Quantum Science and “Woo-Hoo” Mysticism

Here’s a comment I received on my Tinfoil Multiverse thread a while back:

Just because you throw the phrase “quantum physics” around doesnt mean you (a) know what the hell you’re talking about or (b) the universe is mysterious beyond comprehension.

Scientists don’t fear quantum physics (I am an active scientist, and I have never, ever feared QP); QP is a part of modern science. yes, it’s wierd from a classical/Newtonian view of the universe, but that’s no reason to fear it. There is a vast difference between QP and woo-woo mysticism:

The former makes demonstrable, falsifiable claims about the universe, which can be (and are) experimentally verified and discarded if necessary; the latter does no such thing.

edge100 – June 22nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Wow, my first scientist, and he flamed me!. Oh well, it’s to be expected as I’ve learned, the hard way of course. He didn’t like the way I bandied about “quantum mechanics/physics”.(actual quote: “Quantum mechanics is some weird shit. Most scientists don’t like to use it because it often explodes their own little pet theories/dogmas. As I always said and continue to say, ‘there’s more to reality than our puny five senses.” If we knew what the whole truth was, we wouldn’t even get out of bed!”) It wasn’t in the thread, it was a comment I made, the first one in fact.

So my response was in effect, show me, I want to learn and explain in layman’s terms. Here’s the response:

Quantum physics is not the explanation for all things we cannot explain. It IS difficult to grasp (”if you think you understand QP, you don’t understand QP”, is the standard quote), but it makes predictions, which are experimentally verifiable. Until “ghosts, hauntings…” etc are subjected to experimental verification, this is just woo woo hypothesizing (and it’s barely that).

But my real beef was with the comment you made:

“Quantum mechanics is some weird shit. Most scientists don’t like to use it because it often explodes their own little pet theories/dogmas.”

QM is the subject of active research, by real scientists, who publish their work in real journals, which are reviewed by other real scientists. It explodes classical mechanics, but this is the way science works: theories are developed, based on real data, that explain a given phenomenon. If new data is obtained that does not fit the theory, the theory is modified and/or discarded. BUT, any new theory must explain why the old theory SEEMED to be correct. Special relativity (another ‘hard-to-understand-using-conventional-thinking’ theory) destroyed Newtonian mechanics, but suggested why the latter APPEARED to be correct (SR simplifies to Newtonian mechanics at velocities that are very low with respect to the speed of light).

“As I always said and continue to say, ‘there’s more to reality than our puny five senses.”

There is, of course, more to reality than our five senses (which is why we have devices that can detect information that is beyond our senses). But that doesn’t imply any of the things discussed above.

Quantum physics does not predict anything and everything, but it often gets used to justify things that seem “wierd”.

Ok, Dr. edge100 believes that quantum physics doesn’t predict anything and everything and he doesn’t like the way it gets used to explain “weird” stuff (use a spell checker “Doc”). Fine, I would buy that except for some pretty smart people who say quantum science might explain some weird shit:

  1. Why do ‘particles’ appear to affect each other at a distance, no matter the distance?

Answer: There are no such things as ‘particles’ according to Milo Wolffe:

It is the purpose of this article to explain the origin and cause of the strange instantaneous events associated with these laws. We will show that causality is not actually being violated. Instead, the strange events are merely appearances, “shaumkamm” in the words of Irwin Schroedinger. They were created by our former incomplete knowledge of the Wave Structure of Matter and of the energy exchange mechanism of quantum wave structures. All communication is actually at velocity c. Source

That’s novel, Wave Function Theory, never heard of it, wonder if Dr. edge100 has? Is it ‘woo-hoo mysticism’?

Because here’s the counter theory to that:

Quantum physics tries to explain the behavior of even smaller particles. These particles are things like electrons, protons, and neutrons. Quantum physics even describes the particles which make these particles! That’s right; the model of an atom that you were taught in high-school is wrong. The electrons don’t orbit like planets; they form blurred clouds of probabilities around the nucleus. Source.

