• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is wrong with Quantum Mechanics?

P

Palandro

Banned
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
342
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
For starters, it is all bollocks of course.

Anything coming out of the 'Religion of Modern science' is wrong, flawed, whatever, so also QM is clearly bollocks.

But it seems people swallow this crap, hook line and sinker. Without a critical thought.



That is just the sad state of affairs in this world.
 
Palandro said:
For starters, it is all bollocks of course.

Anything coming out of the 'Religion of Modern science' is wrong, flawed, whatever, so also QM is clearly bollocks.

But it seems people swallow this crap, hook line and sinker. Without a critical thought.

That is just the sad state of affairs in this world.
Click to expand...

Quantum mechanics is the secularist evolutionist atheist scientist's perfect solution to all the problems atheistic secularist scientists face when they encounter scientific contradictions to their erroneous theories. When scientific facts conflict with atheistic theories, the atheists simply concoct some irrational explanation in quantum mechanics which is supposed to erase all contradictions on the basis of the complexity of the scientific nature and details of quantum mechanics which 'everyone' don't have to make sense or agree with known scientific facts.
 
marke said:
Quantum mechanics is the secularist evolutionist atheist scientist's perfect solution to all the problems atheistic secularist scientists face when they encounter scientific contradictions to their erroneous theories. When scientific facts conflict with atheistic theories, the atheists simply concoct some irrational explanation in quantum mechanics which is supposed to erase all contradictions on the basis of the complexity of the scientific nature and details of quantum mechanics which 'everyone' don't have to make sense or agree with known scientific facts.
Click to expand...

nice put!
 
marke said:
Quantum mechanics is the secularist evolutionist atheist scientist's perfect solution to all the problems atheistic secularist scientists face when they encounter scientific contradictions to their erroneous theories. When scientific facts conflict with atheistic theories, the atheists simply concoct some irrational explanation in quantum mechanics which is supposed to erase all contradictions on the basis of the complexity of the scientific nature and details of quantum mechanics which 'everyone' don't have to make sense or agree with known scientific facts.
Click to expand...

Quantum mechanics is not related to evolution, and is routinely empirically verified by sophomore physics majors. It is extremely well established.
 
AmNat said:
Quantum mechanics is not related to evolution, and is routinely empirically verified by sophomore physics majors. It is extremely well established.
Click to expand...

It does not matter how smart these modern geniuses think they are or whether or not they also embrace stupid Darwinism nonsense or not, they are being bamboozled by chasrlatans and quacks if they are buying into what is being promoted in modern times as quantum physics.

Dead or Alive, Schrodinger's Cat Can Be in 2 Boxes at Once | Live Science

Bizarrely behaving light particles show that the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, meant to reveal the strange nature of subatomic particles, can get even weirder than physicists thought.
Not only can the quantum cat be alive and dead at the same time — but it can also be in two places at once, new research shows.
 
marke said:
It does not matter how smart these modern geniuses think they are or whether or not they also embrace stupid Darwinism nonsense or not, they are being bamboozled by chasrlatans and quacks if they are buying into what is being promoted in modern times as quantum physics.

Dead or Alive, Schrodinger's Cat Can Be in 2 Boxes at Once | Live Science

Bizarrely behaving light particles show that the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, meant to reveal the strange nature of subatomic particles, can get even weirder than physicists thought.
Not only can the quantum cat be alive and dead at the same time — but it can also be in two places at once, new research shows.
Click to expand...

Possible quantum mechanics solution to the age old question of how did original amino acids form on earth in the presence of oxygen and yet continue to live without oxygen. Solution? A sixth dimension where the scientifically impossible can become possible, thus proving atheist supporters of the ignorant accidental miraculous big bang explosion created life on earth without God.
 
AmNat said:
Quantum mechanics is not related to evolution, and is routinely empirically verified by sophomore physics majors. It is extremely well established.
Click to expand...

