested primarily in cosmology and astronomy.  I'm generally enthusiastic about all science, but my passion lies in those areas.  Therefore, I only have a superficial knowledge and understanding of QM, mostly derived from where it intersects with cosmology and astronomy.

 

I find QM to be wonderful, intriguing, puzzling and mysterious in equal measure.  I'm also happy to accept that there are a number of mainstream interpretations of it, each with their various strengths and weaknesses.  Which one (if any) is correct?  Sorry, but I really couldn't say!

 

To be honest I'm having a hard time digesting the idea that reality is non-local, as Aspect's work would appear to indicate.  I don't dispute the finding, but I do wonder what it means.  To try and get a better understanding of QM I've been reading some of Carlo Rovelli's books.  He's a very good science communicator and I wholeheartedly recommend the four popular-level books with hyperlinks listed on this Wiki page.

 

Carlo Rovelli - Wikipedia

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.