Why Is The Term "Quantum" Used To Describe...

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
...physics that involves practically every possible interaction that defies traditional Newtonian laws, even though the term itself (Quantum, Quanta, Quantize) refers only to a minimum, indivisible unit quantity of action or change? Here's the Wiki definition of Quantum.


In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values. There is a related term of quantum number. An example of an entity that is quantized is the energy transfer of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons.

Where's the part that allows for time bending, reverse causality, superposition, and all the other nutty stuff that gets labeled "Quantum ______" as if the indivisible unit itself (which debunks the possibility of things like infinity and true linearity as being real, but doesn't really suggest much else) is a "get out of reality free" pass.

Can somebody explain what transformed a very simple and elementary determination of the true substructure of material reality (as actually being anything but magical and unbound by reliable unit structure) into a wide open road with no speed limits whatsoever for anyone and everyone who gets bored with the dull grind of moment-leading-into-moment existence within the material realm and decides to play "what if...?" as long as they tack "Quantum" on the craziness they cook up to shove at us as "hidden reality"?

I've been studying this confused quagmire of assertions and declarations for several years now, and I have yet to discover the linkage between the indivisible unit of action and this sheer fantasy world that much of quantum mechanics and quantum theory has become. Anyone with any information on when the discipline first started leaning hard against its leash?




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Dear NorEaster,

On it's simplest level, the manner in which things act on a sub-atomic level violates rules of physics that we rely on in the "real world". In order to find answers we have created the Large Hadron Collider. 10,000 scientists worked on the LHC, not a few nuts. People like Dr. Michio Kaku are trying to understand these things that you might consider crazy; but, as far as we currently know, quantum entanglement and other such odd things can be regularly observed. We really cannot just ignore it because it does not fit in with how we would like to believe the world is.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Neils Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Louis de Broglie, Paul Dirac, Kurt Gödel & Max Planck.

These all generated ideas that increasingly moved further and further from the 'sensible logic' of the Newtonian world.

There were, of course, many others, too.

There were (and are) also many who misunderstood and tried to apply 'magical thinking' to quantum physics or vice versa.

edit on 9/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Dear NorEaster,

On it's simplest level, the manner in which things act on a sub-atomic level violates rules of physics that we rely on in the "real world". In order to find answers we have created the Large Hadron Collider. 10,000 scientists worked on the LHC, not a few nuts. People like Dr. Michio Kaku are trying to understand these things that you might consider crazy; but, as far as we currently know, quantum entanglement and other such odd things can be regularly observed. We really cannot just ignore it because it does not fit in with how we would like to believe the world is.


Quantum Entanglement is easy enough to figure out, but it's the hyper adventurous inference and extrapolation that I find confusing. Jumping immediately to parallel universes instead of trying something much more reasonable - like the impact of deliberately imposed internal context upon a photon that inherently has extremely sparse contextual identity to begin with - as a plausible starting point when listing potential reasons for it behaving with "spooky action at a distance". Lets face it, if Occam's Razor is anything to ever consider when mapping out potential determinations, then the broad jump to infinite parallel universes is probably the very last option that one should embrace when confronted with something like Quantum Entanglement.

Wouldn't you think so?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Neils Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Louis de Broglie, Paul Dirac, Kurt Gödel & Max Planck.

These all generated ideas that increasingly moved further and further from the 'sensible logic' of the Newtonian world.

There were, of course, many others, too.

There were (and are) also many who misunderstood and tried to apply 'magical thinking' to quantum physics or vice versa.

edit on 9/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Personally, I think Schrodinger should've been beaten to death with his dead cat, but then most of those names belong to guys who should've dated at some point in their lives. At least gotten out for a drink now and then. That "Incompleteness Theorem" is raw horsesh*t. Just downright embarrassing drivel.

But, I digress....



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



but then most of those names belong to guys who should've dated at some point in their lives. At least gotten out for a drink now and then


Are you just going to complain about how they lived their lives, or get down to actually explaining why quantum whatever shouldn't be explored regarding extranatural phenomena?

