Wow, you went deeply into this. I didn't give anything like so much thought to my initial comment. I simply implied that thought is a mental process, so lots of neurons and axons involved, meaning lots of cells, meaning lots of molecules, meaning lots of decisions. That was about as far as I went with it. That the thought of doing something involves trillions of quantum decisions.
But, yes, I've never liked the Copenhagen Interpretation. I was taught it, and then taught that Quantum Mechanics is a bit daft and you're not supposed to understand it. Apparently wave function collapse is seen as a side alley of quantum decoherence now. I hate this about physics. I hate it when it scrambles about to explain itself like a drunk wedding guest who fell into and ruined the cake.
This may sound grouchy but I'm ever more convinced that we're in a pocket of "bad science". It's happened throughout history. We remember Newton and Einstein because, even though both were wrong, they were largely right. We tend not to remember, say, Becher and his phlogiston theory. Largely, because it was crap. Science is still producing crap today (why would that change?) and although I love the sciences as much as I love oxygen, physics is increasingly a focus for my ire.
There actually are reasons for science to produce better results today than it used to. Science gets more accurate over time as our technology improves and our math advances. We also have near-instant communication now, so that scientists who previously wouldn't have been able to even find out about each other's work can now collaborate. Of course, some things we know will turn out to be wrong, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that we're going through a particularly inaccurate phase. Becher was groping around in the dark. Maybe we haven't found a light switch, yet, but we've got echolocation now.
Why do you think we're in a "pocket of 'bad science'"? Yes, quantum mechanics feels strange and counter-intuitive, but that doesn't make it any less likely to be true. Our intuitions have developed through our evolution and our personal experience. In other words, intuition isn't based on truth, it's based on survival and memory. The trouble is that we don't have much opportunity to observe most of the stranger aspects of quantum mechanics while growing up, and our ancient ancestors certainly didn't. Take electrons, for example. They don't act like anything we can see and play with in everyday life. They don't act like billiard balls, or snow flakes, or drops of water, or bits of paper. They don't even act like waves, really. They act like electrons. They don't act intuitively because intuition is based on what we're used to seeing, and electrons are really hard to see. If a scientific model that's been confirmed by experiment after experiment feels strange to you but you can't find a flaw in it, then it may not be the model that's broken, but your intuition.
In fact, it really wouldn't make sense for subatomic particles to act like billiard balls or whatever else. After all, the macroscopic objects we interact with act the way they do as a result of the interactions between millions of particles. Expecting an electron to act even remotely like a billiard ball (or any other familiar object) is like expecting a skin cell to act like a human.
I don't know how much you've studied quantum mechanics, but it's worth noting that it makes somewhat more sense if you understand the math behind it. Physicists and physics teachers sometimes have an annoying tendency to go on about how ~difficult~ and ~weird~ physics is, because they think it makes it more interesting to people, and (I suspect) because it makes them seem more impressive. It can be interesting to discuss some of these concepts in general terms, but it's not sufficient for an understanding of the subject. The fact is, if you don't understand the mathematics behind it, you can't understand quantum mechanics. You can grasp some general concepts, but you won't be able to get very far without the math. You just can't.
We definitely have better technology and computers have allowed for things that would be unthinkable if left to humans, but the problems we're dealing with are as elusive to us as atoms were to Democritus. I'm not sure we are comparatively any better off than any other scientist in history. Key word being comparatively.
I don't dispute quantum mechanics in general and I may have been ambiguous and led you to think I did (the "bad science" I was actually thinking about was the assertion that we "may" all be holographic projections from the surface of black holes). The maths part of quantum mechanics does makes sense (I did a maths degree and quantum mechanics was the real world example chosen to illustrate applied maths; it felt like the only thing I studied for about a year of my life).
My problem may come from my chosen discipline. I am a pure mathematician, not an applied one. It's very frustrating to see physics as ten groups guessing ten different things and finally one of them being proved right. I know that's probably how it has to work but it means 90% of it is wrong. Pure mathematics doesn't work that way. Proof is immutable. There's no interpretation, no guesswork, no hunches. It probably is just a personal frustration and that I expect scientists to have certain standards. It wouldn't bother me so much if chemists did the same but chemistry is a lot more restrained. It proves scientists don't have to indulge in the fantastical.
I love physics, I really do. But I'm beginning to understand what my chemistry teacher said when he teasing suggested that when physicists are stuck for a solution, they invent one.
My understanding is that the holographic thing has been horribly misrepresented in the media. I didn't look into it thoroughly enough, though, so you might know better than me what it's about. Science reporting is just awful, and honestly, physicists don't always help matters too much. As for physics being fantastical, most of it isn't, really. I think the fantastical bits are much more likely to be widely reported, though. I get very frustrated with physicists and astronomers who work to educate the public and popularise physics, because they sensationalise things way too much, and they sometimes end up being terribly misleading. People end up thinking that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle indicates that particles have some sort of magical awareness that we're watching them, when in reality, it's something much more boring. Some of the things that seem strange about physics are very probably true, too. We can be very certain that Einstein's mass energy equivalence is true, for example. General relativity is also very unlikely to turn out to be false. In fact, we have technology that wouldn't work if it were.
Yes, there are physicists who've created hypotheses that, with our current knowledge and technology, aren't yet falsifiable (like string theory). It's frustrating, especially when misinformed people start talking about them like they're fact, but it's also important. Once you have such a hypothesis, you can start speculating as to what would be required to make it falsifiable. Sometimes this is something that isn't too far off. Sometimes it's something that we may never have. But you have to think about these things before you can even start making progress.
Chemistry is applied physics. Chemists probably seem less "fantastical" because they don't have to deal with the scope of very real and very strange implications that our observations have.
I love math for that reason too. Math is safe. Some things are true, and some things are false. At first, the more you learn, the safer it seems, as you become more capable of understanding and proving things. Later, though, it gets less safe.
Physicists may guess at answers, but then they put a great deal of effort into trying to disprove themselves. That's how science works. You make the best guess you can, and then you do everything you can to prove yourself wrong. The more you fail to do so, the more likely your hypothesis is to be true. If you fail enough, your hypothesis becomes a theory.
I'm glad to hear the math makes sense. I'm afraid I've forgotten a great deal, and I really need to relearn some things. I wasn't in a good place in my life when I was taking those classes, and subsequent events muddled my memory, too. The point is, if I mess up something and you notice please correct me.
We're definitely living at a time when there are a lot of new ideas, but I don't see that as being a pocket of bad science. Yes, many ideas will turn out to be false, but that means we're living in a very exciting time for physics.
You've hit the nail on the head by saying it's the reporting of science. It is, yes. That's what is frustrating me. That, and the way physicists represent themselves. I say that despite the UK having some brilliant communicators (Brian Cox always gets a mention but I'm thinking in particular of Jim Al-Khalili who pulled off such a simple trick with a normal distribution to demonstrate the danger of a 1°C climate change that I'm amazing I'd never considered it).
I can understand why people think about the observer effect when they think about the uncertainty principle and why they may think it's the action of opening the box that puts paid to Schrodinger's cat, as opposed to the firing event. The reality of the uncertainty principle is really prosaic and mathematically very simple. As you were saying earlier, although it doesn't "feel" logical, it flows directly from the maths.
Eep! Don't ever tell my chemistry teacher that chemistry is applied physics. I know, technically, it is and they probably knew it too and felt that we may think it (of the six people who did chemistry at my school, five of us also did physics).
I create real alternate realities every thought I make
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Wow, you went deeply into this. I didn't give anything like so much thought to my initial comment. I simply implied that thought is a mental process, so lots of neurons and axons involved, meaning lots of cells, meaning lots of molecules, meaning lots of decisions. That was about as far as I went with it. That the thought of doing something involves trillions of quantum decisions.
But, yes, I've never liked the Copenhagen Interpretation. I was taught it, and then taught that Quantum Mechanics is a bit daft and you're not supposed to understand it. Apparently wave function collapse is seen as a side alley of quantum decoherence now. I hate this about physics. I hate it when it scrambles about to explain itself like a drunk wedding guest who fell into and ruined the cake.
This may sound grouchy but I'm ever more convinced that we're in a pocket of "bad science". It's happened throughout history. We remember Newton and Einstein because, even though both were wrong, they were largely right. We tend not to remember, say, Becher and his phlogiston theory. Largely, because it was crap. Science is still producing crap today (why would that change?) and although I love the sciences as much as I love oxygen, physics is increasingly a focus for my ire.
--
VioletTrees
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There actually are reasons for science to produce better results today than it used to. Science gets more accurate over time as our technology improves and our math advances. We also have near-instant communication now, so that scientists who previously wouldn't have been able to even find out about each other's work can now collaborate. Of course, some things we know will turn out to be wrong, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that we're going through a particularly inaccurate phase. Becher was groping around in the dark. Maybe we haven't found a light switch, yet, but we've got echolocation now.
Why do you think we're in a "pocket of 'bad science'"? Yes, quantum mechanics feels strange and counter-intuitive, but that doesn't make it any less likely to be true. Our intuitions have developed through our evolution and our personal experience. In other words, intuition isn't based on truth, it's based on survival and memory. The trouble is that we don't have much opportunity to observe most of the stranger aspects of quantum mechanics while growing up, and our ancient ancestors certainly didn't. Take electrons, for example. They don't act like anything we can see and play with in everyday life. They don't act like billiard balls, or snow flakes, or drops of water, or bits of paper. They don't even act like waves, really. They act like electrons. They don't act intuitively because intuition is based on what we're used to seeing, and electrons are really hard to see. If a scientific model that's been confirmed by experiment after experiment feels strange to you but you can't find a flaw in it, then it may not be the model that's broken, but your intuition.
In fact, it really wouldn't make sense for subatomic particles to act like billiard balls or whatever else. After all, the macroscopic objects we interact with act the way they do as a result of the interactions between millions of particles. Expecting an electron to act even remotely like a billiard ball (or any other familiar object) is like expecting a skin cell to act like a human.
