What the bleep do we know 1 & 2

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:12 am

This is a post that references two different documentaries. Curious if anyone has any comments. In the second, it refers to quantum physics and the behavior of electrons. Such as behaving like waves when not observed and behaving as bullets while being observed. Also, the ability to be in multiple places in the same instance.
@Jacob
You might not have seen these, but I would appreciate your insight into this topic of electrons and subparticles as it seems it may have been in your field. Then again, we know I don't retain all relevant data.

Post by **jacob** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:02 am

That whole wave-particle duality is the sad result of trying to explain a complex phenomena, state vectors in phase space, in terms of the only two models(*) known to physicist at the beginning of the 20th century (and still the only two to laymen in the beginning of the 21st), namely waves and particles. It would in my opinion be way better to get with the state vector approach. Unfortunately, this is quite challenging and requires an understanding of complex numbers and linear algebra.
I know a great book which does just that but I can't recall the title. I'll let you know if I remember.
(*) Climate change has a similar problem in that it initially concentrated on the temperature with the result that laymen now focus solely on the temperature without considering things like weather patterns, precipitation, storm frequencies, etc. It is not uncommon for university textbooks (undergraduate) to lag current knowledge by 30 years and public understanding to lag university textbook understanding by another 30 years.
Incidentally, in my opinion the title of that movie should be interpreted as a question with a rhetorical answer [Apparently not very much!]

I think movies like this does a disservice to the scientific understanding of their viewers. The New Age community, of course, loved it, you know, "How to USE the Quantum Resonances of Positive Thinking to Attract Millions into YOUR LIFE and WIN THE LOTTERY". Ack!

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:56 am

I agree. The new age push. Ack! Are you saying I can learn more on this topic if I start to look into the state vector approach? My understanding of vectors is limited to my statics and dynamics courses.

Post by **jacob** » Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:12 am

If you know what a Hermitian matrix is and how to find the square root of a negative number, then yes, state vectors are the way to go. It is essentially the Matrix formulation by Heisenberg. It came out almost the same time as the more popular Schroedinger approach. I bet the latter is easier to understand initially, but it doesn't make for nearly as much insight.

aussierogue · Post by **aussierogue** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:35 am

I have recently started trying to understand quantum mechanics / physics and i reckon its incredibly interesting - agree with jacob about the new age (the secret movement) being very annoying but this is just noise. The idea that thoughts effect matter is seriously amazing. This idea that the universe is interconnected (and i mean scientiffically) because , excuse my non scientific terms) the universe started out as one solitary molecule and continues to expand to what we now know as the world. If i am right quantum mechanics says that any 2 particals that was connected at anytime (could be millions of years ago) are still connected even though they may be great distances away. Therefore if we all come from the one atom or particle then we are all scientifally related to the point that if we sneeze it effects more than just our tissue supply.
Explains why identicle twins can feel eachothers pain. Amazing stuff. Also first time religion and science seems to be on the same path.
Anyone else digging deeper into this than just watching oprah?

Chad · Post by **Chad** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:18 am

Any good physics documentaries? I briefly thought about being physicist growing up, but my natural math skills are just solid...not great. I would have been average at best.

aussierogue · Post by **aussierogue** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:25 am

this caught my eye - very much dumbed down for people like me (none mathematical types). But amazing stuff and seems pretty much is the 'theory of everything'..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv1_YB1IedE
this stuff helps explain scientifically the power of prayer and other spirutal things like Karma.
our thoughts can and do effect particles even those that may be on the otherside of the earth - but only if there was once a relationship.
Quantum leap!

Post by **jacob** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:12 am

Yeah, uhm, no it doesn't. This has always been my issue with the sensationalist approach to popularizing science. (Or maybe I'm just bitter because I fell for it ;-P ) It makes the practically impossible sound like a simple engineering problem and the hard stuff sound like a philosophical problem. Both are presented using some snazzy CGI...
Grokking quantum mechanics suffer from the problem that our language has words and thought processes that are intended for and experienced with classical, macroscopic, local, cause and effect relationships. It's the danger of applying a philosophical or metaphysical interpretation to the experimental results and mathematical models.
This state of affairs is in a far worse shape than using the "retirement"-word in ERE.
For example, there's no such thing as a quantum "leap"---it's a transition between states as in now it's in state 1, now it's in state 2; it doesn't jump or leap from one to the other.
"Affect" does not make sense---it's a badly chosen word. Within the theory, it's a wave-function collapse(measurement) of the superposed (relationship) system (once locally connected particles), but its collapse (outcome) can not be intentionally influenced. Hence, influence can not be instantaneously transferred. It's more of an after the fact verification. In particular, this means that thoughts, insofar those thoughts convey information are NOT connected (transmitted) to matter.
All in all, there are no grounds for spiritual conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_teleportation_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

tzxn3 · Post by **tzxn3** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:37 am

Yeah, What the Bleep Do We Know is notoriously awful. It's basically a bunch of crystal-waving fantasists using physics that they don't understand to justify their insane beliefs. A fine example of quantum woo.
Quantum woo happens when irrational beliefs are justified by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics. This typically uses buzzwords like "energy field", "probability wave", or "wave-particle duality" that magically turns thoughts into something tangible to directly affect the universe. This results in such foolishness as the Law of Attraction or quantum healing. Some have turned quantum woo into a career, such as Deepak Chopra, who often presents ill-defined concepts of quantum physics as proof for God and other magical thinking.