And I say extranatural because it isn't beyond nature, it's just beyond the nature we've familiarized ourselves with. And by familiarized, I mean poked with sharp sticks under a bright light.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Quantum mysticism is a term that has been used to refer to a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, or mystical world-views to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The term originally emerged from the founders of quantum theory in the early twentieth century as they debated the interpretations and implications of their nascent theories, which would later evolve into quantum mechanics, and later after World War II, with publications such as Schrödinger's and Eugene Wigner’s 1961 paper.[2][7] The essential qualities of early quantum theory, and the ontological questions that emerged from it, made a distinction between philosophical and scientific discussion difficult as quantum theory developed into a strong scientific theory.[citation needed] Quantum Mysticism is popularly considered pseudoscience.[8][9][10] Many of the leading Quantum physicists did however give mystical interpretations to their findings.

Wikipedia

Mysticism has subverted philosophy long ago, and thus it moves through all sciences. I've noticed, like all philosophy, 'quantum mystics' follow their speculations wherever they will take them, but unlike science or mathematics, doesn't stop at contradictions, paradoxes and other logical dead-ends. Instead of discovering a goal, they've conceived of the goal already, and contrive a way to reach it. Deductive vs. inductive reasoning seems to be the cause.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Neils Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Louis de Broglie, Paul Dirac, Kurt Gödel & Max Planck.

These all generated ideas that increasingly moved further and further from the 'sensible logic' of the Newtonian world.

There were, of course, many others, too.

There were (and are) also many who misunderstood and tried to apply 'magical thinking' to quantum physics or vice versa.

edit on 9/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Personally, I think Schrodinger should've been beaten to death with his dead cat, but then most of those names belong to guys who should've dated at some point in their lives. At least gotten out for a drink now and then. That "Incompleteness Theorem" is raw horsesh*t. Just downright embarrassing drivel.

But, I digress....


You could also blame the Rand Corporation, I do.



edit on 9/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Quantum mysticism is a term that has been used to refer to a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, or mystical world-views to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The term originally emerged from the founders of quantum theory in the early twentieth century as they debated the interpretations and implications of their nascent theories, which would later evolve into quantum mechanics, and later after World War II, with publications such as Schrödinger's and Eugene Wigner’s 1961 paper.[2][7] The essential qualities of early quantum theory, and the ontological questions that emerged from it, made a distinction between philosophical and scientific discussion difficult as quantum theory developed into a strong scientific theory.[citation needed] Quantum Mysticism is popularly considered pseudoscience.[8][9][10] Many of the leading Quantum physicists did however give mystical interpretations to their findings.

Wikipedia

Mysticism has subverted philosophy long ago, and thus it moves through all sciences. I've noticed, like all philosophy, 'quantum mystics' follow their speculations wherever they will take them, but unlike science or mathematics, doesn't stop at contradictions, paradoxes and other logical dead-ends. Instead of discovering a goal, they've conceived of the goal already, and contrive a way to reach it. Deductive vs. inductive reasoning seems to be the cause.






That does seem like the linkage I've been looking for. Excellent.

Just more intellectual contamination by the kind of folks that have been mucking things up for the human race for the last 6,000+ years.

Thank you for the information. It'll help a lot with something I'm working on.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NorEaster
 



but then most of those names belong to guys who should've dated at some point in their lives. At least gotten out for a drink now and then


Are you just going to complain about how they lived their lives, or get down to actually explaining why quantum whatever shouldn't be explored regarding extranatural phenomena?

And I say extranatural because it isn't beyond nature, it's just beyond the nature we've familiarized ourselves with. And by familiarized, I mean poked with sharp sticks under a bright light.


Framing unexpected test results in a way that retards the effort to demystify reality is literally the oldest ruse in the book. The temple priests have been doing in for thousands of years. Try not to be indignant about it. I've made my peace with the whole filthy business and it makes this effort a lot easier to manage.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Neils Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Louis de Broglie, Paul Dirac, Kurt Gödel & Max Planck.

