Defend the Indefensible: People who say "I'm **really into** quantum physics!" (and aren't physicists)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Well?

― Joe (Joe), Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

http://groups.myspace.com/Metaphilosophy

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:30 (twenty-one years ago)

UGH! i hate these people! it always appears on those personal ads on the onion and fark.

why you should get to know me:
i'm a big dork. i love quantum physics.

assholes, they've never taken a college physics course in their lives. reading "a brief history of time" does not count.

― caitlin hell (caitxa), Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Anybody who tries to typecast himself as a "loveable dork" deserves to be nut-noogied

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know, it's basically the same as saying you're into Philosophy. I've known a few actual physicists, familiar with the math involved, who can't explain quantum physics situations as well as interested laypeople.

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Is quantum physics even something you can be "into"? It's not a band, it's a highly complicated scientific theory. You're only "into" it if you're conducting intensive reseach into it.

― Wooden (Wooden), Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:47 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, but it's not the fact that you find quantum physics interesting. i do, but i don't know much about it. it's the fact that you make a point to tell people you're into it so they think you're really smart. sooooo annoyingggggggg.

xpost

― caitlin hell (caitxa), Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:48 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/332.gif

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Right. I think it's interesting, I've read a book and taken a class here and there, but I would never list it as a hobby. In fact, I only ever talk about it with physicists who can tell me interesting things.

(x-post, ha)

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:50 (twenty-one years ago)

And I do think you can be interested in it without being a physicist, maybe you just wanted to know what's up with that cat that everyone likes to mention.

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 7 October 2004 23:51 (twenty-one years ago)

What is the problem? A boy says he's "really into" quantum physics & a girl goes with him.

EITHER she would've anyway and is not "into" quantum physics.

OR she is "into" it but only like he is and they're happy OR she is "into" it even more and teaches him some OR she is "into" it even more and so sees he's a fool and dumps him to your general amusement.

But, SO?

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Friday, 8 October 2004 00:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Being reasonable on threads like this just spoils everybody's fun.

― Wooden (Wooden), Friday, 8 October 2004 00:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay, fuck off.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Friday, 8 October 2004 00:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha. Don't sulk.

― Wooden (Wooden), Friday, 8 October 2004 00:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw a documentary on string theory on pbs once.. it was pretty. thats about it for me..

― still bevens (bscrubbins), Friday, 8 October 2004 01:02 (twenty-one years ago)

that string theory docu was on a night or two ago, but I MISSED IT:(!!!! i was so crushed. it's all online on the pbs site though:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

― \(^o^)/ (Adrian Langston), Friday, 8 October 2004 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm **really into** Pet Sounds! (but I'm not a musician)

Can't physics be a spectator sport too?

― Evanston Wade (EWW), Friday, 8 October 2004 02:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Indeed, is it for hardcore physicists only? That seems a tad unfair.

Mind you, I steer clear of starting convos on this subject - one of me last flatmates was really up on it (and was a math major/geek) and I just couldnt follow his explanations and theories...

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 8 October 2004 03:41 (twenty-one years ago)

who cares? Of all the silly things for ILXors to get worked up over.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 8 October 2004 03:45 (twenty-one years ago)

My friend does physics & guys are always telling her stuff like "oh, I've always been so interested in physics, I'm really into quantum physics." the other fun part of this is apparently the geeks at her work who think she looks like Trinity..

Milla Jovovitch was in some fashion mag last month (I think it was something embarrassing like Lucky) wearing a t-shirt with atoms and particles on it, and she explained "I'm a physics buff."

― daria g (daria g), Friday, 8 October 2004 04:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I think this is a great thread. I'm also not a physicist but I like reading about string theory?

― Helios Creed (orion), Friday, 8 October 2004 04:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Is quantum physics even something you can be "into"?
Yeah, who the fuck does this? If this was at all common, I'd have seen it by now.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 8 October 2004 04:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Dudes, I totally knew a guy who used to try to impress girls with fuckin super string theory and crap like that.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 8 October 2004 04:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh yes, and no hippies, or anyone that is going to just regurgitate catch phrases that they have read by such and such authority in such and such a book. Put the book down, stop talking for a second, and pay attention to what you are doing. A philosopher cannot be manufactured in a university.