Haplo · Post by **Haplo** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:07 am

That doesn't even count the weirdness you get when relativity steps into the quantum picture. Or the godel-church-turing-tarski-heisenberg wall of incompletenessy doom that seems permeate everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfac ... finiteness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
I was almost tempted to buy a Deepak Chopra book once. There are much better authors on the same subject that invoke a lot less woo, though, and it only took like 20 seconds to find 'em on amazon.

Post by **jacob** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:13 am

I noticed that the Counterfactual Definitess page had a reference to the S-matrix (S for scatter) interpretation. That's what I'm talking about in the second post of this thread. It's, in my opinion, the best way (and also the least taught way) to teach and understand QM.
The reason it's not done is due to tradition.

aussierogue · Post by **aussierogue** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:24 am

Dont lose the message with my messy words...
I am happy if even some of this is true with Matrix throeries or the like - and yes im happy to get away from the fluffy stuff - dont worry i wont start selling half priced copies of the secret at my local market and start wearing rosary beeds.
Needless to say though this part of science is really interesting and will keep looking and searching and reading.
If nothing else atleast the mainstreaming of some complicated ideas has opened some eyes as to the possibilities.
BTW - Chopra does seem to have many supporters with regards to his tying the two (science and spirituals)thru QM together. On youtube there are a series of lectures and panel discussions with him and various others debating the idea. So from what i can see the jury is still out. Dont fall into the trap of disregarding a guy just because mike myers made a movie about him.
It seems no one really underatands quantum physics - so you guys stop pretending you do - lol.

Haplo · Post by **Haplo** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:47 am

It seems no one really underatands quantum physics - so you guys stop pretending you do - lol.
lol you're basically right about that. I do know one thing though, the quantum determinists have yet to produce a theory that actually makes any testable predictions. Many-worlds has a testable prediction, although it requires a working quantum computer to run the experiment.
Also, the author I was referring to was AH Almaas, who combines spirituality with psychology. That makes leagues more sense IMHO, and he does a very good job at it, I thought. I avoided Chopra mainly because he sounded like all woo and nothing practical, and "Conversations With God" was about as much woo as I could stand as it was.

Ego · Post by **Ego** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:38 pm

@Aussie: It seems no one really underatands quantum physics - so you guys stop pretending you do - lol.
But isn't that exactly what Deepak, 'The Secret', and 'What The Bleep' are doing? Aren't they doing exactly what every religious leader has done since the beginning, taking something exceedingly complex or unknown/unproven and blending it with breadcrumbs of simple truths.
Like any good salesperson they get their disciples to say yes, yes, yes, several times to the simple truths then they whack them with a string of scientific phrases that seem so profound that the incomprehensibility of it goes unnoticed. The disciples are so confounded they forget to stop nodding their heads, "yes". Everyone looks around and sees everyone else nodding, "yes", not realizing that they all just helped one another make the leap from scientific knowledge to belief.
One of the hardest things for human beings to do is to accept gaps in our knowledge. We abhor the unknown. We do anything we can to fill it with speculation. When the complexity is beyond our ability to speculate, it becomes even harder to avoid allowing those gaps to be filled by people who want to exploit the gap-filling process.

Spartan_Warrior · Post by **Spartan_Warrior** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:39 pm

@Jacob: Do you know of any good, accurate books on quantum mechanics for a lay person?
For that matter, not to derail the thread, but if you have any thoughts or similar reading recommendations on what the heck dark energy is, I'd be interested in that as well.

Post by **jacob** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:06 pm

That's the book I was talking about.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Structure-Int ... 674843924/
+1 to what Ego said.
Perhaps that's the very problem with mainstreaming complex ideas. First, some people actually do understand quantum physics, so the jury is not out. It's a bit silly to hear that the jury is out on some claims when it the exact answer can be mathematically proven. It's just that math is hard and so laymen just ignore it. Especially when reality is not as exciting as the computer animation.
This is why I think such science programs are dangerous to thinking. They don't teach viewers to think scientifically. Rather they just provide fodder and sciency terminology for wild speculations. However, just because some vague analogy exists between two subjects doesn't mean that one drives the other or in any other way has something to do with it---it just means that one can offer an incomplete way to think about the other.
For example, there are analogies between water pressure in a bunch of connected pipers and electric voltage in a circuit. However, it would go too far for some spiritual guru to suggest that "Water is Charged with Eletric Energy, so drinking water increases your Energy Potential". And the crowd agrees because they feel better after a cup of water, so it must be true. See, I can be a guru too ...

aussierogue · Post by **aussierogue** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:52 pm

One of the documentaries shows two experiements
Toss of a coin - when you accepted it was random and that if you tossed the coin 1 million time the probability of a 50 / 50 split will be correct. The say (again im not sure if its varified but it was done under scientific conditions i assume) that they got a number of meditation practitioners who went into a state where they believed they would get more heads than tails. And sure enough the test produced more heads than tails. And this was repeated.
Then there was the japanese dude who conduscted experiements on water. Again he got some gurus to bless some water and not bless others. Then under a microscope the tested the water (previously the same) and the water itself had changed anatomically.
Maybe ive just beed duped! I agree its hardly been rigorous a check from me (a few docos and one book) but if its true its amazing. I know some people (scientist and medical practitioners) who dont belive in the mind / body connection which is just bullshit. I know my eye twitches if im stressed - i dont need a doctor to tell me its not linked.
Im just saying just because conservative tradtionalists dont say its true doesnt mean they are right.
If i was dying of cancer (touch wood never happens) I would not reject conventional medicine but i would also embrace new age stuff too. My feeling it that yes everything is connected and deepeak is one of the only with the kahunas to take on the establishment in this regard.
@ego - my understanding is thats what deepak is saying - science cannot explain everything but quantum mechanics which no one completely understands may infatc be the 'theory of everything'. The gaps in knowledge are respected and identified yet many want facts - i think he says that we want 3 dimesionsal facts in a 4 dimensional world - which wont placate the establishement - he is happy for fuzzy stuff.
Maybe you guys are just part of the establishment?

aussierogue · Post by **aussierogue** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:01 am

@jacob
I respect your opinions but reading all your posts in this thread you seem to desperately want to link quantum mechanics to new age wackos and soemhow this is bad for the world.
Isnt there a middle ground where we can discuss quantum mechanics where not everyone who is interested in the spiritual link is a whaco?
Its a bit like people who hate born again christians and call them happy clappers - anything they say loses impact after that unless of course the listners are true belivers
I just want a reasoable conversation as to whether is could be a link without being labelled some kind of weed smoking maniac. lol.
I would love to think / hope that everything is related like dsome of these (not just deepak but other eminent scientists) - it would make sense and give people reasons to respect eachother and the earth. thats not overly dangerous proposition i dont think.

Ego · Post by **Ego** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:38 am

@Aussie: "I would love to think / hope that everything is related like dsome of these (not just deepak but other eminent scientists) - it would make sense and give people reasons to respect eachother and the earth. thats not overly dangerous proposition i dont think."
Absolutely. That is a wonderful proposition. And it very well may be possible.
But as you've said, "I would love to think..." You have fallen in love with the possibility. For many, that's the point where they stop listening. That's when they lose the ability to believe that there might be other explanations.
Deepak is here in San Diego. He has become incredibly wealthy. Some of that wealth is the result of offering legitimate services, classes, and events that really do help people. While they have a new-age tilt, they are extremely helpful. Some of the information presented in the program, "Training the Mind, Healing the Body" that Chopra did with David Simon was excellent. Personally I find Psychoneuroimmunology fascinating.
The trouble is, he often makes statements that present information as fact when it is actually highly speculative or metaphorical. And he uses the complex nature of the underlying ideas as cover, mixing facts with ideas that he wants to be true.
We all do this.... in our own heads and sometimes in internet forums. He's making a lot of money at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U8p2slLKWY | Here Chopra admits that when he uses the term "Quantum Theory" he means it as a metaphor. He says, "Just like an electron or a photon is an indivisible unit of information and energy, a thought is an indivisible unit of consciousness."
It is not quantum theory at all. It's a metaphor.

Haplo · Post by **Haplo** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:48 am

Eh, well, as far as linking spirituality with quantum physics, there are some good analogies but no real connections that aren't really indirect and irrelevant. Why do you need quantum physics to prove a spiritual view anyway?
Quantum physics isn't about respecting people or the earth or anything of that nature, it's about figuring out how very tiny particles behave and how the universe works.
Many-worlds does suggest that deepak's "everything is one thing" idea is probably at least somewhat close to true, but the idea that it's "all copies of one atom" is dramatically oversimplified and abuses the truth just to make his point. I reiterate my recommendation of AH Almaas; if you want to learn about quantum physics, learn about quantum physics. If you want to learn about spirituality, learn about spirituality. Trying to force them to be directly related is a mistake, IMO.