Sci-2 Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 Well, according to Mr. Time Cube, GoBelly-Button Logic Works. Perhaps this the logic all bigots use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I don't understand quantum physics at all. Most people don't understand quantum physics at all, as the famous quote goes: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." But I do know people often try to take experiments from quantum physicists and act like they somehow apply to the 'real' world (like the observer effect etc etc). If you're not a quantum physicist you really have no business discussing quantum physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillio Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I'm starting to feel like the guy in "flowers for Algernon", after the treatment wore off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 I don't understand quantum physics at all. Most people don't understand quantum physics at all, as the famous quote goes: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." But I do know people often try to take experiments from quantum physicists and act like they somehow apply to the 'real' world (like the observer effect etc etc). If you're not a quantum physicist you really have no business discussing quantum physics. I don't get that at all. You could say that about economics, but every Charlie with a song in his heart seems to want to talk about that. Same with every person without degrees in nutrition studies, biology, medicine, or psychology wanting to say what makes people obese/depressed/anxious/etc. Or every person without a sociology or psychology degree who wants to say video games don't promote violence or negative images of women. What makes quantum physics so sacrosanct when applying such restriction to other fields would probably be far better for society[?] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I'm starting to feel like the guy in "flowers for Algernon", after the treatment wore off... I don't get that at all. You could say that about economics, but every Charlie with a song in his heart seems to want to talk about that. Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I don't get that at all. You could say that about economics, but every Charlie with a song in his heart seems to want to talk about that. Same with every person without degrees in nutrition studies, biology, medicine, or psychology wanting to say what makes people obese/depressed/anxious/etc. Or every person without a sociology or psychology degree who wants to say video games don't promote violence or negative images of women. What makes quantum physics so sacrosanct when applying such restriction to other fields would probably be far better for society[?] Probably because quantum physics is insanely more complicated than those things and just plain does make sense most of the time. All the things you listed effect the world around us, quantum physics effect the quantum world which acts nothing like the world around us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Probably because quantum physics is insanely more complicated than those things and just plain does make sense most of the time. All the things you listed effect the world around us, quantum physics effect the quantum world which acts nothing like the world around us. Economics is so complicated that if you took all of the economists in the world and laid them end to end, they would still all point in different directions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Economics is so complicated that if you took all of the economists in the world and laid them end to end, they would still all point in different directions. Right, good point. ETA: though thinking about it a lot of that is political, in most other sciences just plain wrong ideas are left behind. While in economics a lot of clearly wrong stuff is defended by people for political reasons. You get a similar though not quite as extreme effect in climate science and evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Actually, this is the age of the enlightenment, so everyone is free to discuss anything they want. Quantum mechanics included. The problem is that descriptive discussions of quantum mechanical phenomena are incredibly difficult to make specific and precise. That's why a lot of the debate ends up being frustrating for scientists. One thing I'd caution against is extrapolating too much out of single experiments or studies. The way science is done in incremental fashion these days you'd need a ream of peer-reviewed papers to build consensus in a field before the general public can be educated about it. By the way, speaking of emergent phenomena, you might consider entropy as one when you increase the number of particles in your system. That might be something that sets the arrow of time in one direction (the entropy of the universe is always increasing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 By the way, speaking of emergent phenomena, you might consider entropy as one when you increase the number of particles in your system. That might be something that sets the arrow of time in one direction (the entropy of the universe is always increasing) Thanks! That makes this feel less crazy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 Probably because quantum physics is insanely more complicated than those things and just plain does make sense most of the time. All the things you listed effect the world around us, quantum physics effect the quantum world which acts nothing like the world around us. But that's sort of my point. If anything we should feel safe to pontificate on the nature of Time while accepting we aren't necessarily qualified to look into the nitty-gritty maths. OTOH, we should be far more willing to heed experts who challenge our folk wisdom that "fat people are lazy" or "video games don't make people violent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I don't get that at all. You could say that about economics, but every Charlie with a song in his heart seems to want to talk about that. Same with every person without degrees in nutrition studies, biology, medicine, or psychology wanting to say what makes people obese/depressed/anxious/etc. Or every person without a sociology or psychology degree who wants to say video games don't promote violence or negative images of women. What makes quantum physics so sacrosanct when applying such restriction to other fields would probably be far better for society[?] Because the only people who can even begin to understand are extremely intelligent and have dedicated most of their life to doing so. While a lot of other fields a layman can understand and communicate ideas/experiments/hypotheses etc. because economics and biology are a lot easier to understand than fucking quantum physics. Most people who talk about quantum physics that aren't quantum physicists are pseudoscience advocates trying to apply ideas/experiments that happen on the quantum level to the 'real' world. I didn't say you can't discuss it just that you have no business doing so. I've talked about quantum physics with other people before, knowing that I have no business talking about it and there could be a million reasons why I'm wrong