3 ms·

If phenomena are described by similar equations, it does mean that there’s something in common between them. For example the equations :). The equations are a s

If phenomena are described by similar equations, it does mean that there’s something in common between them. For example the equations :). The equations are a system of constraints. Means both systems are constrained in the same way. And we cannot simply hand wave this away and say it’s just a coincidence. A system of coincidences. We need to at least try to figure out why is that, before we dismiss it so haphazardly.

lisper 3y ago
> We need to at least try to figure out why is that, before we dismiss it so haphazardly. No, we don't. There is enough misinformation and woo surrounding QM already. There is absolutely no reason to entertain the notion that there is some deep connection between QM and any macroscopic phenomenon simply because both inolve a wave equation. That's just stupid.
- futurisold 3y ago
  > There is enough misinformation and woo surrounding QM already. There is absolutely no reason to entertain the notion that there is some deep connection between QM and any macroscopic phenomenon simply because both involve a wave equation. I'm with you here. Lot of ground for certain people to pick the sentence and use it out of context to augment their systematic bullshit.
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    Would you suppress actual scientific discovery if it happens to be similar to some "woo" a scammer used in his cult? Is this how you weigh things... better to ignore truth than admit some fake science has merit, even if by accident? This is not a description of the scientific process, but a description of tribalism, polarization and confirmation bias. People who prefer their team to end up right (or even worse, their goal is for the other team to end up wrong regardless of merit) by bending reality to fit their view, rather than bend themselves to perceive reality as it is, end up wrong. Things tend to fall into patterns in physics, chemistry, ecosystems, societies, information technology. If they didn't, math would be useless, as it's the abstract description of such patterns and the quantitative relationships of measurable variables within them. And these patterns will be constantly rediscovered, often by different people, under different names, with different levels of sophistication, and many of those people won't have the best of intentions or wisdom how to use what they found, or guessed about. We can't simply reject every concept, simpy because someone we don't like happens to subscribe to it. This is an outright childish way of looking at the world.
    - fallenasleep 3y ago
      You're tilting at windmills. The science done in the article is fine science. Drawing parallels between the models is good and not woo The question that started this thread is: >Aren't quantum effects supposed to disappear in the macroscopic world Which is just a straightforward misreading of the article. Nobody is trying to "supress an actual scientific discovery" they are trying to clarify what has actually been discovered.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      Well, that would be a terrible outcome, but fortunately, it is all predicated on a misunderstanding in your first post: "The equations are a system of constraints. Means both systems are constrained in the same way." There's an isomorphism, that's all, and it's not an unexplained mystery to those who have sufficient relevant knowledge. It's pretty clear in the article, where the word 'analogy' appears more than once.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  I'm not sure you understand how the scientific method works, but "ignore new applications of existing models, even if they have high predictive quality, because it causes woo" is not among the rules it sets. In fact such attitudes tend to hold back science for an entire generation, until all those stubbornly persistent in ignoring the obvious start passing away.
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    > I'm not sure you understand how the scientific method works From previous discussions, I think he understand. We have a few disagreements, but in most cases we agree. For me, the problem is in the title of the article: > Quantum physicists explained earth’s oscillating weather patterns It's too easy to misinterpret it and think that the Quantum Physicists used Quantum Mechanics at the whole Earths. They actually used some mathematical tools first discovered to solve QM problems and repurposed them to solve climate patterns. That confused the person that made the comment at the top of this thread.
  - lisper 3y ago
    Let's go back to the original comment that started this thread: > Aren't quantum effects supposed to disappear in the macroscopic world? How is this explained? The answer to this question is: yes, quantum effects generally disappear in the macroscopic world. There are some exceptions, like rainbows and transistors, but in general macroscopic phenomena can be completely explained by classical approximations to QM, notwithstanding that they are in fact quantum systems "under the hood". To be technically precise, in macroscopic phenomena, and in particular in thermalized systems (like the planet's climate) decoherence causes all of the interesting effects of QM (and specifically all of the non-local effects) to become unmeasurably small. In thermalized macroscopic systems, the classical approximation is 100% in agreement with observation, and so any suggestion that because some of the math of QM is applicable to climate that there might be a new physical phenomenon waiting to be discovered and that this phenomenon has something to do with quantum mechanics can be dismissed out of hand. Supporting such a claim would require a lot more than just some similar-looking equations. But I didn't feel like getting quite so long-winded about it.

lisper 3y ago

> We need to at least try to figure out why is that, before we dismiss it so haphazardly. No, we don't. There is enough misinformation and woo surrounding QM already. There is absolutely no reason to entertain the notion that there is some deep connection between QM and any macroscopic phenomenon simply because both inolve a wave equation. That's just stupid.

futurisold 3y ago
> There is enough misinformation and woo surrounding QM already. There is absolutely no reason to entertain the notion that there is some deep connection between QM and any macroscopic phenomenon simply because both involve a wave equation. I'm with you here. Lot of ground for certain people to pick the sentence and use it out of context to augment their systematic bullshit.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  Would you suppress actual scientific discovery if it happens to be similar to some "woo" a scammer used in his cult? Is this how you weigh things... better to ignore truth than admit some fake science has merit, even if by accident? This is not a description of the scientific process, but a description of tribalism, polarization and confirmation bias. People who prefer their team to end up right (or even worse, their goal is for the other team to end up wrong regardless of merit) by bending reality to fit their view, rather than bend themselves to perceive reality as it is, end up wrong. Things tend to fall into patterns in physics, chemistry, ecosystems, societies, information technology. If they didn't, math would be useless, as it's the abstract description of such patterns and the quantitative relationships of measurable variables within them. And these patterns will be constantly rediscovered, often by different people, under different names, with different levels of sophistication, and many of those people won't have the best of intentions or wisdom how to use what they found, or guessed about. We can't simply reject every concept, simpy because someone we don't like happens to subscribe to it. This is an outright childish way of looking at the world.
  - fallenasleep 3y ago
    You're tilting at windmills. The science done in the article is fine science. Drawing parallels between the models is good and not woo The question that started this thread is: >Aren't quantum effects supposed to disappear in the macroscopic world Which is just a straightforward misreading of the article. Nobody is trying to "supress an actual scientific discovery" they are trying to clarify what has actually been discovered.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    Well, that would be a terrible outcome, but fortunately, it is all predicated on a misunderstanding in your first post: "The equations are a system of constraints. Means both systems are constrained in the same way." There's an isomorphism, that's all, and it's not an unexplained mystery to those who have sufficient relevant knowledge. It's pretty clear in the article, where the word 'analogy' appears more than once.
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
I'm not sure you understand how the scientific method works, but "ignore new applications of existing models, even if they have high predictive quality, because it causes woo" is not among the rules it sets. In fact such attitudes tend to hold back science for an entire generation, until all those stubbornly persistent in ignoring the obvious start passing away.
- gus_massa 3y ago
  > I'm not sure you understand how the scientific method works From previous discussions, I think he understand. We have a few disagreements, but in most cases we agree. For me, the problem is in the title of the article: > Quantum physicists explained earth’s oscillating weather patterns It's too easy to misinterpret it and think that the Quantum Physicists used Quantum Mechanics at the whole Earths. They actually used some mathematical tools first discovered to solve QM problems and repurposed them to solve climate patterns. That confused the person that made the comment at the top of this thread.
- lisper 3y ago
  Let's go back to the original comment that started this thread: > Aren't quantum effects supposed to disappear in the macroscopic world? How is this explained? The answer to this question is: yes, quantum effects generally disappear in the macroscopic world. There are some exceptions, like rainbows and transistors, but in general macroscopic phenomena can be completely explained by classical approximations to QM, notwithstanding that they are in fact quantum systems "under the hood". To be technically precise, in macroscopic phenomena, and in particular in thermalized systems (like the planet's climate) decoherence causes all of the interesting effects of QM (and specifically all of the non-local effects) to become unmeasurably small. In thermalized macroscopic systems, the classical approximation is 100% in agreement with observation, and so any suggestion that because some of the math of QM is applicable to climate that there might be a new physical phenomenon waiting to be discovered and that this phenomenon has something to do with quantum mechanics can be dismissed out of hand. Supporting such a claim would require a lot more than just some similar-looking equations. But I didn't feel like getting quite so long-winded about it.