3 ms·

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

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.

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.