Quantum Mechanics and a Century of lies. How Nonsense has Triumphed in our Education system

frithlaoch

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
30
There are no 'priests' of quantum theory. It isn't a religion. And if anyone is giving you the impression that they have the news on anything to do with quantum physics they are probably trying the priestly approach.

The truth is that no one yet knows, because all we have in examining the quantum space is a distance between the standard model and a newer model which explains mathematical oddities such as the supposition that dark matter exists. It has to in order to reconcile what we know of the standard model against the mathematical issues in applying the standard model to what we observe.

I know that a quantum physicist in Frankfurt, Sabine Hossenfelder, whose area of specialisation is the phenomenology of quantum gravity, has suggested recently that we may have a categorisation problem which stems from trying to explain the difference between the standard model and what we appear to be observing of movement and expansion rate of the universe.

She makes the rather shocking suggestion that dark matter is only appearing in our calculations because we are applying the formulae we know, to an unknown problem. She says it is entirely possible we need dark matter in the model of the universe we are slowly building because we are using incorrect formula to calculate mass and its movement in the Universe.

I take her point that if we are trying to measure a slope using a plumbline and a spirit level sort of calculation then of course we are going to get odd answers.

I don't know if she is right. I don't know if Sabine Hossenfelder thinks she is right. She's certainly not standing on any altar announcing she is about to eat mr god. She has put forward an entirely appropriate question in the science environment. I have no idea what she thinks of fractals. Never heard or seen her refer to fractals at all.
The theme of Sabine Hossenfelder's book (Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray) is that high energy physicists, in particular the CERN/LHC community, use mathematical beauty as a guide to forming ever more sophisticated theories where (new) experimental evidence is scant to non-existent. She correctly, imo, raises a red flag about this and her book has, afaik, generated intense discussions/reflections/controversy in the high energy physics community.

However, you and others on this thread seem to be incorrectly interpreting this issue as casting a shadow on quantum mechanics, which is by far the most spectacularly successful physics theory ever devised, using the only criterion that actually matters in physics: how accurately it agrees with experiment. In some cases, agreement to 10 decimal places has been achieved. It is true that quantum mechanics is difficult to 'understand', if understanding is to be related to our everyday experiences. However, the mathematics of quantum mechanics is very well understood. Einstein himself never accepted the non-deterministic nature of QM ("God does not play dice with the universe"), but ironically, his increasingly ingenious attempts to pick a hole in QM led to the famous EPR (Einstein Podolsky Rosen) paradox published in 1935 which purported to show an inconsistency in QM. This was brilliantly resolved by Belfast man John Stewart Bell who published what became known as Bell's Theorem in 1964. This in turn was the genesis of quantum entanglement - a concept famously derided earlier by Einstein as 'spooky action at a distance'.

P.S. The title of this thread displays an ignorance of physics on the part of its instigator that is not worthy of a rebuttal.
 


blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
20,530
The theme of Sabine Hossenfelder's book (Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray) is that high energy physicists, in particular the CERN/LHC community, use mathematical beauty as a guide to forming ever more sophisticated theories where (new) experimental evidence is scant to non-existent. She correctly, imo, raises a red flag about this and her book has, afaik, generated intense discussions/reflections/controversy in the high energy physics community.

However, you and others on this thread seem to be incorrectly interpreting this issue as casting a shadow on quantum mechanics, which is by far the most spectacularly successful physics theory ever devised, using the only criterion that actually matters in physics: how accurately it agrees with experiment. In some cases, agreement to 10 decimal places has been achieved. It is true that quantum mechanics is difficult to 'understand', if understanding is to be related to our everyday experiences. However, the mathematics of quantum mechanics is very well understood. Einstein himself never accepted the non-deterministic nature of QM ("God does not play dice with the universe"), but ironically, his increasingly ingenious attempts to pick a hole in QM led to the famous EPR (Einstein Podolsky Rosen) paradox published in 1935 which purported to show an inconsistency in QM. This was brilliantly resolved by Belfast man John Stewart Bell who published what became known as Bell's Theorem in 1964. This in turn was the genesis of quantum entanglement - a concept famously derided earlier by Einstein as 'spooky action at a distance'.

P.S. The title of this thread displays an ignorance of physics on the part of its instigator that is not worthy of a rebuttal.
Excellent Post.
 

blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
20,530
I don't understand any of it :cry:
Brian Greene has some great Videos on youtube about Physics and Quantum Mechanics. He is a great communicator and ordinary people can get a lot out of his stuff.

Sean Carroll is another guy that does some good stuff ( on youtube )

Jim Al khalili also has good stuff on youtube.

I am much more a video person so this suits me so much more.

