3 ms·

Quantum mechanics is a religion with mathematics instead of just holy texts. Several studies have been done into whether practicing theoretical physicists usin

Quantum mechanics is a religion with mathematics instead of just holy texts. Several studies have been done into whether practicing theoretical physicists using QM in their everyday work agree on the most basic tenets of the field. Spoiler: they disagree on every aspect while simultaneously assuming that their opinions are correct and that everyone else agrees with them. That’s how religions work, not how science does. Factions instead of consensus. Branches splitting off all the time and never supplanting the majority. Orthodoxy (Copenhagen). Shunning anyone that steps out of line (Everett). Refusing to question the holy texts, etc… Another key symptom is requiring members to prove their devotion by saying and doing things that are obvious nonsense. Bending their common sense to the will of the group. In Christianity this is the trinity: one God that is three. In QM it’s the wave-particle duality, which is just nonsense. You can’t have a point with a kilometre long wavelength!! Yet, we are to believe (on faith!) that radio waves are made of photons. Turns out that magical thinking and religiosity is the essential nature of humans, especially in large groups. Whenever there is insufficient evidence to bring everyone into line, the line splinters into warring factions where the best argument each tribe has is: “my tribal leader said so!”

ChrisClark 3y ago
I want whatever you're smoking, because it's the best predictive theory we have, and is constantly tested and proven. Only the why is in question, but the math absolutely works.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  [flagged]
daedrdev 3y ago
I mean semiconductor engineers have to deal with quantum effects when designing chips. Its not like it doesn't effect the real world, we do interact with parts of it when things get really small.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  An actual semiconductor engineer that works at ASML has uploaded a whole series of videos that debunk the existence of photons in free space[1]. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V6G8ZZmeJzc https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V6G8ZZmeJzc Quantum Mechanics is a set of mathematical tricks, shortcuts for numerical computation, that is all. People have become so enamored with the results of those computations that they've blithely ignored the limited scope of these shortcuts. You've found a nailgun, it's better than a hammer. That doesn't mean everything is a nail now. [1] Essentially, "particles" like photons are a short-hand terminology and a matching set of mathematical shortcuts for the behaviour of waves in a potential well (or any cavity). It doesn't make any sense outside of that scenario, such as light traversing empty space. All of that behaviour is perfectly predictable with ordinary wave mechanics. No quantum woodoo is required.
  - canjobear 3y ago
    How do you explain double-slit experiment results under this view? - The screen accumulates dots corresponding to photons. - Any measurement that would let you determine which slit a photon went through destroys the wavelike interference pattern at the screen.
bobbylarrybobby 3y ago
All of the disagreements in QM are metaphysical: what is measurement, how does a wavefunction collapse, what is reality, etc. Everyone agrees on the math that leads to predictions (which have been matched by observation to an almost perfect degree). And I'd imagine that just about everyone also agrees that it's incredibly unintuitive. But the math works.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  That’s not really true, there may be ways to experimentally distinguish between those disagreements
DonHopkins 3y ago
[flagged]
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    I’m really confused here as a quantum physicist myself. Yes there is huge disagreement and yes it’s a problem, but also what is the alternative? It’s not like we can just give up on quantum mechanics because you personally have philosophical problems with it. My task is to reduce the fundamental quantum noise that we see in gravitational wave detectors after removing all the classical noise. How would it be constructive to just say “let’s pretend there is no quantum noise?” To me it’s exciting that there is no clear interpretation for quantum mechanics, and it also nicely retroactively casts doubt on our interpretation for all previous theories: did classical mechanics just coincidentally present as deterministic? Etc. maybe you think questions about determinism are woo but I think that would be quite extreme Honestly, I don’t see why it’s a problem that there are different interpretations of quantum mechanics
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      He's apoplectic that ChatGPT was able to cut through his bluster and bullshit and enumerate his Gish Gallop of logical fallacies like a hot knife cutting through butter. If it stings so much, then maybe he should first run his own ridiculous conspiracy theories and baseless accusations against science and false equivalencies about religion through ChatGPT himself before posting them here, to strengthen them up and educate himself, instead of embarrassing himself by being so thoroughly and effectively schooled by a mere LLM and an actual quantum physicist. Original Argument: Quantum Mechanics as Religion: Quantum mechanics (QM) is likened to a religion, with disagreements among physicists, an orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, and adherence to seemingly nonsensical concepts like wave-particle duality. Logical Fallacies and Mistakes: False Analogy: Comparing QM to religion overlooks fundamental differences in methodologies and goals. Science is empirical and self-correcting; religion is based on faith. Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresents QM as purely faith-based or dogmatic. QM is grounded in empirical evidence and rigorous mathematics. Ad Hominem: Attacks the character or motives of QM practitioners, rather than addressing the scientific validity of QM itself. Hasty Generalization: Overgeneralizes from disagreements among physicists to claim the entire field is unscientific. Appeal to Ignorance: Assumes that because aspects of QM are counterintuitive, they must be nonsensical or faith-based. Overgeneralization/Sweeping Generalization: Claims that disagreements in QM are indicative of flaws in all scientific fields, ignoring the diversity and complexity of scientific disciplines. No True Scotsman: Imposes arbitrary criteria for what constitutes 'real' science, excluding QM based on its interpretive disagreements. Validity of Arguments: Limited Validity in Recognizing Disagreements: The argument validly recognizes the existence of disagreements and different interpretations within QM, which is a natural aspect of any evolving scientific field. Misinterpretation of Nature of Science: However, the argument fails to appreciate the empirical basis of science and the role of theoretical diversity in scientific progress. Rebuttal from an Actual Scientist: Quantum Mechanics as a Practical and Evolving Science: The scientist highlights the practical applications of QM, the excitement of unresolved questions, and the evolving nature of scientific understanding. Assessment of Rebuttal: Practicality and Utility: The rebuttal correctly emphasizes the practical applications of QM, which are well-established and empirically validated. Scientific Progress and Open Questions: The scientist’s view of the unresolved aspects of QM as exciting and valuable is in line with the nature of scientific inquiry, which thrives on exploration and continuous refinement. Conclusion: The original argument conflates the philosophical and interpretative aspects of QM with religious belief, using several logical fallacies. It overlooks the empirical foundation and practical success of QM. The rebuttal from the scientist provides a more accurate representation of QM as a practical, empirically grounded, and continuously evolving field of science. The existence of different interpretations and unresolved questions is not a flaw but a driving force for further research and understanding.