Different theories about the same science? Which is ‘woo-hoo mysticism’? Who’s right? The model of the atom taught to us in school is wrong. Hmmph. And isn’t probabilities something like throwing dice continuously, like for a very long time?

And didn’t Einstein say something like, “You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one. (Albert Einstein to Max Born, Sept 1944, ‘The Born-Einstein Letters’) Source

How ’bout that, the Father of Quantum Physics doesn’t like his child much. He must’ve thought it was ‘woo-hoo’ mysticism.

My point is that today’s “woo-hoo” mysticism could be tomorrow’s accepted theory and the unforeseen future’s truth. Why couldn’t Paul Eno be right? Just because his theory doesn’t fit present dogma and can’t be proven with “physical evidence”, without instrumentation to measure any effects? Present particle/wave theories couldn’t be tested until particle accelerators became available. Who’s to say that some machine won’t be invented that extracts a “wormhole” from the “quantum foam” and expands it wide enough to see a “parallel universe” using a Casimir device?

No, I am not a scientist, hold a PhD, a published author, a professional researcher or any of that, I never claimed to. I have a blog that is dedicated to asking hard questions about politics, conspiracy theories, science-fiction and science. Especially dogma of any type. I love to question that. Along with authority.

Like Milo Wolffe says, “Most scientists will deny any new truths”. Source

24 responses

  1. Used my alloted time folks, catch ya on the flip-side tomorrow.

    Happy threading!

  2. Why do ‘particles’ appear to affect each other at a distance, no matter the distance?

    This is waaaaaay out of my league but, does this refer to the concept that particles have memory?

    This was the argument against time travel.

    If you moved backward or forward in time, eventually the universe would try to correct the imbalance and the particles would begin returning to their actual timeline.

  3. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    😆 Hey, Marine… you should’a told old ‘Oppenheimer’ that his modesty was only exceeded by his spelling ability! There’s always some social inept wanting to puff himself up at someone else’s expense. Of course, he has it all figured out, and we’re all dolts! I have many friends with doctorates, and they don’t go around belittling others. But then; their EQ (and IQ) is quite high… unlike some others. 😉

    Our ‘expert’ has formed his opinions the same way we all do, from studying and learning. I’d also hazard a guess that he’s probably picked up some elitist dogma and programming in their institutions, but that would be foolishness to his eminence. Maybe we were smarter having got our bullshit for free, where he paid, and is still paying, through the nose for his.

    Einstein, as I recall, remarked that God did not play dice, and he did believe in an ordered universe. I guess we were snowed about certain things we learned in high school, Dad, molecule-wise, and I wonder how long it will be before ‘Einstein II’ realizes that the info he paid tens of thousands of Rothschild notes for is bullshit, when a dozen or so years from now, some egghead reproves him!


  4. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    I wonder how many souls ‘Mr. Spock’ benefited with his wisdom last week, with his grand knowledge of things unseen? Did he offer hope to the oppressed? Did he feed some starving child, or help put a roof over some homeless person’s head? Did he help some elderly person open her milk container, or would that have been beneath the calling of his eminence to benefit the NWO-oppressed world with his theories on molecular structure and cosmic “foam”. Funny… those things do have meaning in university staff rooms and lecture halls, but in the REAL world, the SEEN world, it don’t mean diddly!

    Knowledge is fine. An enquiring mind is fine, also. An arrogant one is just not that beneficial or even welcome most places in the real world.

  5. I tracked this guy down and a couple of his buddies. I tried to follow a couple of their arguments in some threads on their blogs, you know me UH, I’ll always give the Devil his due and these guys are pretty smart. But it’s kind of funny watching them “outsmart” each other.

    I believe this “edge” guy is a Canadian like you UH, here’s his blog link: http://propterhoc.wordpress.com/. He doesn’t seem to get much traffic there. A person like him would say he’s got more important research stuff to do than blog. Hmmm, why have one? Must be his sparkling personality trying to express itself.

