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)

Skipping 60 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

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.