Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The "brilliance" of QM

Expand Messages
  • Andy Doerksen
    Well, here s why they should never put an I in front of QM. Man, I just love this: Schrödinger s cat illuminates something sticky at the heart of
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 26, 2004
      Well, here's why they should never put an 'I' in front of "QM." Man, I just
      love this:

      "Schrödinger's cat illuminates something sticky at the heart of quantum
      mechanics. The most successful physical theory of all time, it has been
      used to construct or understand everything from lasers to snowflakes. But
      pure contradiction lies at its heart, because in the quantum world particles
      can be in multiple locations simultaneously, and doing incompatible things,
      and in multiple states, and acting in ways that make you wish you were not a
      quantum theorist. This is called 'superposition'--and superposition
      persists until somebody looks into the cat box, atwhich point the
      possibilities collapse into something real and classical--something we can
      hear, touch, feel, see, and maybe even understand.

      "According to quantum theory, superposition should be possible at any scale,
      but in the real world, things like keys, cats, and cars don't bilocate. If
      quantum theory holds true at the tiny scale of photons and electrons, when
      does it stop working and why?"

      (Jill Neimark, "Save Schrödinger's Cat," SCIENCE & SPIRIT, 2002;
      http://www.science-spirit.org/articles/articledetail.cfm?article_id=387)

      I've got a possible - and, surprise-surprise, *logical* - answer for Ms.
      Neimark: Maybe QM "stops working" at the macro-level because it _never
      worked at all_. One of the hallmarks of a bad theory is the continual
      addition of implausible adjustments to force the theory to fit the data. If
      you insist on doing that, then *of course* your theory is going to become
      the "most successful physical theory of all time"; how could it *not* become
      that if you keep padding it with ad hoc components to stretch its
      explanatory power?

      But that hardly means you've proved anything. If "pure contradiction lies
      at its heart," then quite simply QM cannot be a true model of reality. The
      notion of superposition is *logically impossible*. If a theory leads you
      directly into the logically absurd - then, hello, why wouldn't you come up
      with another theory...? Why on earth has the Scientific Establishment
      embraced a logically impossible theory?

      Regards,
      Andy
    • Jack Martinelli
      From: Andy Doerksen The notion of superposition is *logically impossible*. Take a shot at this -- define superposition. Make a resonable effort to understand
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 26, 2004
        The notion of superposition is *logically impossible*. 
         
        Take a shot at this -- define superposition.  Make a resonable effort to understand it first (be a good scientist), then take a shot a definition and then a critical analysis. 
         
        Regards
         
        Jack Martinelli
         
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.