    Or could be because he doesn’t like God or any other “woo-hoo” mystical belief. Here’s a guy right up your alley UH! You two would really hit it off! *hand over mouth stifling snarking snickers* 😉

    Oh yeah, the quantum foam idea I picked up from Stephen Baxter and Arthur C. Clarke’s The Light of Other Days. Same with the Casimir device, ol’ Doc sociable didn’t.

  6. Interesting but I am so lost on this stuff! LOL

  7. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    Here… Suzie… allow me to guide you! 😉

    (Said the spider to the fly!)

  8. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    Yo, Jar-head…

    I followed the link to a dead-end.


  9. Hmmm, shoulda went right to his site, I just tried it and it worked. He goes by a different moniker there.

    Just as well, he’ll slink by when everyone’s done with this thread. I’m not even gonna waste my time on it.

    Time to work on my sci-fi stuff, later!

  10. Wow, a whole thread devoted to me. I’m honoured.

    To be perfectly honest, it was never my intention to start a flame war around this. I simply took issue with this contention that because QM is strange, that it can be equated to other things that are strange.

    The critical distinction here is that QM makes predictions, like any other scientific theory, and those predictions can be falsified. How does one falsify the existence of ghosts, for instance. Or, as someone pointed out, of god? We can’t. Those are not scientific predictions, because they cannot be falsified.

    Like Einstein, I too believe in an ordered universe which obeys laws. QM is NOT inconsistent with this; it just turns out that the laws are somewhat more complex than we thought.

    I honestly didn’t mean to start a fight over this. But I do take issue when science is misrepresented. All things cannot be explained through QM. Unfortunately for us, we live in “middle world” (Richard Dawkins’ term, not mine); a world in which we are aware of things that are common to us (i.e. that exist at our own scale of time (seconds to years) and space (millimetres to kilometres). We have not evolved to understand the distances at play in QM, or the speeds at play in special relativity. We understand nature in a “classical” way, because it fits with what we see. The electromagnetic spectrum, for instance, is FAR wider than our eyes can sense. We are only equipped to “notice” a small part of it.

    But this does not, in any way, mean that ANYTHING is possible simply because of our limited observational powers. QM is “weird” (criticizing spelling? C’mon…), but is still scientific.

    And by way of introduction, I am, indeed, Canadian. I am an active biomedical scientist, and I dont go by a different moniker at my blog; I use my real first name. I dont get to post to my blog that often, for various reasons, but I do use it as an outlet for exposing shoddy thinking (which often comes in a religious guise…).

    I do apologize if my tone was somewhat harsh. I think we can learn from each other.

  11. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    Were we fighting? Oh…

    That sounds subjective to me as well… along with many of the theories you propose. I suppose the proof is in the proof that isn’t really provable… right?

    In other words, going by all of this, what do we or can we believe, if nothing is provable?

    So, what is it? If we’re not here by God, OR by spontaneity, what is there? Is there any information out there that we can trust as valid, or do we just like to hear ourselves dissertate? The language is flowery, and probably has some meaning and/or relevance in some circles, but where is the benefit for humanity in general?

    Can’t falsify the existence of God? Hell… it’s done all of the time! It’s called E-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n! You see… I’m one of THOSE that think that science and religion CAN be reconciled. I sat through a meeting this morning, where a Th.D. informed me (as have you) that the two are incompatible. I have this really UN-scientific (probably doltish) view that if there were a God, that He, being credited with creating all things, PROBABLY created the natural forces that govern those things along with them. Granted, thinking like that might not get me a degree or even a courteous glance in the hallowed halls of intelligentsia, but it makes sense to me.

    See, I’m not sophisticated enough to not think that there are plenty of scientific and logical reasons why God exists, and do you know the first and primary reason? It is the FACT that scientists cannot agree on much of anything among themselves about many things, or, like you say, PROVE anything, and end up with more questions than they started with.

