0 members (),
612
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375 |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
Very interesting, but I don't think that this is literally something that could be taught in kindergarten. OTOH, it does point towards some interesting ideas. One might attempt to teach the subject without teaching the subject, per se. Teach a pictorial calculus - or perhaps several pictorial calculi - that may or may not have any correspondence to physical reality (let alone QM). Perhaps those who are imbued with this sort of thing would find QM a lot easier than I did the first time around.
This is great stuff, but I'll be convinced when I see it being taught successfully to a group of Kindergartn kids. If it works, it could have a lot of implications for improving education. Logic in general - and logical formalism in particular - is something that schools (in the US) do not do well.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
An another good example of how deranged the "science" has become.
ES
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
On what basis is it deranged?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend: On what basis is it deranged? Assuming it is not a parody / of which I am not sure at all / There is not a word of truth in the article, but it pretends to be science. Even if it is a parody, it is deranged behavior. ES
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
I took one course in QM in college. I've forgotten everything I ever knew. I do know that I was not very comfortable with it and that there were a lot of strange ideas.
I could do the stuff. I just didn't feel like I understood it at the time. Maybe that's why none of it has stayed with me.
I don't know enough to judge. Maybe this IS a parody. But from my superficial perusal it looks clever enough. And even if it's complete farce, I still like the idea of a pictorial representation of logic.
Is there something specific in the article that you think is false? And I still don't understand why you think it is deranged.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
If I said it all wrong, I mean it. Every word of it.
e :p s
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
Very good. Every word of it is false. I'll buy that. Please provide one false sentence from the article and explain how it is false.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend: Very good. Every word of it is false. I'll buy that. Please provide one false sentence from the article and explain how it is false. This article is a parody, and you will not understand any explanation anyway, since you admit you've "forget" quantum mechanics. The things like this are published to show that science is broken, and can not see difference between hoax and real research. e s
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
True, I've forgotten. But I'm sure there are others here who have not. I may not be able to actually "do the math" any more, but I think I can follow the big picture, if you'll give me a chance.
Really. I work with people a lot smarter than me every day. Most of them are practicing scientists. My entire professional life consists of being in over my head and dog-paddling to shore and while I may have forgotten QM, I think the fact that I actually understood - at least the introductory stuff - at one time shows that I'm at least capable of following it.
Give me a chance. Please provide one sentence from the paper and explain exactly how it is false.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Please provide one sentence from the paper and explain exactly how it is false. Since you are so polite, I will do it. "Why did discovering quantum teleportation take 60 years?" - the first line in the article. Now: There is no such thing as "quantum teleportation" or any other teleportation. So, you must be able to figure out right away that it is a joke, the question is only on whom. Why there is no such thing as "quantum teleportation", can be answered in general - because it contradicts the relativity restrictions, which quantum theory /the real one/, faithfully obeys. e s
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
I don't know. I don't remember any of this from my modern physics course. But I DO remember having read where Einstein refered to QM as "spooky, action-at-a-distance." So maybe Einstein didn't think QM agreed with his theories. I recall, however, reading a brief article on this some months ago, so I just did a web search and came up with a few references: http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0818_040818_teleportation.html Have you looked at any of the actual results in detail? Would you be able to interpret them and evaluate their claims?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend: I DO remember having read where Einstein refered to QM as "spooky, action-at-a-distance."
If Einstein have lost that argument, the nitwits have no chance. I have told you, since you are not authority in the matter - listen to me, I am.
Or learn something, and then discuss.
ES
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
1) So you have looked at these claims in detail? Or you refute them solely based on the fact that you believe they disagree with Einstein?
2) What is it that qualifies one as an authority? Is reading a lot sufficient to make one an authority? Does one have to be able to solve a certain type of problem?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend: .... I wonder who on the forum graded you five stars. You do not deserve any at all. Just for being stubborn in your nonsense? e :rolleyes: s
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
My rating is a mystery to me.
I prefer to think of myself as tenacious. Here I pointed you to an IBM site that refered to quantum teleportation. I can read the credentials of those experts. I don't know what your credentials are other than your advice to just believe you.
I also gave you pointers to other sites that explained the experiment.
You've offered nothing except, "believe me." Is this what you think science is about?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend: Is this what you think science is about? Wake up.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
Exactly what do you know about QM? Have you had a university course in modern physics? In QM?
Have you had a graduate university course in philosophy of science? What books have you read? How did you come to your conclusions? Did you just read popular books? (Tippler, Greene, McCutcheon and the like and suddenly you consider yourself an expert?)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend: Exactly what do you know about QM? I am MS in the theoretical physics. And somehow I feel reminded here of the proverbial fool, who is able to ask more questions than a hundred of wise men could answer. e s
|
|
|
|
|