Science a GoGo's Home Page
Posted By: Count Iblis II Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 12:23 AM
Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 05:00 AM
Liked it.Thanks.
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 02:19 PM
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.
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 03:08 PM
An another good example of how deranged the "science" has become.

ES
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 03:22 PM
On what basis is it deranged?
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 03:44 PM
Quote:
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
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 03:52 PM
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.
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 04:11 PM
If I said it all wrong, I mean it. Every word of it.

e :p s
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 04:48 PM
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.
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 07:54 PM
Quote:
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 laugh s
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 08:08 PM
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.
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/06/05 11:20 PM
Quote:
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 wink s
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/07/05 01:32 PM
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?
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/07/05 05:16 PM
[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
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/07/05 08:02 PM
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?
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/07/05 09:21 PM
Quote:
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
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/08/05 12:56 AM
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?
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/08/05 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
Is this what you think science is about?
Wake up.
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/08/05 06:07 AM
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?)
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/08/05 10:54 AM
Quote:
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 laugh s
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/08/05 09:57 PM
So the experiments that have confirmed QT have some other explanation QM?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971215062803.htm
http://www.physlink.com/News/061704AtomTeleportation.cfm

The guys at Innsbruck say they've actually done this. The article above says that this doesn't violate Einstein.

I have an MEng in Engineering Math and Computer Engineering. When I was an intern, there was a guy there who had a BS in physics. He absolutely denied QM and relativity. No convincing him. He could never explain his opinion to a mere mortal like me. At that time I'd only recently finished my required course in modern physics.

I've been toying with the idea of retaking it (after a break of several decades) to get a refresher - maybe even take a pure class in QM.
I'm kinda busy right now, but it might be fun. (Also, since I work with a lot of physicists, I bet I can get my employer to pay for it.)

If I were to bone up on my QM, do you think you'd then be able to explain to me what is wrong with that article?
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/08/05 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971215062803.htm
http://www.physlink.com/News/061704AtomTeleportation.cfm

If I were to bone up on my QM, do you think you'd then be able to explain to me what is wrong with that article?
Here we go.
Your first link: "the researchers create a pair of photons A and B that are quantum mechanically "entangled""

Your second link: "allowing entanglement between two of the atoms to be created"

Clearly those a hoaxes, since there is no such thing as an entanglement, none.

See, if you would get up to speed with QM, you would see the nonsense of those claims without my explanation.

e smile s
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/09/05 01:21 AM
That's interesting.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
contains a quote from Schroedinger:

"Schr?dinger coined the term "entanglement' to describe this peculiar connection between quantum systems (Schr?dinger, p. 555):"
"When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled."

Was Schroedinger wrong? Is he being misinterpreted?

If entanglement is a hoax, it's a pretty widespread hoax. There are hundreds of papers on it.
If you think I'm too stupid to understand this stuff, I'm okay with that. If this is a hoax, then surely it must be debunked somewhere. Could you direct me to an authoritative source for this debunking?

I know that whenever science progresses that the pseudoscientists, frauds, new-agers, old-agers, mystics, and other obscurantists will attempt to hijack and misrepresent the science to demonstrate that their particular cult is valid. I agree that this is done with QM as well as other things. But I don't think that's what you're saying. You're saying - or seem to be saying pretty clearly - that entanglement is a hoax in itself.
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/09/05 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
You're saying - or seem to be saying pretty clearly - that entanglement is a hoax in itself.
Bravo. Yes it is.

I tell you, there is no kings road to geometry, sorry, there is no fools road to quantum theory.

The stuff like this comes from swamps like Insbrook or Australia, not from respectable Universities anyway.

It amounts to new, "scientific" superstition, that's all.


e laugh s
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/09/05 10:27 PM
Swamps like Innsbrook and IBM and Australia ... but originally, it seems, from the mind of Erwin S. Do you think he intended it as a hoax or was he just mistaken?
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/10/05 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
Swamps like Innsbrook and IBM and Australia ... but originally, it seems, from the mind of Erwin S. Do you think he intended it as a hoax or was he just mistaken?
The real science progresses, exploring all possibilities and rejecting most of them as not suitable, this way arriving at the clean truth.

We can not demand of geniuses to be always right, and can not rely on them being always right. Their role is to generate ideas, crazy enough to be true - but not necessarily and always being true.

e smile s
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/10/05 05:45 AM
Okay, so Erwin was wrong. And the IBM guys are wrong. And the guys in Innsbruck are wrong.

My understanding is that quantum computers depend on the idea of entanglement. Do you likewise assert that quantum computers are a hoax?

Do you have any sense of whether the majority opinion of theoretical physicists also considers entanglement a hoax?

Are aware of a cogent paper anywhere that debunks entanglement?
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/10/05 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
Do you likewise assert that quantum computers are a hoax?

Do you have any sense of whether the majority opinion of theoretical physicists also considers entanglement a hoax?
All theoretical physicists consider entanglement a hoax. I mean the real ones, those who also do research and produce research results outside this particular issue.


Quantum computers are hoax, a quite malignant one too.
The QC is promoted by halfwit "Computer Scientists", no physicist would have a smell of it around.