Riiight. Because philosophers are manufactured ALL THE TIME on internet message boards.

who cares? Of all the silly things for ILXors to get worked up over.

haha Everything hstencil has ever gotten worked up about to thread!

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Friday, 8 October 2004 05:04 (twenty-one years ago)

gee Kenan and we were getting along so well. And c'mon, it's not like I'm Alex in NYC and start five threads about what's pissing me off today every day (sorry Alex, I love ya dude!).

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 8 October 2004 05:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Riiight. Because philosophers are manufactured ALL THE TIME on internet message boards.

Hahahah that guy is a bit of a tool. We had a lot of fun fucking with him.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 8 October 2004 05:13 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost - also it's really nice that everytime I post an opinion on ILE it's my "persona" that gets a reply, not what I actually write about.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 8 October 2004 05:15 (twenty-one years ago)

In their defense, they are at least better than people who say, "I'm really into chaos theory!"

― Nemo (JND), Friday, 8 October 2004 12:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Its the lack of understanding of the underlying calculations involved that drives me crazy.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:10 (twenty-one years ago)

::cries::

― Danger Whore (kate), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Bbbbut Kate, you will soon know all about the calcns on account of yr Maths lessons, no?

― RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I wish my maths lessons would dwell more on calculations. We're still in utterly tedious and boring arithmatic which I CANNOT GET MY HEAD AROUND. If god had intended us to do long division, HE WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN US CALCULATORS!!!

― Danger Whore (kate), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Or MAPLE.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I bought a copy of this the other day (though I have yet to open it):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0224044478/pd_ka_0/202-5480592-9239869

So maybe I can be one of these people soon.

― toby (tsg20), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Will they allow you to be a mathematician if you can't remember your times tables?

― Danger Whore (kate), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Cor. That looks great! I might have to buy a copy myself, having forgotten about 80% of all the physics I ever knew.

― RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:28 (twenty-one years ago)

A mathematician, maybe, a physicist, no.

― RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's fascinating, so I read about it, learn a bit and sometimes talk about it to other people who might be interested. Fuck tha hataz.

― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:53 (twenty-one years ago)

That last bit is a Hawking quote.

― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 8 October 2004 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Being reasonable on threads like this just spoils everybody's fun.

Indeed. I am surprised at the level of serious responses.

This gets at the heart of the target: those incidences where "quantum physics" becomes superficial code for 'I'm a smart person' (much like in popular music, the incidences where "influenced by Stockhausen" becomes superficial code for 'this music is sophisticated and deep')

― Joe (Joe), Friday, 8 October 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha, so OTM.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 8 October 2004 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

WHAT ARE THESE SHADOWS Y'ALLZ BE CASTING ON THE WALLS OF MY CAVE?

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Friday, 8 October 2004 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I imagine I've said this before, and I'm not a physicist. Rick (even if he's forgotten 80% of his physics, that still leaves him knowing ten times as much as 99% of the people here. Maybe 100%, I'm not sure) will be able to say whether I have the first fucking idea what I am talking about, as I have said things about it here and in person to him (possibly including last night on a bus back from Peckham). I have done rather more than read A Brief History Of Time about this. Ditto Chaos Theory in all respects - I was explaining fractional dimensions on another thread just this week, a related concept, which I hope shows that my knowledge is more than just having seen the Mandelbrot Set and found it pretty.

I really don't know what's wrong with this. If the objection is just to people trying to claim to be dead smart, this is just one of many ways of doing that, and it's the feebleness of the attempt that is to be decried, not the particular taste, whether it's science or the arts (cf Stockhausen notes above). I suspect there is a distaste for science at back of a lot of this, a dislike of this lame gambit more than its arts equivalents.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 9 October 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

haha this is totally maths rockism! like who's gonna represent for kinematics? i'm really into newtonian principles!