And the beauty of Quantum Mechanics is that nobody understands it i.e. The measurement problem, the double slit experiment , Einstein could not cope with spooky action at a distance ( quantum entanglement ). They did not think that it could ever be tested but John Bell ( an Irishman ) came up with a way to show that Einstein's idea on this was wrong.

If you are bored and have time on your hands you will find enough stuff there to maybe last you several life times ( unless you get lucky and make a breakthrough )

It is maybe the greatest question of science and maybe even life itself. Good Luck.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
50,194
The theme of Sabine Hossenfelder's book (Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray) is that high energy physicists, in particular the CERN/LHC community, use mathematical beauty as a guide to forming ever more sophisticated theories where (new) experimental evidence is scant to non-existent. She correctly, imo, raises a red flag about this and her book has, afaik, generated intense discussions/reflections/controversy in the high energy physics community.

However, you and others on this thread seem to be incorrectly interpreting this issue as casting a shadow on quantum mechanics, which is by far the most spectacularly successful physics theory ever devised, using the only criterion that actually matters in physics: how accurately it agrees with experiment. In some cases, agreement to 10 decimal places has been achieved. It is true that quantum mechanics is difficult to 'understand', if understanding is to be related to our everyday experiences. However, the mathematics of quantum mechanics is very well understood. Einstein himself never accepted the non-deterministic nature of QM ("God does not play dice with the universe"), but ironically, his increasingly ingenious attempts to pick a hole in QM led to the famous EPR (Einstein Podolsky Rosen) paradox published in 1935 which purported to show an inconsistency in QM. This was brilliantly resolved by Belfast man John Stewart Bell who published what became known as Bell's Theorem in 1964. This in turn was the genesis of quantum entanglement - a concept famously derided earlier by Einstein as 'spooky action at a distance'.

P.S. The title of this thread displays an ignorance of physics on the part of its instigator that is not worthy of a rebuttal.
Bell's friend and colleague Martinus Veltman wrote an interesting book on modern physics. He says Bell started his theoretical work on the foundations of Quantum Mechanics as a hobby, then got drawn to it more and more. Veltman thought it all a waste of time and effort - like (he said) medieval scholastics debating how many angels could sit on the point of a pin.

Veltman once tackled him about it. "Will it make the slightest difference to the calculations such as I do?" he said.
Bell replied "You are right, but are you not interested in the interpretation?"

Veltman was sort of Feynman-ian "Quantum Mechanics gives the right answers. Who cares what it means?". Bell and Einstein did care, and Bell wanted to prove Einstein wrong. Which he did, at least in most instances.

Bell developed mathematical inequalities that must hold if Einstein was right and Quantum Mechanics inconsistent. Later experimental work showed that the inequality was violated in practice. It was a massive intellectual achievement, and firmed up the foundations of Quantum Mechanics.


PS Veltman is from the Netherlands, and he and Gerard t'Hooft shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1999. Bell might conceivably have won it, had he lived past the relatively young age of 62.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
50,194
Brian Greene has some great Videos on youtube about Physics and Quantum Mechanics. He is a great communicator and ordinary people can get a lot out of his stuff.

Sean Carroll is another guy that does some good stuff ( on youtube )

Jim Al khalili also has good stuff on youtube.

I am much more a video person so this suits me so much more.

And the beauty of Quantum Mechanics is that nobody understands it i.e. The measurement problem, the double slit experiment , Einstein could not cope with spooky action at a distance ( quantum entanglement ). They did not think that it could ever be tested but John Bell ( an Irishman ) came up with a way to show that Einstein's idea on this was wrong.

If you are bored and have time on your hands you will find enough stuff there to maybe last you several life times ( unless you get lucky and make a breakthrough )

It is maybe the greatest question of science and maybe even life itself. Good Luck.
I am old-fashioned, and prefer books.

Greene's The Elegant Universe has the best layman's introduction to modern physics I ever read.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
50,194
P.S. The title of this thread displays an ignorance of physics on the part of its instigator that is not worthy of a rebuttal.
I sympathise with the OP author who (imho) has been led astray by online videos from fringe charlatans - he may find that insulting, but it is my humble assessment of their worth.

Perhaps AA might balance them by watching some of Brian Greene?
 

frithlaoch

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
30
Bell's friend and colleague Martinus Veltman wrote an interesting book on modern physics. He says Bell started his theoretical work on the foundations of Quantum Mechanics as a hobby, then got drawn to it more and more. Veltman thought it all a waste of time and effort - like (he said) medieval scholastics debating how many angels could sit on the point of a pin.

Veltman once tackled him about it. "Will it make the slightest difference to the calculations such as I do?" he said.
Bell replied "You are right, but are you not interested in the interpretation?"

Veltman was sort of Feynman-ian "Quantum Mechanics gives the right answers. Who cares what it means?". Bell and Einstein did care, and Bell wanted to prove Einstein wrong. Which he did, at least in most instances.

Bell developed mathematical inequalities that must hold if Einstein was right and Quantum Mechanics inconsistent. Later experimental work showed that the inequality was violated in practice. It was a massive intellectual achievement, and firmed up the foundations of Quantum Mechanics.


PS Veltman is from the Netherlands, and he and Gerard t'Hooft shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1999. Bell might conceivably have won it, had he lived past the relatively young age of 62.
From the Wiki article on Bell: "Bell died unexpectedly of a cerebral hemorrhage in Geneva in 1990.[26][27][28] It is widely claimed that unknown to Bell, that year he had been nominated for a Nobel Prize.[29]:3[30]:155[1]:374"

Jocelyn Bell Burnell (Jocelyn Bell Burnell - Wikipedia) was another Northern Irish (astro)physicist who is widely regarded as having been denied her rightful share of the 1974 Nobel prize in physics for her part in the discovery of pulsars in 1967.

I like to consider Derek Bell (Derek Bell (musician) - Wikipedia), formerly harpist with the Chieftains, as completing a trio of hugely significant Bells from N.I.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
50,194
From the Wiki article on Bell: "Bell died unexpectedly of a cerebral hemorrhage in Geneva in 1990.[26][27][28] It is widely claimed that unknown to Bell, that year he had been nominated for a Nobel Prize.[29]:3[30]:155[1]:374"

Jocelyn Bell Burnell (Jocelyn Bell Burnell - Wikipedia) was another Northern Irish (astro)physicist who is widely regarded as having been denied her rightful share of the 1974 Nobel prize in physics for her part in the discovery of pulsars in 1967.

I like to consider Derek Bell (Derek Bell (musician) - Wikipedia), formerly harpist with the Chieftains, as completing a trio of hugely significant Bells from N.I.
Veltman recounts a poignant moment ... he was a Professor at the University of Michigan, and colleagues asked Bell to come and give a talk for the occasion of his birthday. But Bell died before the talk was delivered. Some time later, Veltman was in Bell's office at CERN, and touched the keyboard of his desktop. The screen lighted up with Bell's last e-mail - 4 words "OK, I will sing", accepting the invitation to Ann Arbor.

(These days, an employee would be disciplined for leaving their computer switched on and logged in, but this was 1992)

Just another riff on your post - one of my proudest moments was to receive a Trinity College Masters degree from the hands of Jocelyn Bell-Burnell herself, in her position as Pro-Chancellor.
 

blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
20,530
Interesting stuff from Brian Greene here especially the last 15 minutes i.e. The Holographic Universe , Quantum Entanglement and Possible Quantum Entangled Space.

 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
31,426
Twitter
No
Imagine confession. Bless me Father for I have sinned and I have also not sinned.
I advised the Jesuits long ago, as Brearty S.J. down the country would be able to verify, to change that whole sin thing as it only makes the flock uneasy. That's why us lads down on Secret Atheist Island suggested to the Jezzies they should use 'It was foretold in the foretelling' instead. Much more reassuring for the goons and the mrs doyles' of the earth to hear something that is almost certainly true now and again just to take their minds off the knottier claims.
 

bactrian

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
1,293
I read the OP and some of the subsequent "offerings" which amounted to "I don't understand", "I'm too stupid to find out" and "They are wrong because ....."
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
50,194
I advised the Jesuits long ago, as Brearty S.J. down the country would be able to verify, to change that whole sin thing as it only makes the flock uneasy. That's why us lads down on Secret Atheist Island suggested to the Jezzies they should use 'It was foretold in the foretelling' instead. Much more reassuring for the goons and the mrs doyles' of the earth to hear something that is almost certainly true now and again just to take their minds off the knottier claims.
Oddly enough, the Jays have produced some notable scientists, like Christopher Clavius an astronomer contemporary of Galileo. The Clavius crater on the Moon is named after him. Clavius thought that The Copernican Theory was a superior way of doing orbital calculations, but in reality the Sun went around the Earth.

Copernicus was also a cleric, of course. Nicholas Callan, an early Irish researcher into electricity, was a priest and a Professor at Maynooth. George Lemaitre a Belgian priest, was the first to use Einstein's Relativity Theory to show the Universe was expanding.


The Catholic Church has mainly made peace with science (except the science of human reproduction), and is much more at ease with Evolution and the Big Bang than many Protestant Evangelical sects. If you went back a few centuries, the positions might be reversed.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
31,426
Twitter
No
I'd say that's true as far as I am aware. Never minded the jesuits too much as they never seemed all that religious to me. They've been under suspicion in Rome periodically for that very reason.

Hardly surprising that the political intelligence wing of the RCC should have a few atheists here and there.
 

blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
20,530
I'd say that's true as far as I am aware. Never minded the jesuits too much as they never seemed all that religious to me. They've been under suspicion in Rome periodically for that very reason.

Hardly surprising that the political intelligence wing of the RCC should have a few atheists here and there.
I’d say they keep all bases covered , including ; Nesferati ( the Devil if the spelling is wrong which I suspect it is ). I don’t think they would take the chance just in case FFG are in power.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
31,426
Twitter
No
I think I recall reading somewhere years ago that the church set up a crack team of young intellectual priests to examine various documents within the Vatican library- may have been back in the 1970s.

The unfortunate effect was that all of these young and highly educated priests subsequently left the priesthood. I believe that was the last time there was free access granted even internally.

Not sure how true that is as I have not yet had it confirmed by a man down the pub but I do know that access to the vatican library and archives are guarded very tightly.

Anyway, to go back vaguely toward the OP subject I believe even the Vatican Observatory, where they keep their current crop of holy scientists, gave up the ghost on arguments against evolutionary theory with a statement some years ago that they believed evolutionary theory to be 'broadly correct'. Which rather calls into question their notions of calendar and mankind as expressed in their writings.

How any person of abrahamic conviction can sniff at theoretical and quantum physics, for which there is evidence of existence, and then consider what they believe in to be 'fact' is extraordinary. I think this kind of mental gymnastic display is fascinating in a way.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
50,194
I'd say that's true as far as I am aware. Never minded the jesuits too much as they never seemed all that religious to me. They've been under suspicion in Rome periodically for that very reason.

Hardly surprising that the political intelligence wing of the RCC should have a few atheists here and there.
Pope Francis I is a Jesuit, and scientifically trained (M.Sc. in Chemistry, which would have introduced him to Quantum Mechanics), oddly enough the first Jesuit to become a Pope.

The Jesuits, especially the South American ones, became tainted with Liberation Theology and objects of suspicion to the likes of Pope John Paul. That makes Francis' elevation all the more odd. The pre-WWII Jesuits were mostly reactionary, fascistic and anti-semitic, as befitting the storm troopers of the Counter-Reformation (which was still going on in their view).

The Two Popes is actually a good film (though probably simplistic) that brings out the contrasts and continuity between Francis and his predecessor.

(I make no secret of the fact that I like the current Pope, while not being a liker of the institution he heads).
 

blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
20,530
Pope Francis I is a Jesuit, and scientifically trained (M.Sc. in Chemistry, which would have introduced him to Quantum Mechanics), oddly enough the first Jesuit to become a Pope.

The Jesuits, especially the South American ones, became tainted with Liberation Theology and objects of suspicion to the likes of Pope John Paul. That makes Francis' elevation all the more odd. The pre-WWII Jesuits were mostly reactionary, fascistic and anti-semitic, as befitting the storm troopers of the Counter-Reformation (which was still going on in their view).

The Two Popes is actually a good film (though probably simplistic) that brings out the contrasts and continuity between Francis and his predecessor.

(I make no secret of the fact that I like the current Pope, while not being a liker of the institution he heads).
You liking a Virtue Signalling Pope is hardly surprising.

I suppose he will be putting the Vast Wealth of the Catholic Church to all this stuff he Virtue Signals on;..; Talk is Cheap !

Unfortunately the Catholic Church is great for the Auld Lip.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
50,194
I think I recall reading somewhere years ago that the church set up a crack team of young intellectual priests to examine various documents within the Vatican library- may have been back in the 1970s.

The unfortunate effect was that all of these young and highly educated priests subsequently left the priesthood. I believe that was the last time there was free access granted even internally.

Not sure how true that is as I have not yet had it confirmed by a man down the pub but I do know that access to the vatican library and archives are guarded very tightly.

Anyway, to go back vaguely toward the OP subject I believe even the Vatican Observatory, where they keep their current crop of holy scientists, gave up the ghost on arguments against evolutionary theory with a statement some years ago that they believed evolutionary theory to be 'broadly correct'. Which rather calls into question their notions of calendar and mankind as expressed in their writings.

How any person of abrahamic conviction can sniff at theoretical and quantum physics, for which there is evidence of existence, and then consider what they believe in to be 'fact' is extraordinary. I think this kind of mental gymnastic display is fascinating in a way.
In Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time, he recounts a scientific conference at the Vatican, where Pope John Paul extolled the Big Bang Theory. The Pope saw in it evidence of God's Creation, which raised Hawking's eyebrows a bit.

The Pope is backed by a small but formidable Papal Academy, with many Nobel Prize Winners, funded by the Church, which makes his statements of science verifiable and backed by evidence. When science and moral teaching rhymes (as in the case of climate change), the result are worth listening to.

 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
31,426
Twitter
No
Doesn't work like that. Just because the church count scientists among its membership it does not imply that anything the church says is rooted in any kind of science.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top