• 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?

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?

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...
What a load of crap, now, about this proof of yours. Present it.
 
Several unsupported suppositions have been attached to quantum theory, particularly in popular literature. The Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) is named for the laboratory location of the Danish scientist Niels Bohr (1885-1962). This radical view states that reality and observation are directly related. Until an observation is made of an electron, the particle actually exists in several states or locations at once. The act of measurement then "collapses" the electron wave function to the particular place where the electron is actually found. One famous, extreme example concerns a box containing a cat which is either dead or alive. The CI view says that the unseen cat is somehow both dead and alive at the same time, until the box is opened. The act of opening the box then forces upon nature one choice or the other for the cat. There are New Age overtones in the Copenhagen Interpretation connection between mind and matter. The CI view conflicts with Christian theology on several points. It is by the Lord that all things consist, not by the hand of man (Colossians 1:17). Also, reality is independent of human observation, since God completed His creation before human occupation.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with the Copenhagen interpretation, but this is a common misunderstanding.

Subatomic particles cannot be passively observed the way macroscopic objects can. In order for a particle to be observed, something has to interfere with it. When physicists speak of "observation" affecting the outcome of an experiment, this interference is what they're referring to. It is most certainly not the understanding of any physicist that human consciousness affects the outcome of particle interactions.
 
marke said:
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,
Click to expand...


Well, see my other thread that NOTHING has come out of "Modern Academic Science". So also not from
QM. Nothing, Zilch, Zero, Nada.

Everything that has been claimed that it is here because of QM, was here before QM...
 
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...

Double slit experiment. Explain what is really happening there.
 
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...

The conclusions are not "observed" and do not qualify as empirical evidence. The evidence is observed and the conclusions are drawn but the conclusions are not facts. They are theories.
 
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 theory. It explains things in a way which seem plausible. The theory is not proven just because its postulates seem to hold true in limited numbers of experiments.
 
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...

What seems obvious is the fact that so many of those who seem to think QM is not theory but fact is that they seem ignorant of the mountains of problems the theory has in proving itself to be a science based upon irrefutable absolutes. Not everything about QM is wrong, but certainly nothing about QM is irrefutable scientific fact.

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia


Generally, quantum mechanics does not assign definite values. Instead, it makes a prediction using a probability distribution; that is, it describes the probability of obtaining the possible outcomes from measuring an observable. Often these results are skewed by many causes, such as dense probability clouds. Probability clouds are approximate (but better than the Bohr model) whereby electron location is given by a probability function, the wave function eigenvalue, such that the probability is the squared modulus of the complex amplitude, or quantum state nuclear attraction.[35][36] Naturally, these probabilities will depend on the quantum state at the "instant" of the measurement. Hence, uncertainty is involved in the value. There are, however, certain states that are associated with a definite value of a particular observable. These are known as eigenstates of the observable ("eigen" can be translated from German as meaning "inherent" or "characteristic").
 
ataraxia said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can QM be used to scientifically verify the miraculous Big Bang creation of the universe?
 
AmNat said:
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).

QM reduces to classical mechanics in the high energy (i.e. macroscopic) limit. It's not relevant to these questions.
Click to expand...

Has the science of QM given us new insight into how the universe came into being and can we use QM to draw irrefutable conclusions about what happened and how it happened? Has any physicist used QM to try to prove his theories about the Big Bang theory in any way that you know of?
 
Cursing the dark?

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...

Religion of Modern science - Irrelevant. Science is empirical.

QM See Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

"Electronics
"Many modern electronic devices are designed using quantum mechanics. Examples include the laser, the transistor (and thus the microchip), the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The study of semiconductors led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable parts of modern electronics systems, computer and telecommunication devices. Another application is for making laser diode and light emitting diode which are a high-efficiency source of light.

"Many electronic devices operate under effect of quantum tunneling. It even exists in the simple light switch. The switch would not work if electrons could not quantum tunnel through the layer of oxidation on the metal contact surfaces. Flash memory chipsfound in USB drives use quantum tunneling to erase their memory cells.

...

"Quantum mechanics is also critically important for understanding how individual atoms are joined by covalent bonds to form molecules. The application of quantum mechanics to chemistry is known as quantum chemistry. Quantum mechanics can also provide quantitative insight into ionic and covalent bonding processes by explicitly showing which molecules are energetically favorable to which others and the magnitudes of the energies involved.[86] Furthermore, most of the calculations performed in modern computational chemistry rely on quantum mechanics.