feynman's lost lecture to thread!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 10 October 2004 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I ask them if they know who Dirac is.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Sunday, 10 October 2004 00:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Dirac is where you hang de coat!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 10 October 2004 00:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Which reminds me, there's an argument that "i think therefore i am" doesn't take into account the consciousness of the animal kingdom, but it was proved invalid because it would be putting descart before de horse.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 10 October 2004 00:39 (twenty-one years ago)

it's the feebleness of the attempt that is to be decried, not the particular taste, whether it's science or the arts
However, since most people don't know anything about quantum physics, it's easier for a physics poseur to convince people that they're intelligent because there aren't many people who could call them on their bullshit.
Also, many people automatically assume a person is smart if they are a scientist or are into science. Poseurs can easily take advantage of this. In contrast, if you met someone and they said "I'm really into world politics" then you wouldn't just assume that they're intelligent, mainly because a lot of people are well versed in politics and are therefore capable of judging that person's intelligence on its own merits.
The smartest-looking people are often the ones who know (or seem to know) a lot about something that you know nothing about.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 10 October 2004 03:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Amateurs and hobbyists are not to be dismissed from the history of scientific progress. And, as Barry has observed, scientists have said some pretty crazy things. I can't speak for quantum physics, but in my area (philosophy of psychology)there are some ludicrous things said about the nature of consciousness, occasionally by former Nobel Prize winners in other scientific fields. For example, did you know you had an 'audiospatial scratch-pad' in 'short term visual memory'? Or that sufficiently complex neural nets exhibit free will -because we don't know what they're going to do next? Or that when something doesn't happen, it happens in another universe? If you wanted to call bullshit on the self-defeating hypotheses driving deep science, you would be a very busy person. And yet, there is no doubt that these are very intelligent people who are saying a variety of self-contradictory things. You can be so focussed on the small and complex you miss the large and obvious. So amateurs can be really useful to science here, providing an outside perspective that is quite different to the thinking in the field, and possibly more accurate (no guarantees).

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Sunday, 10 October 2004 03:43 (twenty-one years ago)

descart = descartes

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 10 October 2004 04:58 (twenty-one years ago)

colin none of your examples are that crazy except that you've done the amateurish thing of reducing the science to the silly popularization, which is what makes people think they can pass summary judgement on it in the first place! those aren't self-defeating hypotheses so much as bad metaphors.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 10 October 2004 05:01 (twenty-one years ago)

for example, the "multiple universe" thing is really one conceptualization of a certain set of quantum laws which is mathematically equivalent to lots of other ones.

"did you know that physicists say that when you're on a moving train, you can say that the train isn't moving but instead the earth is just moving past it and you won't be wrong? they so crazy!"

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 10 October 2004 05:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I believe we had a thread once before about multiple universes, where did they put it?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Sunday, 10 October 2004 05:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Similarly, I was thinking of:
Likes: Chinese food. Dislikes: fake people.

"I really love going for long walks, baseball games, reading books on art history and quantum physics. I can't stand Sex in the City or food with too much garlic, though..."

― Joe (Joe), Sunday, 10 October 2004 11:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Perhaps its the sheer volume of people who are interested in quantum physics and claim to understand it but could tell you what the hell eigenvector or Hermitian operators are.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Sunday, 10 October 2004 12:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyone who wants to follow Noodles' advice and learn a few equations to go along with their hand waving might want to start here

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 10 October 2004 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Might I offer an explanation, since I am one of these people who likely would list such a thing if submitting a profile to LavaLife or some other dating service?

First of all, it's a genuine interest. Einstein was a postal clerk or something, wasn't he? No, I'm not comparing myself to Einstein, but I am pointing out that you don't need a degree to comprehend physics or quantum physics. In fact, I've noticed that scientists with degrees are often narrow-minded know it alls who don't take the time to consider any arguments they haven't been presented with by their mentors and peers. Generally, they believe if it isn't a focus of the community, it's not worth considering.

Science has a history of temporary certainty. Men of science have claimed rocks couldn't fall from the sky and that there was no such thing as radiation-- obviously, wrong on both counts. Yet, if you point out quantum weirdness to your average quantum physicist, they will answer, "So what? That doesn't mean what you're suggesting," even if you aren't suggesting anything at all. They are so afraid of being unable to explain things, they fool themselves into believing their explanations are infallible, despite being incomplete in enough ways to render them quite fallible.

Secondly, I believe the types of people who might actually list "quantum physics" as a hobby or interest are people you wouldn't understand and perhaps this is why you detest them so. For instance, people who don't remember their dreams have a general personality which is quite different from those who remember their dreams frequently. The "dreamless" are generally content to live in everyday reality without thinking about everyday reality much at all; they are content to master their lives and are not plagued much by philosophical concerns. Those who often remember their dreams are usually considered "dreamers" by the dreamless, screwed-down, buttoned-up realists. These dreamers are fascinated with what makes the world tick.
To bring up Einstein once again, he said "imagination is more important than knowledge."

In short, what I'm trying to say is that people who are actually interested in quantum physics are not trying to impress you and they are not idiots for daring to learn and trying to understand. They are probably trying to connect with people like themselves. Who knows, they may think your hobbies are incredibly irritating and indefensible, too.

― sleid, Sunday, 10 October 2004 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that post has convinced me to never say that I'm into quantum physics again.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 10 October 2004 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm interested in quantum physics, and don't give a shit what other people think about that.

― donna (donna), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha, Martin, after reading that post myself I thought that would be your reaction.

I have no problem with people who are genuinely interested in the science of QM. The aspect of it that annoys me is that the majority of people who say they are interested in QM are much more interested in the mystical or philosophical implications of QM, rather than in QM itself. It's at root a way of explaining and predicting the physical operation of the universe, and ignoring this is missing the whole bloody point of the theory. When these folk do have some vague interest in the actual physics of it, it all too often amounts to bibbling on about entanglement and teleportation. It's all to rare that one of these people will actually KNOW anything about any phenomenon that is ACTUALLY EXPLAINED by QM.

Gah.

― RickyT (RickyT), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that post has convinced me to never say that I'm into quantum physics again.

A prisoner by choice! That bodes well for anyone not up to your standards!

― sleid, Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

RickyT OTM

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:30 (twenty-one years ago)

RickyT, and beyond all this stuff that annoys you, the truly fscinating aspect of QM is ________________________________ ?

― sleid, Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean "the whole bloody point of the theory is __________________________?"

― sleid, Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:32 (twenty-one years ago)

How about: that it happens to be the best model we have of explaining the way the universe appears to work on a small scale?

(xpost)

The whole point of the theory is to model the apparent physical universe. Which, like I say, it seems to be doing quite well.

― RickyT (RickyT), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

It's pretty good at modelling interactions between subatomic particles, it just happens to have some startling implications for classical determinist theory.s

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, RickyT, how can you be bored by the strange implications when that's part of the model of the physical universe? Jeez. It's like archeologists who call something an "anomolgy" when it doesn't fit their expectations and "evidence" when it does.

― sleid, Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

:) "anomolgy". I like that.

― sleid, Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know what you're talking about. Quantum Physics rule, dude.

― Loose Translation: Sexy Dancer (sexyDancer), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:50 (twenty-one years ago)

The implications are are only strange from our perspective as we generally observe classical physics in action.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I once said "The chemistry of soap is quite interesting" in the pub, and received a round table of expressions showing miscomprehension, wonder and bemusement, but mainly 'wacko-over-here' eyes...

But I didn't even start the conversation... a girl at the table was talking about aircraft fuel, and then it moved on to how soap was discovered.

So instead of actually explaining how the chemistry of soap works, I came off looking like a Cliff Clavin wanabee

― Tannenbaum Schmidt (Nik), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

The problem is that most of these 'implications' are at the moment untested and are likely to remain that way (though the entanglement stuff is becoming more evidentially based). I'm very much not a scientific realist - theories are just models, right? So until the consequences of a particularly, um, strange extrapolation of a theory is demonstrated, I reserve the right to remain sceptical.

This is very much not what you are accusing archaeologists of doing. I am not ignoring evidence that doesn't fit the theory, I'm saying that speculation without evidence is less interesting to me than actual explanation of extant evidence.

― RickyT (RickyT), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:56 (twenty-one years ago)

So what implications of QP are you sceptical about?

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha, that's hilarious, Tannerbaum! That sounds like the kind of shit I say. I didn't realize it until people started commenting on my strange tidbits of information.

But, soap is weird. You rub it on your ass (or washcloth which has been on your ass) and then put it back. Then, the next person comes in and rubs it all over their body. And just a few seconds on and off removes horrendous body odor. It's quite amazing stuff. As for the chemistry of it, I actually have no idea, but I assume it's kryptonite?