    They think that if you can’t PROVE something exists, it DOESN’T! Well, I’m sure there aren’t many scientists that believe that I exist, but I DO! There is a body behind this text you’re reading! Take my word for it. 😉

    You are right, Science IS misrepresented… all the time, by people that consider themselves scientific. Science exists because it is a DEFINING term, not an entity. It is the description of the analysis of those things (observable or otherwise) that operate in the cosmos and natural world.You could consider the Bible a science manual, in that it describes not only the existence and workings of the natural world and the universe, but also the existence and character of the AUTHOR of those things! That’s more than what our learned doctors and professors are able to do, and failing to do that hide behind the excuse that those things are unprovable like ghosts and Bigfoot! They’ve never seen either one, so it can’t exist! Well, I’ve never met you, Edge, so you’re not really here, either! (By their reckoning!) However… logically… because I, myself, exist (and I’m certain of that!) and am corresponding with you on this page, though you are unseen to me, and by virtue of the fact that you left a comment behind you, there is a 100% chance you do, indeed, exist!

    Being the hick I am, I lump all theories together, like QM and Special Relativity, and those basic “observable” items of Newtonian mechanics into the general category of ‘Science”. I know… I’m just SO Bohemian! There are undiscovered laws and “particles” I’m sure that are verily jumping up and down and waving their virtual hands in the air and shouting; “Hey… it’s me! I exist! Lookee here!” But… we haven’t tripped over them yet, so…

    Dad has his theories… and from a philosophical viewpoint, they are as good as anything we have. Where I take offense is where people place their own definition on science as being something other than a descriptive analysis, and make it an entity all it’s own… much like the One that Evolutionists are trying so PASSIONATELY to disprove in God.

  12. Yeah Doc edge, I kinda took offense to the tone, it tends to rile my blood, so I did dedicate a thread to you, to make a point.

    Look, I don’t want a flame war either and with you being a practicing scientist, you bring insight from an area of scientific discipline I’m unfamiliar with, biomedicine. I could ask questions like, “Do you employ gene therapy, or do you study families to trace genetic propensities for certain diseases?” Are these areas of your work?

    My little space here I started at the behest of my friends, who are politically active, more so than I am. I told (warned) them what kind of insanity I might spread here and they went for it. As you see, I am not totally devoted to science and I’m pretty eclectic in what I post.

    If I have a theme here it is to question with vigor established “norms”, various dogma of any type and to learn from different people of all walks of life.

    My degree is in technology(mechanical), math(statistics) and science(physics, mechanical, not quantum). But I have several credits (86) of study in computer information systems, Western Civilization, American History, World Religion, Psychology(adult and child) and American Poetry.

    So I might not be a PhD, but I can carry my own if I have to.

    I agree that shoddy thinking often comes in a religious guise, especially here in the U.S., which is really bad. And to quote a blogger I read sometimes, ” religion is akin to intellectual sloth or intellectual incompetence. I have to say though that I have conversed with several learned men (and women) who are practicing Christians and one Zen Buddhist who are by no means “shoddy thinkers”. One of my frequent friends here is a practicing Seventh Day Adventist and he definitely isn’t a shoddy thinker, so I implore you to keep an open mind here.

    And also keep in mind this is a dedicated “tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nutso” site. And have fun with it!

  13. “Do you employ gene therapy, or do you study families to trace genetic propensities for certain diseases?”

    I am not a physician, so I don’t directly employ gene therapy (and very few physicians do anyway). I have studied familes and identifed gene loci for diseases in the past (and published in this area), although this is not my area of interest these days.

    I dont think that all religious people are shoddy thinkers. I dont think I’ve ever even implied this (and if I have, I apologize). What I do think, however, is that shoddy thinking often comes from those who cannot see the difference between faith and evidence. Religious people certainly can be intelligent; like you, I know many religious people who are quite brilliant at what they do. My issue is with those people who limit what they accept to be true where this conflicts with their faith. That is, they’ll follow science as far as it takes them, so long as it doesn’t encroach on what they “know” from other, less evidentiary sources.

  14. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    Apparently Einstein was a tin-foiler, himself…

    “The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.”
    Albert Einstein

  15. Sorry, you’re disputing that schools and the press have an influence on the opinions of the populace?

    Perhaps the “under its thumb” bit is a little over the top, but I think the main message is pretty close to the truth.

    Nevertheless, Albert Einstein is a false-authority on this. I believe what he says about relativity (and even QM), not on social ills. You wouldn’t ask Paris Hilton about gene therapy, would you?

  16. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    If it would get me to the truth, I’d ask Larry Fines, (of Three Stooges fame) as I don’t limit myself to so-called ‘authorities’. Hell, I’d ask my DOG before I’d go to some ‘authorities’ for an answer… at least he wouldn’t lie to me!

    No offense (yet) but exactly WHO are YOU? I KNOW who Albert Einstein was… and what, pray tell, makes you any ‘authority’ on whether Einstein was or was not clued in on our “social ills’?

    And MOI(?) dispute the FACT that the schools and the media have an influence on the populace? You don’t know ME very well, either!!


    I’d say most tin-foilers have a better handle on reality than the ‘authorities’!

  17. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    In Einstein’s defense, I quote my friend Christopher…

    “Who says scientists don’t see beyond their labs?”

    Compartmentalization is a defining trait of the NWO.

  18. Compartmentalizing might well be a characteristic of any who define past real knowledge. I get a boot out of atheists, agnostics, etc. because at least they are trying to think for themselves. For someone willing to do that, I’ll definitely make allowances.

  19. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    Then exercise your right to think for yourself… consider the possibility there might be truth to an aternate view other than what is FORCED upon you in the schools, and what might be popular with your peers.

    Until you do that, you are as biased as those you accuse.

  20. You’re not too bright yourself. Have you looked to see what I do at my website ?

  21. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    Opit… your comment inferred that people like me can’t think for ourselves because we challenge what athiests (and possibly you) deem as truth, in contradiction to your inferential opinion that free thought is beneficial and necessary for us all. I’m merely suggesting you employ your own philosophy in an attempt at seeing my side of the issue.

    I looked at your site… being as I’m not too bright, you might clue me in on what feature of your site you thought I needed to see.

  22. Uber Highwayman | Reply

    I’ll only add one other thought here, so as not to deviate from the theme Dad has established for discussion on matters of science: This discourse originally came from a desire on my part to counter criticism of Dad’s views, and not defend my philosophy or convictions. I’m content with those, and if you are with yours, then fine. Far be it from me to disturb your peace with that.

    The irony of free-thought is that there are two sides to every story, and not just a “my way or the highway” one-sided view. (No pun intended!) That is a vivid realization of mine, having played on both sides of the fence.

  23. Dad doesn’t need defense from me – though we kid back and forth some.
    Inference of any person being unable to think because of where they start from is in direct opposition to my thoughts – unless they are dedicated to the proposition that it is wrong to do so. People have to make sense of the the world on an individual basis.

  24. Wordgeezer here, zooming in from the future. It’s now, Jan 13 2012, friday the 13th. I ran across something on the tubes, Youtube in particular, that related to Woo Hoo Science so I thought I better see if dad2059 has discussed this. I’ve gotta say, I’ve got a real ear full and find myself humbled by the comments of my friends, so, even if it is 5 years later, I’ll refrain from comment and share what I seen regarding Quantam Levitation. All you have do is google it. All I can tell ya is that this explains some of the Woo Hoo stuff that I’ve wondered about….Makes me want to learn quantam physics,. do you suppose I could get a clue by cruising the tubes?…G%

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: