They don’t call it the Quantum anymore. Now it’s called the Passat.
What do you mean by that first sentence? I agree with you that the anthropomorphic language in the quote you gave is a bit sloppy, but apart from that what’s wrong with the sentence? What physicists aren’t accepting the reality of physics equations? 
While we are on the subject of quantum mechanics, can we please kill the phrase “quantum leap.” It is commonly used to mean a huge change (see “sea change”) or a paradigm shift. Every time I hear it I think, “the smallest possible change? That doesn’t make sense.”
Jeremy Bernstein wrote about wo-woo mystics misusing quantum physics ages ago in his reviews of Gary Zukav’s “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters” and of Fritjof Capra’s “The Tao of Physics”. Martin Gardner did, too. Their critiques are worth reading (Bernstein wrote that reading these books was like walking down a familiar street and finding that all the houses had been painted purple)
Can you believe I was forced to read that Wu-Li crap as part of a seminar credit at my university?
I still feel dirty. Thankfully about all I remember of it is the title and the prescription and bill for the required antibiotics afterwards.
I would think that if you were an electron, a change in orbit might seem HUGE. At any rate, to my mind the image involved in a quantum jump is its suddenness and its discontinuity and I like the expression.
I welcome quantum mechanics to the club of the misunderstood. Nothing has attracted more “woo” that Goedel’s theorem. Even such an eminence as Roger Penrose has totally misunderstood what is, after all, a non-controversial and even unsurprising conclusion: that no matter how carefully we axiomatise the rules of arithmetic, there will always be arithmetic truths our axioms didn’t capture. Not of the sort that 1 + 1 = 2m but some statement about the existence of a number with such and such property. Cantor’s theory of infinity is another “wooful” theory.
As Hari says, the popular expression refers to the discontinous nature of the change, a leap to an entirely different level without intermediate intervening steps. While people do use it to mean a large change, in its origin it isn’t inaccurate.
Oh, that one’s easy: it was the lady. No, wait, hang on, it was the tiger. No, no, I’m remembering wrong, it was the … lady? No, the, um, the …
I’m going to have to get back with you.
My advisor taught a seminar with that book based one someone else’s recommendation. He ended up hating the book. Every chapter is “Chapter 1”, so you can get into the Zen mindset of everything starting anew. :rolleyes: That made it very hard to make assignments with the book “Read the third chapter 1 for Friday …” :dubious:
And I hope a Buddhist Doper comes along to explain why that multiple chapter 1 crap is bad Buddhism, as well as bad writing.
Then the science content - more quantum abuse. And to read the book you’d think the greatest physicists in history were: 1. Newton 2. Einstein 3. The one nobody else ever heard of who happened to be the guy the author spoke to. Not good. :mad:
Give me George Gamow any day!
I had never realized that the Law of Attraction tried to use quantum theory as a justification. That’s worse than the prosperity preachers invoking the Bible. People commonly accept that a religious book has multiple interpretations (including it being complete crap), and so are open to the idea that the preacher may be wrong. But anyone who invokes science, especially a theory they’ve heard from real scientists, must be making a true statement.
And, anyways, why not use the actual scientific experiments that indicate that people can create their own luck? (Self-proclaimed “lucky” people are more likely to find a coupon in the newspaper for $20 than “unlucky” ones.)
It was both. The story turns out to be an early example of furry porn. History has thankfully excised the three-page description of yiffing which follows.
Which Doper was it that claimed that quantum mechanics explained out-of-body experiences?
I used to have a problem with the way ‘quantum leap’ is used too (and am still sure that it is popularly misunderstood) but it makes sense if you consider it as a fundamental change, in which case it works in both literal and metaphorical contexts.
What happens if the tree falls on the tape recorder?
As for the OP, this feels like the same frustration I feel when someone misuses the word “Theory,” conflating the scientific meaning with an informal meaning to assert/imply that rational empiricists are uncertain vs. faith-based certainty.
I find myself fascinating by the Human mind’s capability to use metaphors and concepts from one discipline to better grasp another - e.g., using baseball metaphors to describe a business situation - and pushing that impulse way too far. The use of metaphor is so wonderful and insightful…until it’s not.
Somewhat related, I felt the same when reading The Lost Symbol. I discovered I’m much happier with Dan Browne when he massacres religion instead of science.
“Thoughts have mass! Thoughts have mass!” “Weigh a soul!”
I imagine he was reading similar crap when doing his “research”.
You could always sue the curators of Quantum Jumping by claiming you invented it in a parallel universe…
Hi Giraffe, mixed states can be in superpostion. Thus proving the spirtualists right! Hooray!
I know you’re being tongue in cheek, but this statement only makes sense with respect to Schrodinger’s Cat if you posit an underlying basis in which both the dead cat and live cat can be written as a superposition of the same pure quantum states and a mechanism by which two large macroscopic room temperature objects can remain coherent and entangled.
Given that the thought experiment is typically given as |box> = a|decay> + b|no decay> = a|dead cat> + b|live cat>, my point was just that a big fat cat is a fundamentally different thing than a single radioactive atom in terms of its quantum description.
It’s been a while since I’ve done any reading on the subject, but it’s not my impression that the Cat is supposed to resolve anything; rather, it’s meant to point out a contradiction in QM. I agree it’s misinterpreted (both willfully & ignorantly) in pop culture.
Yes I was being tongue in cheek describing a cat in terms of it’s wavefunction is useless because it is practically (and by practically I mean in practice as opposed to almost) impossible to create a system in which the wavefunction of a cat can be exmained.
Of course once decoherence has occured there still (by the postulates of quantum mechanics) exists superpostion. It’s just the system which is a superpostion of states (including states where the cat is dead and states where the cat is alive) is hell of a lot larger than the cat, so large in fact it includes the measurer and their equipment meaning that the old-style quantum measurement theory can’t cope with it.