― sleid, Sunday, 10 October 2004 18:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Many world interpretations, action at a distance, y'know, the usual stuff.

― RickyT (RickyT), Sunday, 10 October 2004 19:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree, RickT. Sorry for the implication /comparison regarding archeologists w/o actually knowing more about your actual opinions. I hate that when I do that.

Actions at a distance give me a boner! I confess to being interested in the strange implications and "metaphysical" aspects of it, although I don't really think the term "metaphysical" fits well because it tends to imply supernatural or something to most people.

― sleid, Sunday, 10 October 2004 19:06 (twenty-one years ago)

A prisoner by choice! That bodes well for anyone not up to your standards!

I've reread this note, directed to me, several times, and I still have no idea what it means or how it relates to my comment.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 10 October 2004 19:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Half-decent archaeologists don't ignore evidence that doesn't fit their theories, either. But that's beside the point.

― caitlin the ex-archaeologist (caitlin), Sunday, 10 October 2004 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Skidmore:"I think that post has convinced me to never say that I'm into quantum physics again."
Sleid: "A prisoner by choice! That bodes well for anyone not up to your standards!"

Skidmore: I've reread this note, directed to me, several times, and I still have no idea what it means or how it relates to my comment.

I referred to you as a "prisoner by choice" (prisoner of your own mind) due to this comment of yours: "I think that post has convinced me to never say that I'm into quantum physics again." With your opinions locked up safe, those who do not meet your standards will not be bothered to hear them.

― sleid, Monday, 11 October 2004 00:58 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread just makes me more and more depressed.

I have to admit, I have a passing interest in physics, though it's more of the "read Stephen Hawking and watch BBC2" sort of way, and I don't think the words "I'm really into quantum anything" have ever passed my lips (except maybe Quantum Leap, but that's only to see grown American men in womens clothes). I have a passing interest in science the same way that I have a passing interest in archeology, or linguistics, or any of the other subjects that occasionally take my fancy.

So what'a worse? Being sneered at by Office People down the pub for being a f*cking FREAK because you occasionally bring up "Ha ha, I'll tell you something funny I read about black holes/subatomic particles/deserted medieval villages the other day..." or being sneered at by Proper Scientists because you are a casual, layperson DARING to poke your uneducated nose into their specialist subjects.

Sigh...

― Danger Whore (kate), Monday, 11 October 2004 07:16 (twenty-one years ago)

sneered at by Proper Scientists because you are a casual, layperson DARING to poke your uneducated nose into their specialist subjects.

Really, Kate, please don't feel that way. People being interested in science is a GOOD THING. It's people claiming to be interested in science and then turning out not to be that's the irritating thing.

― RickyT (RickyT), Monday, 11 October 2004 07:56 (twenty-one years ago)

So it's OK if people are interested in science, but it's not OK if people mangle or misunderstand science as a sort of "look at me, I'm smart and all" sort of pose?

OK, if that's the case, then I misunderstood.

― Danger Whore (kate), Monday, 11 October 2004 07:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry Sleid, I still don't have a clue what you mean. I don't see what I'm a prisoner of, nor where this meeting my standards bit comes in at all.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 11 October 2004 10:34 (twenty-one years ago)

RickyT, that's an unforgivably rockist view. People talk about teleportation and black holes for the same reason T Rex gets a better press than some anonymous Silurian amphibian and Fermat's last theorem sells more books than (insert tedious but important maths issue that I'm too ignorant to know about).

Glamour may be a negative thing if it prevents people from taking an interest in vital but inaccessible areas of research, but in terms of popularising a pretty niche area it's got to be at least partly helpful, no?

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 11 October 2004 10:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Science is the one thing it's acceptible to be rockist in, maaaaan!

― Danger Whore (kate), Monday, 11 October 2004 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I have no problem with people talking abt black holes, T Rexes or teleportation (the first two being solid scientific subjects). But if someone says they are interested in Quantum Physics is it unreasonable of me to expect that interest to be in the physics, rather than speculation into many worlds hypotheses? It's like someone saying they were **really into** cooking, and it turning out all they knew about cooking was decorating cakes. Or saying they were really into black holes, yet not even understanding that mass curves spacetime.

― RickyT (RickyT), Monday, 11 October 2004 11:06 (twenty-one years ago)

especially if you're talking about geology

xpost

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 11 October 2004 11:07 (twenty-one years ago)

So it's OK if people are interested in science, but it's not OK if people mangle or misunderstand science as a sort of "look at me, I'm smart and all" sort of pose?

Yes, again the latter is the target of this thread. I'm somewhat surprised folks seem to be indicating they've never run into people like this--where "quantum physics" is tossed about so casually in context, in an obviously flagrant and obviously superficial kind of way. RickyT is completely OTM, especially pointing out the metaphysical/philosophical/spiritual interest disguised as a scientific interest, which is a crucial element I forgot.

― Joe (Joe), Monday, 11 October 2004 11:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know, I don't think I've ever met this type of person. Or maybe I just don't hang around stoners enough any more.

I'm more annoyed by the Fortean type person who claims to be all into science, but actually as a cover and/or explanation for believing a load of hippie crap. Though I suppose that's more like the latter part of what you're saying, and what RickyT was saying.

― Danger Whore (kate), Monday, 11 October 2004 11:31 (twenty-one years ago)

You definitely run into a lot of those sort of people when it comes to archaeology.

(have we ever had an Erich von Däniken thread?)

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 11 October 2004 11:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha ha, oh my, yes, I think we have for some reason...

― Danger Whore (kate), Monday, 11 October 2004 11:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry Sleid, I still don't have a clue what you mean. I don't see what I'm a prisoner of, nor where this meeting my standards bit comes in at all.

You've chosen to restrain yourself due to your impression of my post. You said, "I think that post has convinced me to never say that I'm into quantum physics again." This is a self-inflicted prison caused by your attitudes and opinions about my post.

― sleid, Monday, 11 October 2004 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

People learn gradually, Richard, and you seem to have come across some of them when they've barely started. Heaven forbid you talk to me about quantum physics, since the teleportation angle was what actually got me reading about the SCIENCE in the first place. Sheesh.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 11 October 2004 21:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think that's what he's been saying at all. Obviously no one becomes an expert in anything overnight, but it is perfectly reasonable to expect that a person (even a beginner) understands what they are talking about. Nobody has any problems with beginners, the problem is with people who spew philosophical garbage and try to pass it off as some sort of deep understanding of quantum physics (or any other subject for that matter).

For instance, you've got people who think that understanding quantum physics presents a gateway into understanding homeopathic healing, i.e. theories based on quantum physics can explain cellular processes in a way that traditional medicine cannot. Whereas anyone who actually understands even the most basic tenets of quantum physics knows that such theories are complete bullshit.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 11 October 2004 21:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Whereas anyone who actually understands even the most basic tenets of quantum physics knows that such theories are complete bullshit.

The topic of which won an Ignoble prize for Physics in 98.
God I love AIR.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 12:17 (twenty-one years ago)

i only rememeber the bit in quantum physics about the cat trapped in a box with some bit of cyanide.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 12:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Schrodingers cat, possibly the most misunderstood thought experiment ever.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 13:42 (twenty-one years ago)

haha "dingers"

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

The topic of which won an Ignoble prize for Physics in 98.
God I love AIR.

AIR? For the record, I had no idea there was stuff out there like this "Quantum Healing" book. But, I have been following Multiverse theories proposed by actual scientists.

― sleid, Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Actual scientists have been known to smoke their fair share of actual drugs or actually be wrong.
AIR which are more fun loving then these guys.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

and don't forget other best sellers like

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

well look at that, my quantum nutritution link is gone.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Quantum Reality or The New Physics or Quantum Mysticism or Quantum Alternatives or Quantum Nutritution (That one is something special but its just the coockbook) or for the spice girls How to get what you really want

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Exactly what's wrong with science now?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Science has no soul.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Quantum Physics of Quantum Healing, the Cadillac of the genre.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Exactly what's wrong with science now?

Nothing, what's wrong is the missapropriation of "quantum" to sell shitty self help books.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Interesting. Do you think these scientists are smoking drugs?:
Quantum Aether Dynamics

― sleid, Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe I should have directed you to this page instead:

Introduction
THE CRISIS IN PHYSICS
What a complicated mess the world of physics is now! Endless generations of particles, dark energy that seemingly causes the universe to expand, M-Theories, string theories, super symmetry, and on and on. It seems that the search for a "Theory of Everything" is leading to a reevaluation of the most fundamental foundations of physical science. Take string theory, for example. Despite 20 years of working out excruciatingly difficult mathematical models, string theorists have yet to produce a single prediction that can be tested in a laboratory!
http://quantumaetherdynamics.com/1.htm

― sleid, Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:08 (twenty-one years ago)

what's wrong is the missapropriation of "quantum" to sell shitty self help books
Like we were saying upthread, some people use the word "quantum" = "code word for intelligent, advanced, far out stuff" to make it appear as though they know science. Other than using the word to attract potential readers to their circus sideshow and the fact that this "healing" is to quantum as alchemy is to chemistry, there's nothing wrong with it, I guess. Obviously it helps them sell books.
(xpost)

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Sleid -- those guys are indeed smoking drugs. Very powerful ones.
First off, just because string theory is at present untestable doesn't mean it's untrue, and should abandoned. If exact provability was the most important criterium, we'd have abandoned the Theory of Evolution by now. Sure, string theory has lost some of its sex appeal for this very reason (I wrote about this on another).
So what these guys have done is the physics equivalent of what creationists do, i.e. "since we can't prove evolution, then it must be wrong, therefore, we should all believe in something else" (which happens to be also unproveable, and to a far greater degree).
Their equations are grade 4 horseshit. All they're doing (at least all they've shown on their web page) is express certain constants in terms of other constants. They haven't derived a thing.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

"I wrote about [string theory] on another *thread* ..."

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't remember off-hand, but I don't think they were suggesting abadonment of string theory. They are trying to come up with a theory that unites all popular modern theories with a logical explanation.

― sleid, Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course, my memory is bad. I also see they describe themselves as "self-educated amateurs," so I am indeed sorry I have bothered to present the link. And I also think I will trash it from my bookmarks! :)

― sleid, Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think they were suggesting abadonment of string theory
They didn't say so in these exact words, but the implication was strong.
There IS a lot of real physics in there ... they talk about the fine structure constant, gravitational constant, etc. ... these things exist, and are explained correctly. Then they write down their "new" constants without any explanation (again, maybe they don't include everything on the web page). So they obviously have done some reading.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyone really using the title line as a means of gaining attention is too silly to even bother with. Tune out.

It may irritate the 'properly informed' to share this planet with people who spout uninformed opinions, or twist ideas to fit personal belief systems, but it is scarily small-minded to suggest that a subject be off-limits for irritating people with misguided views and loud voices.

― donna (donna), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

There is a difference between "uninformed opinions" and "complete garbage with absolutely no adherence to fact". Interpretation is one thing, but the "quantum healing" foolios are trying to "interpret" the equivalent of 1+1=7. They can twist their belief systems all they want and cloak their language in all the rhetoric they want, but at the end of the day, they're still inherently, indisputably incorrect.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I would like to see a book called "Pick Up Chicks With Quantum Mechanics".

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

"Hey baby, how about you and me get quantum entangled?"

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

"I'd love to get a look at your spherical harmonics."

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 01:17 (twenty-one years ago)

"Why don't you get in position, I'll bring the momentum, and we'll see if we can go about breaking that uncertainty principle."

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

How's Barry doing, ladies?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 01:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, he's Bohring me.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 07:56 (twenty-one years ago)

That pun was so awful, you deserve to be tortured on Dirac.

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 10:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Weyl thats just great, You should be nice to me i'm feeling Pauli.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm running a bit short on physicist-based puns - can anyone think of some more Fermi?

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

You think I was Born yesterday? Come up with your own.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Feynman, I'll do it myself.

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:16 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be thick as a Planck if you can't think of any more!

― robster (robster), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

i would help but there's a newt on my book of physicist puns.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Yukawa head then
xxpost

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:21 (twenty-one years ago)

you guys are just bose-ting now

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:23 (twenty-one years ago)

We are Rabi-ting on a bit.

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:25 (twenty-one years ago)

May Goudsmit us down.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:27 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread has been Bloched by a moderator

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Why when DeWitt is so strong?

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm really into proton tunnelling. Or I was.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 11:52 (twenty-one years ago)

What no pun? I bet your cheeks are Rosen.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, you're such a Kaluza, Dr C. The deKlein of an ILX great, it makes me sad.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:03 (twenty-one years ago)

There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium...

― Joe (Joe), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:11 (twenty-one years ago)

You guys are going to hate this:

Mind and brain:
A scientific discussion leading to the existence of the soul

by Marco Biagini

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/mindandbrain.html

― sleid, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

There is an endless supply of quacks out there doing that type of thing. Most into yogic matress bouncing such as the authors listed above.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I want to do that sort of thing. I see there are a lot of books that rehash the same crap and obviously somebody's making money off this stuff! The 2 most ridiculous examples of (well, not Quantum) rubbish I can think of that made craploads of money: Celestine Prophecy and Conversations With God.

― sleid, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)

'Qauntum leap' is a small leap, not a big one? Am I correct? So when you tell someone their theory is a quantum leap in understanding, you're secretly insulting them?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes - it's the smallest energy difference physically possible.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 14 October 2004 10:33 (twenty-one years ago)

is this pertinent?

http://www.whatthebleep.com/

― AaronK (AaronK), Friday, 15 October 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I haven't read many good things about that movie, and I'm not much of a movie person, so I'm in no hurry to see it. Has anyone here seen it, though?

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Saturday, 16 October 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Hello - my understanding (don't claim much) is that the reason 'quantum leap' has come to be idiomatic for 'huge leap' is not because actual quantum leaps are large in distance, but because they are such a fundamental leap - the fact that a leap happens at all is what is so important/amazing.

So it's wrong to mock people for using it figuratively to mean a significant leap.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 16 October 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

AaronK, thanks, I will be viewing that this weekend!

― redfez, Saturday, 16 October 2004 17:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought it had gained its figurative use from the fact that a quantum leap is an instant jump from one state to another, not a gradual move.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 16 October 2004 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes - that's what I was trying to say I think!

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 16 October 2004 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, that's a quantum leap in my understanding of the expression.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Sunday, 17 October 2004 00:40 (twenty-one years ago)

no, people actually do use it to mean a huge advance because they don't understand it. don't defend them.

― darragh.mac (darragh.mac), Sunday, 17 October 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

no, people actually do use it to mean a huge advance because they don't understand it. don't defend them.

Nope. That would imply distance and the term "quantum leap" almost never implies distance when used figuratively. When was the last time you heard "quantum leap" from a sports announcer or to describe a roadtrip? No, "quantum leap" used figuratively always tends to refer to significant changes in judgement or understanding, not distance.

― sorry ta tell ya, Sunday, 17 October 2004 01:02 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, fair enough, but do you believe that the majority of people using the phrase know this, or are they thinking of a large quantum majestically soaring through the air in their heads?

you know it makes sense.

― darragh.mac (darragh.mac), Sunday, 17 October 2004 01:03 (twenty-one years ago)

The majority of people don't even realize the phrase "could care less" is actually "could NOT care less," so I doubt they give much thought to other phrases they hear slung around. Buzzwords. Think out of the box, will ya? ;-)

― even sorrier to say..., Sunday, 17 October 2004 01:15 (twenty-one years ago)

think out(side) of the box.

is this the box with that fucking cat in it?

― darragh.mac (darragh.mac), Sunday, 17 October 2004 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

is this the box with that fucking cat in it?

Yes. Think yourself out of it. I can't think my way out of a paper bag, but fortunately nobody's tried to put me in one yet.

― sad sack, Sunday, 17 October 2004 01:21 (twenty-one years ago)

with the paper bag quandary, brute force is always a better option than intellectualism.

i refuse to get into any box until the number of cats therein is sfaely and definitely ascertained, thank you.

― darragh.mac (darragh.mac), Sunday, 17 October 2004 01:23 (twenty-one years ago)

three weeks pass...

Only the military could be so dense as to possibly fall for this.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Monday, 8 November 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.