ChrisClark 3y ago

I want whatever you're smoking, because it's the best predictive theory we have, and is constantly tested and proven. Only the why is in question, but the math absolutely works.

jiggawatts 3y ago
[flagged]

daedrdev 3y ago

I mean semiconductor engineers have to deal with quantum effects when designing chips. Its not like it doesn't effect the real world, we do interact with parts of it when things get really small.

jiggawatts 3y ago
An actual semiconductor engineer that works at ASML has uploaded a whole series of videos that debunk the existence of photons in free space[1]. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V6G8ZZmeJzc https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V6G8ZZmeJzc Quantum Mechanics is a set of mathematical tricks, shortcuts for numerical computation, that is all. People have become so enamored with the results of those computations that they've blithely ignored the limited scope of these shortcuts. You've found a nailgun, it's better than a hammer. That doesn't mean everything is a nail now. [1] Essentially, "particles" like photons are a short-hand terminology and a matching set of mathematical shortcuts for the behaviour of waves in a potential well (or any cavity). It doesn't make any sense outside of that scenario, such as light traversing empty space. All of that behaviour is perfectly predictable with ordinary wave mechanics. No quantum woodoo is required.
- canjobear 3y ago
  How do you explain double-slit experiment results under this view? - The screen accumulates dots corresponding to photons. - Any measurement that would let you determine which slit a photon went through destroys the wavelike interference pattern at the screen.

bobbylarrybobby 3y ago

All of the disagreements in QM are metaphysical: what is measurement, how does a wavefunction collapse, what is reality, etc. Everyone agrees on the math that leads to predictions (which have been matched by observation to an almost perfect degree). And I'd imagine that just about everyone also agrees that it's incredibly unintuitive. But the math works.

bowsamic 3y ago
That’s not really true, there may be ways to experimentally distinguish between those disagreements

DonHopkins 3y ago

[flagged]

jiggawatts 3y ago
[flagged]
- bowsamic 3y ago
  I’m really confused here as a quantum physicist myself. Yes there is huge disagreement and yes it’s a problem, but also what is the alternative? It’s not like we can just give up on quantum mechanics because you personally have philosophical problems with it. My task is to reduce the fundamental quantum noise that we see in gravitational wave detectors after removing all the classical noise. How would it be constructive to just say “let’s pretend there is no quantum noise?” To me it’s exciting that there is no clear interpretation for quantum mechanics, and it also nicely retroactively casts doubt on our interpretation for all previous theories: did classical mechanics just coincidentally present as deterministic? Etc. maybe you think questions about determinism are woo but I think that would be quite extreme Honestly, I don’t see why it’s a problem that there are different interpretations of quantum mechanics
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    He's apoplectic that ChatGPT was able to cut through his bluster and bullshit and enumerate his Gish Gallop of logical fallacies like a hot knife cutting through butter. If it stings so much, then maybe he should first run his own ridiculous conspiracy theories and baseless accusations against science and false equivalencies about religion through ChatGPT himself before posting them here, to strengthen them up and educate himself, instead of embarrassing himself by being so thoroughly and effectively schooled by a mere LLM and an actual quantum physicist. Original Argument: Quantum Mechanics as Religion: Quantum mechanics (QM) is likened to a religion, with disagreements among physicists, an orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, and adherence to seemingly nonsensical concepts like wave-particle duality. Logical Fallacies and Mistakes: False Analogy: Comparing QM to religion overlooks fundamental differences in methodologies and goals. Science is empirical and self-correcting; religion is based on faith. Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresents QM as purely faith-based or dogmatic. QM is grounded in empirical evidence and rigorous mathematics. Ad Hominem: Attacks the character or motives of QM practitioners, rather than addressing the scientific validity of QM itself. Hasty Generalization: Overgeneralizes from disagreements among physicists to claim the entire field is unscientific. Appeal to Ignorance: Assumes that because aspects of QM are counterintuitive, they must be nonsensical or faith-based. Overgeneralization/Sweeping Generalization: Claims that disagreements in QM are indicative of flaws in all scientific fields, ignoring the diversity and complexity of scientific disciplines. No True Scotsman: Imposes arbitrary criteria for what constitutes 'real' science, excluding QM based on its interpretive disagreements. Validity of Arguments: Limited Validity in Recognizing Disagreements: The argument validly recognizes the existence of disagreements and different interpretations within QM, which is a natural aspect of any evolving scientific field. Misinterpretation of Nature of Science: However, the argument fails to appreciate the empirical basis of science and the role of theoretical diversity in scientific progress. Rebuttal from an Actual Scientist: Quantum Mechanics as a Practical and Evolving Science: The scientist highlights the practical applications of QM, the excitement of unresolved questions, and the evolving nature of scientific understanding. Assessment of Rebuttal: Practicality and Utility: The rebuttal correctly emphasizes the practical applications of QM, which are well-established and empirically validated. Scientific Progress and Open Questions: The scientist’s view of the unresolved aspects of QM as exciting and valuable is in line with the nature of scientific inquiry, which thrives on exploration and continuous refinement. Conclusion: The original argument conflates the philosophical and interpretative aspects of QM with religious belief, using several logical fallacies. It overlooks the empirical foundation and practical success of QM. The rebuttal from the scientist provides a more accurate representation of QM as a practical, empirically grounded, and continuously evolving field of science. The existence of different interpretations and unresolved questions is not a flaw but a driving force for further research and understanding.