It being "extremely well established", is actually a huge red flag!
 
marke said:
It does not matter how smart these modern geniuses think they are or whether or not they also embrace stupid Darwinism nonsense or not, they are being bamboozled by chasrlatans and quacks if they are buying into what is being promoted in modern times as quantum physics.

Dead or Alive, Schrodinger's Cat Can Be in 2 Boxes at Once | Live Science

Bizarrely behaving light particles show that the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, meant to reveal the strange nature of subatomic particles, can get even weirder than physicists thought.
Not only can the quantum cat be alive and dead at the same time — but it can also be in two places at once, new research shows.
Click to expand...

The cat is a metaphor. I'd recommend against learning scientific concepts from news sites. They tend to be extremely bad at correctly explaining them.

I'm not familiar with Dr. Wang's research, but QM in general is very accurate at predicting the outcome of experiments. Many well established results (e.g. the photoelectric effect, the Casimir effect, the double slit experiment) can only be explained using QM. Moreover, QM explains the chemical properties of elements, which classical physics could not.

marke said:
Possible quantum mechanics solution to the age old question of how did original amino acids form on earth in the presence of oxygen and yet continue to live without oxygen. Solution? A sixth dimension where the scientifically impossible can become possible, thus proving atheist supporters of the ignorant accidental miraculous big bang explosion created life on earth without God.
Click to expand...

Quantum mechanics does not postulate any extra spatial dimensions. You seem to be referring to String Theory or some other "Theory of Everything". These are not even remotely the same thing.

Palandro said:
It being "extremely well established", is actually a huge red flag!
Click to expand...

Give all the crap that comes out of modern academia, I understand being suspicious of its consensuses. But this particular item is easily empirically verifiable, and has been empirically verified many times by many different people.
 
Regarding the cat, the basic point is that subatomic particles can exist in a state of superposition, where they act as if partially in one state and partially in another (as a philosophical matter, I agree with the deterministic Bohm interpretation, but here I am concerned with the empirical results). When the particle interacts with other objects (what physicists mean by "observed") it will collapse into one state or the other. In reality, the cat itself (and the air in the box and etc.) is more than sufficient to collapse the radioactive atom into one state (decayed) or another (not decayed).
 
AmNat said:
T But this particular item is easily empirically verifiable, and has been empirically verified many times by many different people.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? And you know this because you have read some popular 'science' magazines? watch too much telly?
because what you are saying mighjt be true ( i don't think so), but is not very concrete.it has been empiically verified doesn't say much, does it?

Most theoretical physicist ( I have met some and they are the most asocial creepy people I have ever met.) just earn a living with this bollocks. It doesn't add anything to society.On the contrary ,it extracts money from society (tax=theft.)
 
Palandro said:
Oh, really? And you know this because you have read some popular 'science' magazines? watch too much telly?
because what you are saying mighjt be true ( i don't think so), but is not very concrete.it has been empiically verified doesn't say much, does it?
Click to expand...

I know this because, when I was an undergrad taking Modern Physics, I did experiments that only work if QM is true. E.g. observing the spectral lines of Hydrogen.

Most theoretical physicist ( I have met some and they are the most asocial creepy people I have ever met.) just earn a living with this bollocks. It doesn't add anything to society.On the contrary ,it extracts money from society (tax=theft.)
Click to expand...

QM isn't theoretical physics. I do agree that government funding of academia has drastically reduced the quality of both and that we'd be better off without it.
 
I think you may be confusing QM with one or more speculative theories (String Theory?).

QM is not an abstract concept. It's a very specific set of physical laws governing how particles behave. If its basic principles were erroneous, it would be patently obvious to many people all over the world.
 
AmNat said:
The cat is a metaphor. I'd recommend against learning scientific concepts from news sites. They tend to be extremely bad at correctly explaining them.

I'm not familiar with Dr. Wang's research, but QM in general is very accurate at predicting the outcome of experiments. Many well established results (e.g. the photoelectric effect, the Casimir effect, the double slit experiment) can only be explained using QM. Moreover, QM explains the chemical properties of elements, which classical physics could not.

Quantum mechanics does not postulate any extra spatial dimensions. You seem to be referring to String Theory or some other "Theory of Everything". These are not even remotely the same thing.

Give all the crap that comes out of modern academia, I understand being suspicious of its consensuses. But this particular item is easily empirically verifiable, and has been empirically verified many times by many different people.
Click to expand...

Let's suppose QM is good at predicting outcomes of experiments. Let's then take Miller and Urey's experiments in developing viable amino acids from scratch (i.e., some source other than God). Can QM predict whether or not they will be successful in those experimental efforts to build the basic building blocks of new life on earth? It sounds like that if QM cannot tell if a cat is dead or alive or if it is in one box, the other, or both, it will hardly be able to predict the outcome of so important a research like Miller and Urey got themselves involved in.
 
AmNat said:
Regarding the cat, the basic point is that subatomic particles can exist in a state of superposition, where they act as if partially in one state and partially in another (as a philosophical matter, I agree with the deterministic Bohm interpretation, but here I am concerned with the empirical results). When the particle interacts with other objects (what physicists mean by "observed") it will collapse into one state or the other. In reality, the cat itself (and the air in the box and etc.) is more than sufficient to collapse the radioactive atom into one state (decayed) or another (not decayed).
Click to expand...

So, QM may be able to tell us how the moon was supposed to have been moving away from the earth at a known speed for 4 billion years even though that would mean it must have started its journey from somewhere deeply embedded in the earth's crust?
 
Palandro said:
For starters, it is all bollocks of course.

Anything coming out of the 'Religion of Modern science' is wrong, flawed, whatever, so also QM is clearly bollocks.

But it seems people swallow this crap, hook line and sinker. Without a critical thought.



That is just the sad state of affairs in this world.
Click to expand...

Everything from understanding modern chemistry to building electron microscopes and MRI machines in hospitals to even understanding how polarized sunglasses work is built on QM.

Why all this hostility towards it? Are you worried it disproves God or makes Trump look bad or something? Or is it that you just don’t understand it? It’s a little weird at first, but it’s really not that bad once you get to know it.
 
Last edited:
AmNat said:
I know this because, when I was an undergrad taking Modern Physics, I did experiments that only work if QM is true. E.g. observing the spectral lines of Hydrogen.
Click to expand...

Experiments that don't work outside of QM? Is that like experiments involving the mechanisms which must have been on place for the meteor impact at Chiczulub to have wiped out every dinosaur on the planet while leaving all other species alone would only work if explained by QM calculations?
 
AmNat said:
I know this because, when I was an undergrad taking Modern Physics, I did experiments that only work if QM is true. E.g. observing the spectral lines of Hydrogen.
QM isn't theoretical physics. I do agree that government funding of academia has drastically reduced the quality of both and that we'd be better off without it.
Click to expand...

QM is not proven scientific fact, it is theory.
 
AmNat said:
I think you may be confusing QM with one or more speculative theories (String Theory?).

QM is not an abstract concept. It's a very specific set of physical laws governing how particles behave. If its basic principles were erroneous, it would be patently obvious to many people all over the world.
Click to expand...

It does not matter how much support there is for the theory, it is still theory, not verified fact.
 
marke said:
So, QM may be able to tell us how the moon was supposed to have been moving away from the earth at a known speed for 4 billion years even though that would mean it must have started its journey from somewhere deeply embedded in the earth's crust?
Click to expand...

No, because the Schrodinger wave equation has a mass term in the denominator that makes the statistical/wave-like properties of the object go to zero as the mass increases. That is why, for example, that the nucleus of the atom appears so stationary, while the electrons form such beautiful, elegant, and complex orbital structures around it like 3-dimensional vibrating waves of a string of a musical instrument playing harmonics: a single proton in the nucleus is almost 2000 times as heavy as the electron, and so will not exhibit the wave-like properties of the electron. You can plug in the mass numbers of those things in to the Schrodinger equation and see for yourself.

