Is quantum mechanics creationism


darkbeaver
#1
arXiv.org > physics > arXiv:1802.00227

Physics > History and Philosophy of Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00227
Is quantum mechanics creationism, and not science?

Werner A Hofer
(Submitted on 1 Feb 201
I revisit the reply of Bohr to Einstein. Bohr's implication that there are no causes in atomic scale systems is, as a closer analysis reveals, not in line with the Copenhagen interpretation since it would contain a statement about reality. What Bohr should have written is that there are no causes in mathematics, which is universally acknowledged. The law of causality requires physical effects to be due to physical causes. For this reason any theoretical model which replaces physical causes by mathematical objects is creationism, that is, it creates physical objects out of mathematical elements. I show that this is the case for most of quantum mechanics.
Comments: 9 pages, no in-depth knowledge of mathematics required, sets out the case for a major revision of theoretical physics Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1802.00227 [physics.hist-ph] (or arXiv:1802.00227v1 [physics.hist-ph] for this version)
 
petros
#2
A hard no.
 
darkbeaver
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

A hard no.

You haven,t got a hard no in this case. You have failed to grasp the mean logic. Now if you had a bottle of quantum particles you would satisfy the demands of the scientific method and unless or untill you do all you have is an idea of a hard no on.

Hey Petros, I bean reedin aboot a leetle geology this past few months and am dangerously close to forming complete questions for you which I hope you will find the patience and time to entertain as soon as I get arround to picking some really hard perplexing intrextin funfilled questions. tectonics, ice ages, continental drift and orbital history of the solar system and calendars long and short counts.

And the best one, the roll of modern Academia
 
petros
#4
Life is just a dead star gobbling parasite.
 
Curious Cdn
#5
On the contrary, life is a sort of Play Doh made from the dust of an exploded star.
 
darkbeaver
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Life is just a dead star gobbling parasite.

I disagree with that observation.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

On the contrary, life is a sort of Play Doh made from the dust of an exploded star.

Dust is matter, life is energy.
 
Curious Cdn
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

I disagree with that observation.



Dust is matter, life is energy.

Life uses energy but appears to be a bit more than that.
 
darkbeaver
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Life uses energy but appears to be a bit more than that.

Energy seems to have consciousness and consciousness seems to have energy. Most observable in the electric force in my estimation.
 
Curious Cdn
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Energy seems to have consciousness and consciousness seems to have energy. Most observable in the electric force in my estimation.

... and matter becomes energy (... becomes matter? Can you reverse entropy?)

All of these phenomena look suspiciously like the same thing viewed from different perspectives.
 
darkbeaver
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

... and matter becomes energy (... becomes matter? Can you reverse entropy?)

All of these phenomena look suspiciously like the same thing viewed from different perspectives.

They sure do don,t they? Kind,a gives meaning to the term , the one , or universe don,t it? Maybe perspective should be looked into I guess. I think pure entropy requires a closed system which I,m damned if I can imagine because I,ve gotten used to thinking of the universe as an inseperable whole. The whole subject requires hours of quiet contemplation bolstered by energetic substances like beer and cannabis.
 
Curious Cdn
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

They sure do don,t they? Kind,a gives meaning to the term , the one , or universe don,t it? Maybe perspective should be looked into I guess. I think pure entropy requires a closed system which I,m damned if I can imagine because I,ve gotten used to thinking of the universe as an inseperable whole. The whole subject requires hours of quiet contemplation bolstered by energetic substances like beer and cannabis.

... and Fritos.

They're also quantum phenomenon.
 
Walter
-1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

arXiv.org > physics > arXiv:1802.00227

Physics > History and Philosophy of Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00227
Is quantum mechanics creationism, and not science?

Nope.
 
darkbeaver
#13
The inevitable conclusion from the analysis in the preceding sections that a major part of modern physics, quantum mechanics, is creationism and not science generates an interesting set of problems for theoretical physicists. One way to deal with the problems is to ignore the findings and to try to discredit the author of the paper. This is, what the establishment in physics did rather successfully with David Bohm, and it is probably safe to say that this will be the first reaction. But will theoretical physicists be able to keep a straight face and the necessary authoritative demeanor when they teach quantum mechanics 101 in the future? Will they be able to stifle a grin when they write down Born's equation or multiply a Pauli matrix with a field vector to obtain a magnetic moment? If this situation is already quite difficult to handle for a real scientist, because scientists are notoriously bad at lying, the second problem is even worse. Because what will biologists think, who had to fight against creationism ever since Charles Darwin published his book? One can predict that physics, as a science, will loose most of the respect it enjoys currently in the scientific community. This leads to the third problem, which is finding out how to make physics a real science again. Here, the question is how much will have to be changed, how much of the current conventional wisdom will have to be discarded for a future, strictly scientific, physics. There is, unfortunately, no easy way out. The whole problem of creationism should have been addressed eighty years ago and not swept under the carpet by the faithful followers of Bohr. It should never have been allowed to fester and to impact on all subsequent theory.

For me the most frightening aspect of this analysis is what it says about us physicists. If quantum mechanics, which is one of the corner stones of modern physics, is actually not science but creationism, then how can we justify teaching our students the same nonsense? What they signed up to, when they entered University, was to get an education in a science discipline which gives them the expertise to understand and to work with the reality they are living in. Teaching them creationism, and calling it science, is irresponsible. So I would urge all of my colleagues in theoretical physics to analyse their own field along the same lines. Not by mindlessly heaping mathematical symbols onto a whiteboard and then, at some point, magically finding physical objects, but by analysing whether what their theory does is actually compatible with the laws of causality. If it is not, it has no place in science. My feeling is that this will probably apply to most of modern physics, not just quantum mechanics. Time, I would think, for a big bonfire of theoretical tradition.

Werner A. Hofer
 
Cliffy
#14
And then there is the holographic Universe, the Multiverse and the idea that there is no matter without an observer. I think that we will not think our way out of this paper bag. We have barely scratched the surface of our own being and our place in the dance of Life as we think of it.
 
petros
#15
You do realize for this to work you need an Omnipotent God as the observer.

Have a great day!
 
darkbeaver
+2
#16  Top Rated Post
Quantum mechanics--------- DON,T LET THEM WORK ON YOUR CAR!
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Quantum mechanics--------- DON,T LET THEM WORK ON YOUR CAR!

Damn thing'll be here, there and everywhere going down the road.
 
darkbeaver
#18
tHE THING? HAHAHA RIGHT ON. bEWARE THE THING, THE CLUB OF LIFE AWAITS US. SOMEDAY AT THE WATERING HOLE

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Damn thing'll be here, there and everywhere going down the road.

tHEY TELL US WE ,RE NOT REALLY HERE, and yet we are subject to taxation, how is this possible, all I want is some explanation


I am of course hopeing the more intelligent among us will explain our quantum existance, I,ll be fukked if I can. eat drink and be merrey is as far as I can get
Last edited by darkbeaver; Feb 9th, 2018 at 10:17 PM..
 
OmegaOm
#19
It has always been that what is unknown to science or what the ideas on the fringes of science can not explain they say its creationism. Like before Galileo when creationists claimed the Sun went around the Earth. Then Galileo proved otherwise then the creationists went on to another unknown truth, etc..
Today science does not know what happened before the Big bang. So the creationists say the creator did it.
I am not saying that this claim ain't true, but my point is there can be a infinite number of ideas that could of started the big bang. It could of been some ancient alien that did it. Nobody can know.

Since Galileo, the bag of unknowns that the creationists thought they understood is getting smaller and smaller by science.

Remember science itself does not make any claim %100. Science just goes where the evidence points, and there are ups and downs along the way.
 
darkbeaver
#20
That,s fair. however Eienstien was an idiot, Tesla however, who do you believe? Einstian invented nothing, he was nothing, he is nobody of interest, only the lonely listen to Eienstien a monumental fraud, TheTroggs made more of an impact on science.

A point exploded and everything came forth, realy fuk off Einstine yer one stupid monkey, that space we exploded into Einstiene failed to deliver. Try exploding into nothing, hows that work/ Albert? Screw your magic point, you fukkin retard.

Albert occupied the bottom of the food chain the whole time he was here. He never had an important thought, forget or suffer.
 
OmegaOm
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

That,s fair. however Eienstien was an idiot, Tesla however, who do you believe? Einstian invented nothing, he was nothing, he is nobody of interest, only the lonely listen to Eienstien a monumental fraud, TheTroggs made more of an impact on science.

I agree that Tesla was way more of a genius then Einstein. Many of Einstein ideas were starting to form among the scientific community. How ever he was a brilliant logical man. His 5 papers that came out in one year literally changed the world of science. Everybody talks about relativity, but I think his discovery of what Brownian motion was, was remarkable. With it he discovered the size and existence of atoms.
 

Similar Threads

2
So Jews aren't mechanics, what of it?
by Locutus | Mar 31st, 2014
1
The Computer Mechanics
by Administration | Jun 20th, 2002