These all generated ideas that increasingly moved further and further from the 'sensible logic' of the Newtonian world.

There were, of course, many others, too.

There were (and are) also many who misunderstood and tried to apply 'magical thinking' to quantum physics or vice versa.

edit on 9/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Personally, I think Schrodinger should've been beaten to death with his dead cat, but then most of those names belong to guys who should've dated at some point in their lives. At least gotten out for a drink now and then. That "Incompleteness Theorem" is raw horsesh*t. Just downright embarrassing drivel.

But, I digress....


You could also blame the Rand Corporation, I do.



edit on 9/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


I blame them for too much as it is. Seriously. That's one bag of vipers, that gang.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I agree with the premise of your OP. There have been some 'quantum leaps' made in hypothesis
that seem pretty far out there. But these guys are all trying to make a name for themselves, get a
paper published and have a college building named after them.

The 'Occam's Razor' approach to hypothesis is for lames. Big thinkers have BIG ideas, and showing off
is not outside the norm. Since it is all uncharted territory, the explorers are all trying to plant their
flag first....



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
I agree with the premise of your OP. There have been some 'quantum leaps' made in hypothesis
that seem pretty far out there. But these guys are all trying to make a name for themselves, get a
paper published and have a college building named after them.

The 'Occam's Razor' approach to hypothesis is for lames. Big thinkers have BIG ideas, and showing off
is not outside the norm. Since it is all uncharted territory, the explorers are all trying to plant their
flag first....


Yes. Either way, there is not much to work with to arrive at any sound conclusions. So far, if the premises are incorrect, so must be the deductions from these premises. Quantum mechanics seems to be an incorrect premise as soon as we attempt to view it through such a limited viewport and as separate, as if torn, from what it is a constituent of. Quantum mechanics is taking things out of context to see if they will act the same—a fruitless task.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Dear NorEaster,

I also have a problem with the idea of all these supposed alternate universes. The short answer is that the best physicists in the world could not come up with an answer that worked out on both the atomic and sub-atomic levels; therefore, they hypothesized that something outside of this universe must be effecting it on a sub-atomic level.

The options are sort of limited. Either we are accurately observing certain things at work or we are not. If we are then what happens on a sub-atomic level violates the standard model of physics. We then have to answer why gravity works at holding things together even though there is insufficient mass in an atom to do so. The current standard answer is multiple universes, I believe Mr. Hawking has said there are 21 of those (interesting when he then uses his theory to say he has disproved God). Other scientists hypothesize that we live in an electric universe or a holographic universe; but, neither theory has been proven to any satisfactory level as of today.

While I am a Christian and quite content to say that these things work because God chose them to be the manner in which the universe works, I still want to see what we can discover and we continue to discover what an amazing universe we live in. When I was a kid nobody knew about quarks and we could not view an atom, today we can. My favorite gifts were telescopes and microscopes and a chemistry set. I absolutely love science and am amazed to see a picture of actual DNA.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Quantum mechanics seems to be an incorrect premise as soon as we attempt to view it through such a limited viewport and as separate, as if torn, from what it is a constituent of.


You would think that this very fundamental truth would be much more of a central notion within the brilliant minds that end up defining - and redefining - what quantum mechanics is, isn't, can be, and can't possibly be.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Quantum mechanics seems to be an incorrect premise as soon as we attempt to view it through such a limited viewport and as separate, as if torn, from what it is a constituent of.


You would think that this very fundamental truth would be much more of a central notion within the brilliant minds that end up defining - and redefining - what quantum mechanics is, isn't, can be, and can't possibly be.


Agreed. When I understand it this way, I can then see that only one with a more faith-based conviction can tread these waters and hit any land. To observe this sort of mind-set polluting a brand new science is perhaps inevitable, but very frightening.

edit on 9-12-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join