The moon. as you can imagine, is even heavier yet- so you will not see those effects on that scale at all and things work in the “classical” way we are used to on those scales. You really should take a class on this stuff. It’s pretty cool.
 
Last edited:
AmNat said:
I think you may be confusing QM with one or more speculative theories (String Theory?).

QM is not an abstract concept. It's a very specific set of physical laws governing how particles behave. If its basic principles were erroneous, it would be patently obvious to many people all over the world.
Click to expand...

It does not matter how much support there is for the theory, it is still theory, not verified fact.
 
marke said:
Let's suppose QM is good at predicting outcomes of experiments. Let's then take Miller and Urey's experiments in developing viable amino acids from scratch (i.e., some source other than God). Can QM predict whether or not they will be successful in those experimental efforts to build the basic building blocks of new life on earth? It sounds like that if QM cannot tell if a cat is dead or alive or if it is in one box, the other, or both, it will hardly be able to predict the outcome of so important a research like Miller and Urey got themselves involved in.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the detail of the Miller-Urey experiment (beyond what I picked up from Googling), but for biochemical experiments its usually sufficient to take the properties of the component elements as given and proceed from there. I don't know that QM could realistically predict the behavior of a complicated molecule, as the computational power required would grow exponentially (the same is true of many body problems in classical mechanics).

marke said:
So, QM may be able to tell us how the moon was supposed to have been moving away from the earth at a known speed for 4 billion years even though that would mean it must have started its journey from somewhere deeply embedded in the earth's crust?
Click to expand...

marke said:
Experiments that don't work outside of QM? Is that like experiments involving the mechanisms which must have been on place for the meteor impact at Chiczulub to have wiped out every dinosaur on the planet while leaving all other species alone would only work if explained by QM calculations?
Click to expand...

QM reduces to classical mechanics in the high energy (i.e. macroscopic) limit. It's not relevant to these questions.
 
ataraxia said:
Everything from understanding modern chemistry to building electron microscopes and MRI machines in hospitals to even understanding how polarized sunglasses work is built on QM.

Why all this hostility towards it? Are you worried it disproves God or makes Trump look bad or something? Or is it that you just don’t understand it? It’s a little weird at first, but it’s really not that bad once you get to know it.
Click to expand...

There is a lot about QM that nobody understands and no doubt even more that nobody knows. It is not honest to claim QM is a foundation on which all modern advances owe their existence. QM may touch a lot in the modern world, but it no coubt had very little to do with providing the essentials to new developments. People say the same thing about evoliution, that it contributed essential elements to neartly all modern advances. Those claims are simply not true.

This is a sampling of why I question the speculations of QM:

Creation and Quantum Mechanics | The Institute for Creation Research


Third, the Casimir Effect appears to show the existence of virtual particles that exist in a perfect vacuum. An infinitesimal pressure has been measured within a laboratory vacuum, apparently from these ethereal particles (Baker, 1997). The virtual particles are sometimes further used to explain the origin of the universe. Thus it is said that a quantum mechanical fluctuation of virtual particles long ago gave rise to the big bang expansion. However, this origin explanation fails for at least two reasons. First, the big bang theory postulates no preexisting space or vacuum. Hence there would have been no place for virtual particles to fluctuate. Second, virtual particles, if real, form as matter and antimatter in equal amounts. However our universe appears to consist almost entirely of ordinary matter. Antimatter is distinctly rare.
 
Palandro said:
For starters, it is all bollocks of course.

Anything coming out of the 'Religion of Modern science' is wrong, flawed, whatever, so also QM is clearly bollocks.

But it seems people swallow this crap, hook line and sinker. Without a critical thought.



That is just the sad state of affairs in this world.
Click to expand...

Prove it. What am I saying!? You haven't got a clue. :lamo:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom