Be wary if someone uses "quantum physics" as proof of anything.

[Pale Blue Dot]

The Cassini spacecraft has discovered, while orbiting Saturn, an unusual shape at the north pole of that planet: clouds in the shape of an almost perfect hexagon.

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000927/

Scientists do not yet completely understand how something like this exists. However, no one is claiming that it's existence confirms that alien intelligence rules Saturn. Alien intelligence cannot be completely ruled out (in science, nothing can be ruled out until you have all of the evidence), but it is not the most likely (or even the 100th most likely) explanation. The hexagon shape is merely something that we don't currently understand. We need more evidence.

Very, very few people would make the leap that since there are things that we don't understand about Saturn, that means that ghosts exist. However, people make the same leap all the time about quantum physics, and it's just as absurd.

Quantum physics is weird and not completely understood. In quantum physics it's possible for an electron to be more than one place at the same time, and it's possible for a particle to have an immediate effect on another particle all the way over on the other side of the universe.

Like I said, weird. But just because it's weird and not completely understood does NOT mean that quantum physics can be used to prove claims about the paranormal, anymore than Saturn's hexagon can be used to prove that that gas giant is ruled by alien intelligence.

If someone claims that something supernatural can be proven using quantum physics, you should be immediately suspicious. There are no reputable physicists claiming any such thing.

[Spinzonner]

1. Not exactly

It's not that the electron is at more than one place at the same time.

It's that it's not at any place in particular until it's observed and that until 'then' there a probability distribution of where it might be.

So don't use Quantum Physics as an example of anything ... unless you understand it (which Feynman claimed was high;y unlikely for all but a few human beings, himself included)

:-)

[Pale Blue Dot]

5. Point taken.

The main thing that I take away from my very, very limited understanding of quantum physics is that our world is beautiful and bizarre enough without adding any supernatural beings.

[jeff30997]

9. I agree.

And thanks for your post.It's very interesting.

[TahitiNut]

11. Well, Feynman was quarky ... strangely charmed, too.

:shrug:

(Obligatory weak pun for whenever quantum physics is mentioned.)

[TheMadMonk]

17. I'm geting a hadron just thinking about that. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Not me. I obey the exclusionary principle.

Keep your fermion in your own bathroom stall, buddy.

[eridani]

58. You must be one of those immoral singularities--

--that are into black holes, right?

[TheMadMonk]

16. I groked it better as a 12YO than I do today.

Hey. Does this "application" of Quantum phyisics prove that 12YO's really do (or can) know it all?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

35. reading those I feel lepton and strange.

just tie us up in strings, please.

[hootinholler]

29. Almost...

It's not that the electron is at more than one place.

It's also not that the electron isn't at ANY place, it most assuredly is somewhere.

It's that there's no way to tell where the fuck it is until it's observed.

NOBODY understands Quantum Physics, that's why it such a great subject to research! Especially figuring out how to apply it to the real world. The problem is, ironically enough, communicating about it is a grand example that language matters. ;)

Anyone who hasn't read "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" should. It a great read and non technical but gives great insight into one of the sharper minds in physics in his day.

-Hoot

[sutz12]

51. "Don't call me Shirley!" nt

[renie408]

50. Yeah, if Einstein had a hard time with it, I am leaving it alone. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. I kind of feel that way about string theory.

[Az]

4. String theory is more supposition than theory at this stage

Its a good supposition as they go. But we do not have the evidence to compel acceptance of it by any means.

[wtmusic]

12. But it provides undeniable proof

that in the absence of data physicists continue to publish.

[Az]

14. The job of a phsyicist is to pursue suppositions

until they find sufficient evidence for them to become well founded theories. So the pursuit of String Theory is an exciting field to publish in.

[spoony]

26. Sounds rather metaphysical

Making suppositions until some evidence shows up.

[Duppers]

36. these suppositions are based on some evidence

leading to 'good' guesses, until they can be extensively investigated and either proven or disproved. That's the scientific method.
It's not metaphysical, at least not when the word is used as 'supernatural.' If it's used as a synonym for 'abstract,' then I'd say yes, it is. Physics itself often requires abstract thinking.

[wtmusic]

28. I kind of thought it was to explain natural phenomena

not wait for natural phenomena to validate abstract constructs.

You can put the cart before the horse, but the cart tends to end up in a ditch.

[Az]

31. That is where their work finishes

But to make advances they often have to start from suppositions and look for the evidence to support it. This is why Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge. It is the imagination that leads the way and knowledge that fills in the path. When they have found the evidence to support the supposition is when they present it to other scientists for peer review and their work is accepted or refuted.

[Duppers]

37. Az, I should have...

read your post before posting. You said it best!

[wtmusic]

53. Einstein would be aghast

at the absurd lengths superstring theory has gone to reconcile inconsistencies in relativity and quantum mechanics.

Einstein used imagination to explain observable physical phenomena. Not only are superstrings not observable now-they will never be observable, according to QM-they're too small. So we end up using a complex mathematical framework to patch over the holes of theoretical physics like Scotch tape. It's a framework that's not independently confirmable in the forseeable future (even relativity was not generally accepted until Michelson-Morley). But I suppose it's easier to fantasize than getting the SSC built and getting some solid empirical data with which to seed one's imagination.

[SidDithers]

3. It's #10 with a bullet in the Woo Woo Credo...

Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means. For a more impressive effect, use it with the name of your favorite superstition - "quantum dowsing" sure sounds mighty serious.

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

K&R for your most excellent advice :)

Sid

[pnwmom]

6. True. Quantum physics can't prove -- or disprove --

the existence of anything that is, by definition, outside of the ordinary, material world.

[Evoman]

22. That's kind of begging the question.

How do you know there is something outside of the material world, if everything you know and are belong in the material world?

[piesRsquare]

24. Aye, there's the rub!

The notion that "everything (we) know and are belong in the material world" is debatable. I, for one, completely disagree with such a statement.

[MedleyMisty]

7. I like using it for metaphors dealing with other subjects

I don't have very in-depth knowledge of it, but the concepts that I do know and understand are very pretty and easy to relate to other subjects - mostly the thing with the particle being a probability wave until someone observes it.

Don't worry though, the other subjects don't include anything supernatural.

[appalachianguy]

8. Quantum Physics

Hi Finnfan,

Your generalization of quantum physics sort of sums up
most of that branch of science's basic concepts.
I'm certainly no expert, but I've taken in some input
about quantum physics' insights and variations.
One of the main concepts is that QPs deals with the unknown
basics of life as compared to the known concepts.
This concept within itself is extremely complex and mysterious.
Then again, how can anyone make a concrete argument with abstract
ideas? It's many mysteries within the unknown which is way out there
for just about everyone.
To address your Hexagon near the north pole of Saturn, I have a
personal theory on that mystery.
Certainly, the temps there are many hundreds of degs below zero
on any scale. The hexagon makes me think of a snow flake. Put
that thought with the tremendous distance involved and all the unknown variables which affect light. When throwing all those variables
and known concepts together, I could imagine something huge and frozen
millions of miles away with all kinds of potential light effects viewed
from a planet full of intelligent, inquisitive beings wondering "what
the Hell are they looking at?"
This experiment turns out to be quite compelling with some good old
quantum physics involved to boot!

AppGuy

[Oak2004]

56. I suspect the explanation is one with observable earth analogues

Severe hurricanes occasionally develop *-gon shapes in the eye of the storm.

The same factors which create these geometrical shapes in storms on earth may be at work on Saturn.

[alittlelark]

10. The earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth....

I will not be so vain as to believe that what we think we know now is FACT. The wonderful thing about our world is the # of possibilities, feasibilities and the #'s that surround them. I am hoping that this upcoming generation will make inroads into our 'reality'.

The religions will fight them tooth and nail - but I am HOPING.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

13. That aggravates me too.

I live with a person with 2 degrees in physics and he explains relativity to me all the time and quantum mechanics.
That said, I hate these new agey types who use the concepts and misuse them to sell their stuff.

[The_Casual_Observer]

15. Particularly when they are trying to sell you a product or service

[Beerboy]

18. What if quantum physics proves global climate change?

:beer:

[Toots]

27. It has already been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and Quantum Physics

wasn't brought up at least to my understanding.

[TheMadMonk]

19. Resonanace perhaps? (or Markovians)

Is there a way too "delve" into the "lower" reaches of Saturn's atmosphere and look for 6 rotating cells in adjacent latitudes.

Something to do at home: Blow seven equal sized bubbles onto a flat wettable surface. Now carefully nudge six of the bubbles into a circle around the seventh.

Report:


Numerology types: GO AWAY!

Some numbers really do have real world significance. Six surrounding one is as closely as equal sized circles can be placed on a plane. Another is the Golden Ration, which turns up in aesthetically proportioned rectilinear architecture and natural organic spirals; In seashells and flowers; and pinecones and pineapples.

[Duer 157099]

20. "No reputable physicists" as defined by who, you?

Problem is that scientists who are willing to buck the status quo are never "reputable" amongst the establishment while their ideas are still relatively novel.

Crappy logic you use. Fortunately, truly visionary scientists couldn't care less what people like you think.

[Evoman]

23. Um...I think what he means by "reputable physicist"

is someone who has studied quantum mechanics, understands the theory and the math behind the theory, and has written about the subject.

I mean...some guy off the street who read two articles on quantum mechanics, then writes about how it supports ghosts and goblins....is that reputable to you? And scientists who "buck the status quo" may be met initially with skepticism, but if their data holds out, changes happen pretty fast. Quantum mechanics and Relativity is a good example of that. However, you gotta have the data, and you gotta have the math, and you gotta have a solid explanation. You can't just make up shit and expect it to be taken seriously. That's not science.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. The crazy dude walking down Haight street who swears he's talking to Napoleon is "bucking the status

quo", too.

That alone doesn't mean he's right.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. If you want to know what ideas "truly visionary scientists" are working on,

get a subscription to Scientific American.

If you want to listen to a bunch of woo-woo goobers and "4,000 year old spirit guides" peddle gibberish about how Quantum Physics means you can materialize a Lexus in your driveway if you just wish for it hard enough, rent "What the bleep do we know" and buy The Secret on amazon.

[baby_mouse]

21. Thank you! A voice of reason. NT

[immoderate]

25. Good points.

--IMM

[Odin2005]

30. When woo woos bring up QM they usually mean one of the IMTERPRETATIONS of QM.

Those interpretations generally being of the "consciousness collapses the probability wave"-type bastardizations of the Copenhagen Interpretation (interaction with other objects collapses the probability wave).

I, BTW, prefer the "Many Worlds" (AKA "parallel universes') Interpretation (the probability wave determines what % of universes each kind of event will occur) as popularized in the book Fabric of Reality by physicist David Deutsch.

[EFerrari]

32. Quantum physics? I get nervous if someone uses fractions.

lol

[Pale Blue Dot]

33. Then you're susceptible.

Look out for people who tell you that fractions prove the existence of ghosts.

[slowry]

34. b * o^2 / 1 =

boo

!

[TroubleMan]

38. What if I use it to prove the existence of Schrödinger's ghost?

Hmmm?

[Elspeth]

39. Hexagon clouds? They must play soccer on Saturn, not American football.

:)

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Quantum Mechanics, given our understanding of the natural laws, is inherently supernatural.

The quantum universe behaves differently than the macro-universe does.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. It violates what we consider "common sense", that's all.

Nowhere is it written that "common sense"=nature.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. E=MC^2 isn't common sense, and it's a paradigm that is inconsistent with quantum behavior.

Multiple universes are inferred by quantum theory.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. According to Wheeler.

There are other interpretations. The point is, anyone who says they for certain KNOW what QM implies (like "the existence of God") is yanking your chain and probably trying to sell a book on Oprah.

[Duppers]

41. about the almost perfect hexagon

Fluid mechanics in liquids gives a elementary explanation of it, but more investigation has to be done, as the article said:

"Polygons formed in a rotating fluid
Three top views of an experiment in fluid dynamics show stable polygonal shapes formed in a rotating fluid. The experiment consisted of a stationary cylindrical container in which a circular plate was rotated by a motor. The rotation of the plate creates a centrifugal force that presses the fluid outward, forming a circular depression in the center. When the rotation rate is increased sufficiently high, the circular depression spontaneously forms corners, eventually forming stable polygonal shapes that rotate at a different rate from the plate below. From "Polygons on a Rotating Fluid Surface." Credit: Thomas Jansson et al., 2006

This study is probably not directly applicable to Saturn. They continue to say, "We speculate that the instability is caused by the strong azimuthal shear due to the stationary walls and that it is triggered by minute wobbling of the rotating plate. The slight asymmetry induces a tendency for mode-locking between the plate and the polygon, where the polygon rotates by one corner for each complete rotation of the plate." In other words, the polygons form as a result of interaction between the rotating fluid and the edges of the container. Saturn has no edges. But the important result of this study is that you can create stable, rotating polygonal shapes in rotating fluids in the laboratory. Saturn has its own way of doing it -- now the atmospheric physicists just have to figure out how!"

It's a nonlinear effect, not a quantum effect, not at that level. Quantum effects occur on the micro-scale.

[HughMoran]

42. The key work being "supernatural" I think?

I don't think it can be used to prove anything per say since I think it is more of a statistical model, but the title goes one step beyond what the article was saying (I think) and may be deceptive...?

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Quantas Mexicans PROVES There's A God!!1111!!!!!! I'm Series!!!11111!!!!

They said so on "The View"!

[Generic Brad]

46. In an alternate reality your post would not exist

So there. Or there. Or there. No, wait. Or there.

[Cetacea]

47. This is a wonderful thread. K+R n/t

[dave29]

52. 'supernatural' refers to something outside of nature and therefore

would still not involve quantum physics.

The whole idea of something supernatural is that it cannot be understood with physics, even the quantum variety.

It may look like spooky action at a distance, but if it becomes understood to be within the laws of nature, it is no longer supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance_(physics)

And in terms of quantum physics, I would suggest that the overiding principal is that of uncertainty, which in and of itself is the only thing we truly know we have. The very idea of something being supernatural is just some quantum foam percolating in our heads.

[smiley_glad_hands]

54. Heisenberg uncertainty.

You observe it, you change it. So you can only make guesstimations (probabilities)on what you thought you saw or heard. Those guesstimations actually work out quite well in the natural world.

Quantum Mechanics isn't that hard to understand on a basic level. Its like a game of marco polo in an echo chamber, which you can never conclusively win. The best that you can do is determine a probability of position and loudness (energy) at one instance. As soon as you think you've figured it out, you hear "polo" coming from a multitude of directions. (This makes sense in my head anyway.)


Speaking of ghosts: one may be able to prove that they do exist, but you will never be able to prove that they don't. (the GWB WMD argument)

[JMDEM]

55. What the F...

We don't even know what makes us think. If we don't know the thinker, how do we know what is doing all this figuring out?

Physics deals with the physical, right? Hence its name? Well, somebody famous once said matter is energy is matter is energy. I think that's been proven, too, to the best of our ability to prove things. Is energy physical? Or does it "become" physical, and vice versa? Is an electron a wave or a particle, or a wave or a particle? Or are we just using inadequate models, confusing the models for reality?

[Oak2004]

57. Energy is physical, yes

Energy is physical. So too are forces such as gravity and electromagnetism. "Physical" in physics is not used the same way we use the word in casual conversation (as a synonym for matter). In physics, the minute signal from a faraway radio station which passes undetected through your body is as physical as whatever it is that you are sitting on right now.

As to the "is it a wave/a particle/changeable/something else/etc." debate, that's been going on since the day the first equations were first scratched onto a napkin. The short answer is, we don't know. The longer answer is that various scientists have developed various models of what it all means, but there's no way at least at this point to determine which is correct, and there may never be any way of distinguishing which, if any, is correct.

As for me, in my long ago days as a physics student, I preferred just to accept what the equations and experiments indicate without getting too twisted up in what it "means". The universe is weird and wonderful and counterintuitive beyond our feeble imaginings, and I don't feel driven by a fear of this weirdness to make up marginally more intuitive fairy tales about it.