Ottawa Skeptics gets it close
Ian | 28 July, 2008 | 14:20Jonathan Abrams and the Ottawa Skeptics do good work. They are on the front lines of the battle over Bill C-51 which hopes to better regulate “natural health products” (aka wacky untested vitamins) and provide a lot of rationality in our nations capital. They don’t touch religion (as many skeptics groups won’t), and that’s there perogative.
Their website posts a lot of good articles on skepticism, including full references, however I have to rebut a bit of the latest one on Quantum Mechanics. Overall the article gets the right idea and right point but I think one paragraph is mistaken:
Quantum mechanics is weird. Countless precise experiments have shown results that defy our everyday experience. Applying QM to the real world essentially says if I were to throw a rock at you, there is a chance it will hit you. There is also a chance it will pass right through you unaltered, and there is a chance it will land on the moon. It also suggests that another rock somewhere could be “entangled” with the one I have and will do the same thing instantaneously. These oddball phenomena lend themselves very well to the suggestion that, since everything is made of atomic material, instantaneous action at a distance works. How does it work? Via an invisible life force that flows through us and connects us all. QM itself does not draw any boundary line between the level of scale where it’s strangeness is revealed, and the level of scale of the world we live in. [Emphasis added]
Perhaps it’s my personal bias, but the phrase “invisible life force” just credits woo authors too much. QM is a mathematical approximation (which works amazingly well) that describes wavefunctions (which are related to the probability of particles being in certain locations or having certain velocities) of particles. Two particles can be “entangled” meaning part of their wavefunction is dependant on another particle.
However, none of this is alive, none of this involves a force, and nothing is flowing. Not in the traditional (Newtonian) sense of the words, not in the woo sense of the words and not in any other modern sense of the words.
Finally, in general there is a scale difference between the “quantum world” and the “macro world.” Every particle has a de Broglie wavelength. This number relates its momentum (or mass times velocity) to an energy and then to a length that it will interact quantum mechanically. If a particle is trapped in a box of the size of its deBroglie wavelength, it tends to exhibit “weird” quantum effects (like the ability to only exist in discrete energy states, or tunnelling energy barriers). The boundary is not firm, but neither is the boundary for baldness.
So kudos to the Ottawa Skeptics for their (generally) good work.
Subscribe to posts
“How does it work? Via an invisible life force that flows through us and connects us all. ”
I think you misinterpret my point and put emphasis where I had no intention for emphasis. You are correct in pointing out that my statement might be misinterpreted and I may have set myself up.
“…lend themselves very well to the suggestion that…” was, in my mind, the key to that full thought. That is to say – the strangeness of quantum physics lends itself to the following leaps in logic:
1)everything is made of atomic material therefore;
2) instantaneous action at a distance on the macro scale is real therefore;
3) It works via an invisible life force that flows through us and connects us all.
The very point of this article was to look at the error in that reasoning and the idea that there is a life force. I would point out the following from within the article:
-”No test using our highly advanced medical equipment has ever detected any life force, chakra, or chi”
-”Nothing requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, energy connections in order to explain our world”
-”This is more simply explained by you subconsciously picking up on body language or non verbal cues rather than some energy-psychic connection”
Lastly, you state:
“Every particle has a de Broglie wavelength. This number relates its momentum (or mass times velocity) to an energy and then to a length that it will interact quantum mechanically. If a particle is trapped in a box of the size of its deBroglie wavelength…”
With all due respect to your understanding of quantum mechanics, you just lost 97% of people. My goal (which was stated quite clearly) was to write a simple paper that the average person could read. My hope was that they might find some rational based clarity. As I stated on our forums: ” I wanted to write an article my mother might read.” If I have missed the technical details in doing so, I have linked to a number of more technical papers.
I realize we are on the same team here but I still felt that you had taken the article out of context and it warranted a response.
Notice that I start and end the post praising the OS and the work you do. I didn’t intend to respond to your entire article since I agree with most of it, I just wanted to comment on the bit that I think needed to be expressed differently. I agree that my explanation is more technical and will likely lose some people. I aim not to belittle, and my speciality is physics so I’m more likely to introduce jargon.
Again, thanks for the work Pat, and I should say that I really liked your article (I just think the wording needed adjustment in one spot).
Ian:
We have certain club rules in Ottawa Skeptics to deal with big egos – (1) always criticize Pat, (2) never compliment Jon, and (3) praise Barry whenever possible. You passed (1) and contravened (2), so go for (3) and we’ll call it square.
Barry
So, does this mean we’re in a feud now? I’ve got overalls and can find a big old-fashioned black powder musket and straw hat, if needed!
Dave, Ottawa Skeptics….
I’m also an SFU Skeptic. Am I going to be dragged into this feud?
I don’t think I’ve ever even SEEN a musket.