or have misinterpreted what I've read. Also, knowledge and understanding of other fields is actually useful to a layperson, the fact that something happens or doesn't happen at the quantum level probably has zero implications on 99.9999999999% of people. While things like economics are actually pretty important, again though, economics isn't even comparable to quantum physics in terms of difficulty to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 I don't think you addressed my point at all. Should we always leave things to the experts, or can we pontificate about topics we don't have degrees in?Also, knowledge and understanding of other fields is actually useful to a layperson, the fact that something happens or doesn't happen at the quantum level probably has zero implications on 99.9999999999% of people. This isn't a counterargument to your initial position that lack of expertise means you have "no business" discussing a topic. If anything it's more important that people without expertise refrain from espousing opinions [on obesity and violence in video games] that contradict evidence precisely due to the implications on people. So you should, assuming I can supply you proof, accept scientific consensus on any topic. Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I don't think you addressed my point at all. Should we always leave things to the experts, or can we pontificate about topics we don't have degrees in? This isn't a counterargument to your initial position that lack of expertise means you have "no business" discussing a topic. If anything it's more important that people without expertise refrain from espousing opinions [on obesity and violence in video games] that contradict evidence precisely due to the implications on people. So you should, assuming I can supply you proof, accept scientific consensus on any topic. Good to know."This isn't a counterargument to your initial position that lack of expertise means you have "no business" discussing a topic." I'm not sure what you mean by that, not sure why I'd be trying to supply a counterargument to my initial position. There are a whole host of reasons why you might be in a position to form a logical position on something like video game violence. Take this guy for example. You don't need a degree to understand obesity and violence. The point about quantum theory not being relevant to most people is about the fact that people who talk about like it is relevant to most people are misapplying the ideas to the real world. There is a reason why we should have a discussion about video game violence (albeit a short one because video games don't cause violence) because it actually has real world implications, I'm not saying you need a degree to talk about something. Just that quantum theory is a special case where it so complicated that normal people simply can't understand it and if they do try to talk about it (especially trying to apply it to the real world) they're probably getting it wrong. If for some reason you have am amateur passion for theoretical physics then discuss all you want. If for some reason you're trying to misapply ideas in a field you don't understand discuss it all you want - but don't be surprised when someone points it out and tells you you have no business discussing it. To your last question, if there is an actual scientific consensus on something then it's probably correct. If there is good evidence to the contrary the scientific consensus will quickly change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 (albeit a short one because video games don't cause violence) Here's the thread. Read through it, especially Ormond's posts, and decide for yourself. but don't be surprised when someone points it out and tells you you have no business discussing it. So people shouldn't ask questions about subjects in the hopes that actual experts might chime in? You do know there are physicists like IheartTelsa on this board right? Note he's already given us plebs permission to pontificate, and kindly offered the possibility that entropy might also be emergent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Here's the thread. Read through it, especially Ormond's posts, and decide for yourself. So people shouldn't ask questions about subjects in the hopes that actual experts might chime in? You do know there are physicists like IheartTelsa on this board right? Note he's already given us plebs permission to pontificate, and kindly offered the possibility that entropy might also be emergent. Can you stop completely misrepresenting what I'm saying? I'm not talking about "subjects" in general and I'm not trying to revoke your permission to talk about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 If you're not a quantum physicist you really have no business discussing quantum physics. Can you stop completely misrepresenting what I'm saying? I'm not talking about "subjects" in general and I'm not trying to revoke your permission to talk about anything. ????? ...except quantum physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Looking back on it, I think Gears is using the term "no business" to mean our...or at least my...speculation is so unrestrained by knowledge of math and physics that it isn't grounded by anything but imagination. Which, upon reflection, isn't a completely unfair charge. I would note that my primary question is less about the particulars [of] QM and more about how time can be illusory from the outside of a system yet extant within the system. I suppose subsequent critique would be that my criticism of the theory is taking the layperson description as the genuine conclusion when what terms like "time" and "emergence" may not mean the same thing to those with deeper knowledge of QM. But if that's the charge I'd place the burden on science writers rather than on my own shoulders. [And I'd say this respect for science over intuition and folk wisdom would still apply to the aforementioned subjects - media as contributing to violence, obesity not necessarily being a laziness issue, and economic policy] In any case, here's another article to ponder:Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same TimeThe experiment shows that it's not strictly logical to think of entanglement as a tangible physical property, Eisenberg says. "There is no moment in time in which the two photons coexist," he says, "so you cannot say that the system is entangled at this or that moment." Yet, the phenomenon definitely exists. Anton Zeilinger, a physicist at the University of Vienna, agrees that the experiment demonstrates just how slippery the concepts of quantum mechanics are. "It's really neat because it shows more or less that quantum events are outside our everyday notions of space and time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I am afraid that this spherical conception of time is fundamentally mistaken, as this magisterial summary unerringly proves.haha haven't seen that in 15 years. nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 By observing aren't you interacting with the universe in some way? For example to actually see this universe light must travel from it to yourself, and if light can do that then you aren't outside of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.