I don't know how much you've studied quantum mechanics, but it's worth noting that it makes somewhat more sense if you understand the math behind it. Physicists and physics teachers sometimes have an annoying tendency to go on about how ~difficult~ and ~weird~ physics is, because they think it makes it more interesting to people, and (I suspect) because it makes them seem more impressive. It can be interesting to discuss some of these concepts in general terms, but it's not sufficient for an understanding of the subject. The fact is, if you don't understand the mathematics behind it, you can't understand quantum mechanics. You can grasp some general concepts, but you won't be able to get very far without the math. You just can't.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
We definitely have better technology and computers have allowed for things that would be unthinkable if left to humans, but the problems we're dealing with are as elusive to us as atoms were to Democritus. I'm not sure we are comparatively any better off than any other scientist in history. Key word being comparatively.
I don't dispute quantum mechanics in general and I may have been ambiguous and led you to think I did (the "bad science" I was actually thinking about was the assertion that we "may" all be holographic projections from the surface of black holes). The maths part of quantum mechanics does makes sense (I did a maths degree and quantum mechanics was the real world example chosen to illustrate applied maths; it felt like the only thing I studied for about a year of my life).
My problem may come from my chosen discipline. I am a pure mathematician, not an applied one. It's very frustrating to see physics as ten groups guessing ten different things and finally one of them being proved right. I know that's probably how it has to work but it means 90% of it is wrong. Pure mathematics doesn't work that way. Proof is immutable. There's no interpretation, no guesswork, no hunches. It probably is just a personal frustration and that I expect scientists to have certain standards. It wouldn't bother me so much if chemists did the same but chemistry is a lot more restrained. It proves scientists don't have to indulge in the fantastical.
I love physics, I really do. But I'm beginning to understand what my chemistry teacher said when he teasing suggested that when physicists are stuck for a solution, they invent one.
--
VioletTrees
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My understanding is that the holographic thing has been horribly misrepresented in the media. I didn't look into it thoroughly enough, though, so you might know better than me what it's about. Science reporting is just awful, and honestly, physicists don't always help matters too much. As for physics being fantastical, most of it isn't, really. I think the fantastical bits are much more likely to be widely reported, though. I get very frustrated with physicists and astronomers who work to educate the public and popularise physics, because they sensationalise things way too much, and they sometimes end up being terribly misleading. People end up thinking that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle indicates that particles have some sort of magical awareness that we're watching them, when in reality, it's something much more boring. Some of the things that seem strange about physics are very probably true, too. We can be very certain that Einstein's mass energy equivalence is true, for example. General relativity is also very unlikely to turn out to be false. In fact, we have technology that wouldn't work if it were.
Yes, there are physicists who've created hypotheses that, with our current knowledge and technology, aren't yet falsifiable (like string theory). It's frustrating, especially when misinformed people start talking about them like they're fact, but it's also important. Once you have such a hypothesis, you can start speculating as to what would be required to make it falsifiable. Sometimes this is something that isn't too far off. Sometimes it's something that we may never have. But you have to think about these things before you can even start making progress.
Chemistry is applied physics. Chemists probably seem less "fantastical" because they don't have to deal with the scope of very real and very strange implications that our observations have.
I love math for that reason too. Math is safe. Some things are true, and some things are false. At first, the more you learn, the safer it seems, as you become more capable of understanding and proving things. Later, though, it gets less safe.
Physicists may guess at answers, but then they put a great deal of effort into trying to disprove themselves. That's how science works. You make the best guess you can, and then you do everything you can to prove yourself wrong. The more you fail to do so, the more likely your hypothesis is to be true. If you fail enough, your hypothesis becomes a theory.
I'm glad to hear the math makes sense. I'm afraid I've forgotten a great deal, and I really need to relearn some things. I wasn't in a good place in my life when I was taking those classes, and subsequent events muddled my memory, too. The point is, if I mess up something and you notice please correct me.
We're definitely living at a time when there are a lot of new ideas, but I don't see that as being a pocket of bad science. Yes, many ideas will turn out to be false, but that means we're living in a very exciting time for physics.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You've hit the nail on the head by saying it's the reporting of science. It is, yes. That's what is frustrating me. That, and the way physicists represent themselves. I say that despite the UK having some brilliant communicators (Brian Cox always gets a mention but I'm thinking in particular of Jim Al-Khalili who pulled off such a simple trick with a normal distribution to demonstrate the danger of a 1°C climate change that I'm amazing I'd never considered it).
I can understand why people think about the observer effect when they think about the uncertainty principle and why they may think it's the action of opening the box that puts paid to Schrodinger's cat, as opposed to the firing event. The reality of the uncertainty principle is really prosaic and mathematically very simple. As you were saying earlier, although it doesn't "feel" logical, it flows directly from the maths.
Eep! Don't ever tell my chemistry teacher that chemistry is applied physics. I know, technically, it is and they probably knew it too and felt that we may think it (of the six people who did chemistry at my school, five of us also did physics).