"In many aspects modern technology operates at a scale where quantum effects are significant. Important applications of quantum theory include quantum chemistry, quantum optics, quantum computing, superconducting magnets, light-emitting diodes, the optical amplifier and the laser, the transistor and semiconductors such as the microprocessor, medical and research imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging and electron microscopy.[87] Explanations for many biological and physical phenomena are rooted in the nature of the chemical bond, most notably the macro-molecule DNA.[88]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Wikipedia walks you through the concepts, if you're interested.
 
marke said:
Can QM be used to scientifically verify the miraculous Big Bang creation of the universe?
Click to expand...

No, not really. Not yet. The equations fall apart when we try to reconcile the equations of QM with general relativity (GR), which deals with gravitation. The math just doesn't work out. The same problem also occurs when we try to understand black holes or any time gravitational effects start to play a role in quantum mechanics. Gravity is sort of the force that doesn't seem to fit in with our understanding of quantum mechanics yet, and trying to figure out a way to reconcile them has sort of been the holy grail of a lot of modern physics.

Something like string theory is a very clever and elegant mathematical framework for reconciling the equations of QM with GR. But the problem there is that that's all it is: a mathematical model. The energy levels required to test this theory are something like 10,000 times more than our biggest particle colliders we have today, like at FermiLab or CERN, can provide. So that's why string theory is not really considered real science yet, even by its biggest proponents. It's more of a hypothesis.

But all this is stuff way beyond quantum mechanics. This is the cutting edge of modern physics research, sort of the wild frontier of our understanding. But it sounds to me like you are confusing this frontier with QM. QM was established back in early 20th century, from about 1900 to 1920 is when most of its foundations were laid, and it's a highly tested idea and a well established theory. And it has nothing to do with God or creation. So you're safe and you don't need to be so defensive against it.
 
Sodden impact?

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...

Yah. See Chicxulub impactor - Wikipedia

"The Chicxulub impactor (/ˈtʃiːkʃəluːb/ CHEEK-shə-loob), also known as the K/Pg impactor and (more speculatively) as the Chicxulub asteroid, was an asteroid or other celestial body some 11 to 81 kilometres (7 to 50 mi) in diameter and having a mass between 1.0×1015 and 4.6×1017 kg,[3] which struck the Earth at a velocity of roughly 20 kilometers per second[4] at an angle of just under 60 degrees[5] (although originally thought to be shallower)[6] at the end of the Cretaceous period, 66 million years ago,[7] creating the Chicxulub crater. It impacted a few kilometres from the present-day town of Chicxulub in Mexico, after which the impactor and its crater are named. Because the estimated date of the object's impact and the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary (K–Pg boundary) coincide, there is a scientific consensus that its impact was the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event which caused the sudden mass extinction of three-quarters of all plant and animal species on Earth, including all non-avian dinosaurs.[8][9] In October 2019, researchers reported that the event rapidly acidified the oceans producing ecological collapse and long-lasting effects on the climate, and, accordingly, was a key reason for the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.[10][11]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

You're way behind on your basic science. Wikipedia has a nice summary.
 
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.

.
Click to expand...

Nope, it isn't , but for that see my other thread. What you state is also going by the name of 'propaganda'
 
ataraxia said:
Why all this hostility towards it?

Hostility?? I have no hostility agains something like qm.


I just like facts. They tell me QM is bollocks.

Are you worried it disproves God or makes Trump look bad or something? [.quote]


How strange a posting!


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...

Duh? Why do people drag all those unnecessary things into it, while the only question is, is it bollocks or not?

My conclusion is: it sure is!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well, tens of thousands of scientists and more than than tens of thousands of experiments disagree with you Palandro.
Saying QM is bollocks is about as sensible as saying D&D is real and just set on other planets.
 
Peter said:
Well, tens of thousands of scientists and more than than tens of thousands of experiments disagree with you Palandro.
Saying QM is bollocks is about as sensible as saying D&D is real and just set on other planets.
Click to expand...

the more who say it , the more probable is that is is not true.
 
The family business

marke said:
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.
Click to expand...

ICR? But how quaint! Are they still around? Is Morris still holding forth, running a missionary effort under the cover of researching (in the ICR library in CA, of course. TMK, they only funded a couple of efforts to find Noah's ark)?

But I see that Morris is gone, & that ICR is too, moved to TX. I suppose that CA was never a good fit - although Los Angeles & Hollywood beckoned. But TX refused to certify the relocated ICR school to teach a Master's level course on science education. (See Institute for Creation Research - Wikipedia)
 
can2man said:
Propaganda? Directed at whom?
Click to expand...

the masses of course, the masses,

the religion of science is just a control tool.

It all started when the religions weren't working as good anymore for keeping the people docile.
So 'science' was invented.

It is actually used to establish a scientific dictatorship ( Look at what they did with the corona hoax.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom