I have no words:
Is Mr. Sookdeo trolling here? Over on Bronysay, where I found this, someone claiming to know him says he was serious, just a bit “confused.” The questions seem sincere to me. Ugh.
We Hunted The MammothBucking the Backlash
We Hunted The MammothI have no words:
Is Mr. Sookdeo trolling here? Over on Bronysay, where I found this, someone claiming to know him says he was serious, just a bit “confused.” The questions seem sincere to me. Ugh.
Because of quantum decoherence. Do you actually know any quantum mechanics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
“Decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way.”
Living systems are textbook examples of the classical limit emerging from microscopic quantum states, because life in effect converts information into entropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_structure
Ok, pal, I probably know more about quantum mechanics than you, so let me explain: Decoherence solves the problem only phenomenologically but not ontologically, it doesn’t say that such a mixture of weird states is principally impossible, ok? It doesn’t give you anything new about what’s going on in a closed box where there is no exchange of information.
I meant “when there is no exchange of information.”, of course.
At least we agree on that one, so not all hope is lost, for QuantumSparkle it’s a “gross misunderstanding of thermodynamics” to claim that living system increase the entropy of the universe.
Color me unimpressed.
Did anyone make that claim? I didn’t.
Ontologically speaking, there are no *real* “quantum mechanical systems”, because the universe is not actually divided into systems. So nobody gets to make *empirical* claims about which “systems” are “quantum mechanical” and which aren’t. Ontology 101!
Essentially you’re saying that quantum mechanics is a mechanics, therefore every system in the universe is a quantum mechanical system. That’s tautology, not insight.
In biology there is not, and never will be any living systems that don’t exchange information with their environment. You know that, and so when you say that a human being is a quantum mechanical system and thus there is some vanishingly small probability that said human could be in some weird superposition, you’re not really making a point. So could somebody’s toenail clippings. So could three hydrogen molecules thirty million light-years away. So? Is your point that you’re really smart!!!!! because you know some physics? Because that is–not very relevant.
Ok, pal, I probably know more about quantum mechanics than you,
Assumes facts evidence.
so let me explain: Please do. We have naught but bated breathe.
Decoherence solves the problem only phenomenologically but not ontologically, it doesn’t say that such a mixture of weird states is principally impossible, ok? It doesn’t give you anything new about what’s going on in a closed box where there is no exchange of information.
Good thing the dark alley, and all it’s analogues, aren’t closed boxes. Not so good, for your attempts at overuling the objection above that the macroscopic systemn you want to deny the non-quantum nature of isn’t an ontological problem, but a phenomenological one.
So you are not only making your vast grasp of quantum mechanics look less masterful than your claims, but your understanding of philosophy is perhaps a bit less than adequate.
Hahahaha Vindicare! I have only a highschool education and even I know you can’t apply Quantum mechanics on a macro scale!
Unless of course, you want to reveal just how you found the holy grail of physics, a unified theory…..
I see, you all buy into this kind of nonsense. Have you ever thought, that maybe mainstream science is wrong? Yeah, I hear you “Wrong what is teached in college classes? Impossible! That can’t be!” (Though you believe exactly that when it comes to evo-psych). So you want to keep Newton’s rape manual and say that quantum coherence isn’t evident on macroscopic scales? Fine, ok, it makes no sense to argue with you, I see there’s no common ground here.
@pillowinhell:
Except that even the scientific establishment concedes that many macroscopic effects can only be understood with quantum mechanics… ferromagnets come to mind.
Well yes Vindicare, they do. However, there are simply too many confounding variables and apparently the current theory of quantum physics does not adequately explain the phenomenon. Hence the search for a unified theory to bring quantum mechanics and einsteins theories into better accord.
I think your scenario forgets the observable effect isn’t just measured by sentience or conscious effort. Someone in a dark alley is also being observed by insects, small animals and hell, even the quantum particles of the bricks. All of which exert their own influences.
When scientists set up their quantum experiments, they know that things like air pressure affects the results. Even earthquakes at great distances have an impact on the results and require being accounted for. Essentially, there is no closed system, such as Schroedingers thought experiment created for ease of testing.
And yes Vinicare, exactly what is it about yourself that makes probabiility support ithe idea that you know more about physics? From where I look at it, it seems more of an assumption than anything else, especially in light of the fact that you know little to nothing of QuantumSparkle, beyond a few posts.
And how do you get that newtonian physics is a “rape manuel”?
oh, shit, it’s captain underground science here to lectures us on how his ad hoc maunderings make him totally super important and not just some loser whining about things he doesn’t understand.
vindicare have you found this brand of self-righteous huff-n-puff to actually work on anyone ever?
@pillowinhell:
Because I studied it at Khan Academy.
Well, yeah, QuantumSparkle who thinks that in quantum mechanics every physical quantity can only attain discrete values, total expert.
I understand that this is not easy, at least not the math: wave functions live in the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions and suddenly you have things like the position operator with a continuous spectrum and with eigenvectors that rigorously aren’t even functions but distributions (like x*dirac-delta(x-a)=a*dirac-delta(x-a)!), but still… for an expert like QuantumSparkle this should be kid’s stuff.
@pillowinhell:
Newtonian mechanics is not a rape manual, Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is. The method of inquiry outlined by Newton is founded on the metaphor of nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape.
…
oh shit, guys, he’s got a phd from the university of youtube.
actually i’m a little bit impressed. rarely do our pseudo-intellectual trolls so boldly announce how totally clown car they are.
Just. What.
There is just so much wrong with every part of both of these sentences, that I’m having a lot of trouble figuring out where to start.
Leaving aside “Newton’s rape manual”, which is a weird juxtaposition with “it makes no sense to argue with you”, let’s turn our attention to “you want to … say that quantum coherence isn’t evident on macroscopic scales?”
No. Nobody wants to say that. Because if by “evident” you mean “observable”, then nobody who knows the science is going to dispute that you can observe quantum coherence. That’s how quantum computers work, to the extent they can be made to work these days given how almost impossibly hard it seems toe be at the moment to keep a system coherent enough to get any computational work done with qbits. But if you really believe that quantum mechanics would consider the macroscopic observer to be the part of the system that collapses the wavefunction, then you have completely misunderstood quantum mechanics. Completely. Not a little bit, but completely.
But let’s back up to this gem:
Where is this non-mainstream science published? Where is an RFP so I can apply for a grant? I’ll mention it to my colleagues at the Fucking Science Institute that I Fucking Work At.
Does anyone else just see jetstreams from this conversation passing over, or is it just me?
do you have any internship postings available? i dont have any science type skills as such, but i would very much like to add this to my resume.
Shadow, what? I was supposed to be looking up? I’m still waiting to observe quantum mechanics in action…
@pillowinhell
Well, to be fair, I wouldn’t have the first clue where to start looking. o I may just be watching a plane fly over and be confusing it with the conversation 😛
Also, re: the whole rape manual thing
I don’t really know shit all about it, but the others covered it in this thread
http://manboobz.com/2012/04/27/civilization-and-its-discontented-ladies/comment-page-1/#comments
” Yeah, I hear you “Wrong what is teached in college classes? Impossible! That can’t be!”
I’m pretty sure that I’ve never said anything resembling “wrong what is teached in college classes”, actually.
Manboobz: Come for the mockery, stay for the quantum mechanics.
Oh katz, where is your super-serious science journal — I forgot to bookmark it, but I think someone on this thread needs to publish there…
“Because I studied it at Khan Academy.” oh well that explains everything — Vindicare apparently learned physics from the only Dalek to enter the time locked time war…not only would that teach him doctor who pseudo-science, but he’s a fucking Dalek
BTW Vindicare, you didn’t say “that living system increase the entropy of the universe” — you said that baby girls do, implying baby boys do not. And also implying that entropy could ever do anything but increase >.<
Epic fail in other words. (And now I'm going back to Tolkien's trolls, they really are more interesting than manboobz trolls currently)