I have told you, you will not understand a word in papers I could point to, that show quac is a hoax. They do not use in paper the term "hoax" although..

e wink s
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/10/05 03:53 PM
It seems to me you're making a lot of assumptions about what I'm capable of understanding. I work with physicists every day (from BU, Harvard, Princeton) - some of them don't want anyone else working with them, despite the fact that I'm a lot more expensive than other programmers they could hire. Usually they assume I understand every word they say. It's quite refreshing to come across someone who makes no demands on my meager intellect.

"All theoretical physicists consider entanglement a hoax. I mean the real ones, those who also do research and produce research results outside this particular issue."
At least two members of the IBM team were PhDs in physics, at least one in theoretical physics. The main scientists of the Innsbruck team were PhD physcists. Of course, this doesn't prove they're right. They do seem to have better qualifications than you do for evaluating their own work. But they could still be wrong - or lying. Or, since they're physicists, it's also possible they're just stupid. But my vote would be devious, because they've already been able to persuade a whole bunch of fake theoretical physicists to support their position. In fact, the Innsbruck guys were collaborating with guys from LANL in the US.

In any case, it seems there's a lot of halfwit physcists involved in this hoax as well.

Give me a try. I'm sure you've got a whole stack of papers that could disprove it. Maybe I won't be able to understand them, but I one day might. Besides I'm not the only person on this forum. I'm sure there are potential readers of this forum who might make be able to wrap their heads around a skeptical bibliography produced by your vast and penetrating intellect.

Of course these guys would already be in on the hoax, but they might not be aware of all of your sources. So if you could supply a short bibliography for their sakes - not for mine - I'm sure it would be immensely appreciated.


These guys had their papers published by Nature and by Scientific American. I'm not sure about SciAm, but Nature has a peer-review process. They might be skeptical, but apparently they don't think it's a hoax.
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/10/05 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
...
As you do not want or unable to have knowlege, you must have authorities. The problem is that in our era of pseudoscience you must have knowlege to choose an authority. It is a vicious circle. What will you do?

e laugh s
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/10/05 08:26 PM
I agree that one must have some knowledge to decide on who is the authority. One of the keenest problems of the creationists and IDers is that they think anyone with a PhD is qualified as an expert on anything. I get the point and I agree with it.

But there's a lot of things to learn in this world. In my youth, I thought I might make some progress in all of it. I thought I might become a renaissance man. Unfortunately, there's too many things to know for that. I can only hope to scratch the surface of any of it.

That said, I'm seriously considering embarking on a few classes on QM, starting of course with retaking modern physics.

I'm not sure that our era is one of pseudoscience - at least not any more than any previous era. Whenever science has advanced, there have always been snake-oil salesmen trying to profit from obscurantism. At one time there were people selling radium baths, because it help the hair grow luxuriant and the skin become more youthful.

Nevertheless, I'd think that with your penetrating insights you might provide the group with a primer on the subject or with at least a reference. I understand why a smart guy like you wouldn't want to waste too much time with a dummy like me. Seems like you could at least just supply a single reference, though, for the benefit of those readers (and potential readers) here who are a little less stupid than I am.
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/10/05 09:12 PM
You have asked for it. This is the place, where all the variations discussed:

http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/muynck.htm

Here is an another one, more to the point:

http://mentor.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0306/0306103.pdf


ES
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/11/05 02:04 AM
Did you actually read these papers?
First paper doesn't mention the IBM group or Innsbruck. Instead it refutes a much earlier paper by Aspect, et. al.


The last line of the second paper reads "Therefore one cannot exclude that the future technology will allow quantum computers to be useful for certain tasks."

The paper says it's likely that quantum computers will have the same drawback of other analog computers - scaling errors. Analog computers are useful and were successful at one time - they're very useful in biological systems. This is a FAR cry from calling it a hoax.
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/11/05 02:42 AM
Meanwhile we need to add some physicists at University of Michigan to the hoaxsters - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/uom-mra022603.php

Whaddayaknow ... it was already talked about on gogo right here http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030126213558data_trunc_sys.shtml
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/11/05 03:00 AM
I'm not saying I support quantum teleportation or entanglement.
Posted By: extrasense Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/11/05 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
...
You have a mind of lawyer, not of scientist. I gave you enough of food for thought, that you could draw your own and correct conclusions.
You continue argue the same mute point, regardless how idiotic it is.

This is repugnant, perverted behavior in the realm of science.

Go away, fiend, go away..


laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh :rolleyes: wink
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics - 10/11/05 04:00 AM
You gave me two things, neither of which addressed the topic directly - and one of which directly contradicted one of your main points. That isn't thinking like a lawyer. That's just applying an arcane skill we halfwit computer scientists often use called 'reading comprehension'.

Your first article disagrees with entanglement and rejects it. It doesn't refer to the latest experiments. Your second article's summary is that one can't exclude quantum computation. It was an interesting read, but it didn't support any of your contentions - not one. That's not reading like a lawyer. That's just reading the materials that you gave me to read.

Of course I'm sure you really have a master in theoretical physics and you're not some technician or janitor yanking my chain, having just read the latest pop sci book and deciding that he's the next Albert Einstein.

Given my ignorance, it's completely possible that entanglement, quantum teleportation, and quantum computers are all hoaxes, but you haven't typed a single sentence so far that would indicate you have the slightest knowledge of the subject.
© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums