Talk:Quantum woo

	This Quantum woo related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Copenhagen Interpretation

A lot of guff is based on the misunderstandings inherent in the Copenhagen interpretation (fairytale). Mightn't a pointer to Pilot Wave theory be useful, since it avoids those problems?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support-20160516/

ORCH-OR

Hameroff has defended the model against its critics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

Google Workshop on Quantum Biology Clarifying the tubulin bit/qubit - Defending the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR Model of Quantum Computation in Microtubules Presented by Stuart Hameroff October 22, 2010

ABSTRACT

The Penrose-Hameroff theory of orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) postulates quantum computation in microtubules inside brain neurons underlying consciousness. Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0). Despite increasing evidence for functional quantum effects in warm biological systems, Orch OR has been recently criticized, e.g. in Phys Rev E by McKemmish et al (2009), who claim the nature and energetic requirements for switching of tubulin bits and qubits in microtubules make Orch OR biologically unfeasible and unsalvageable irrespective of any conceivable modification. Here we show that McKemmish et al misrepresent tubulin bit switching as proposed in Orch OR, and merely disprove their own misrepresentation. Specifically we address their allegations regarding regulation of tubulin switching by 1) van der Waals London forces, 2) GTP hydrolysis and 3) Fröhlich coherence, and show how they are wrong on all counts. We clarify certain aspects of tubulin with regard to potential bit/qubit function, and describe topological tubulin qubits specific to microtubule geometry with particular reference to helical ballistic conductance discovered by Bandyopadhyay. Orch OR remains viable and testable.

Also - the work of David Bohm and Basil Hiley offer a radically different interpretation from what is suggested in this article - building on the fact of nonlocality in physics - that matter unfolds holographically from an underlying implicate order. This interpretation is put forth in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" and "Undivided Universe".

A combination of Bohm and the ORCH-OR model allows for telepathy, Jungian synchronicities, and the like. It essentially implies spiritual monism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAjC81MUe_I

We also have the following: http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

"Alain Aspect is the physicist who performed the key experiment that established that if you want a real universe, it must be non-local (Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”). Aspect comments on new work by his successor in conducting such experiments, Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues, who have now performed an experiment that suggests that “giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.”

Be clear what is going on here. Quantum mechanics itself is not crying out for such experiments! Quantum mechanics is doing just fine, thank you, having performed flawlessly since inception. No, it is people whose cherished philosophical beliefs are being threatened that cry out for such experiments, exactly as Einstein used to do, and with exactly the same hope (we think in vain): that quantum mechanics can be refined to the point where it requires (or at least allows) belief in the independent reality of the natural world it describes.

Quantum mechanics makes no mention of reality (Figure 1). Indeed, quantum mechanics proclaims, “We have no need of that hypothesis.” Now we are beginning to see that quantum mechanics might actually exclude any possibility of mind-independent reality⎯and already does exclude any reality that resembles our usual concept of such (Aspect: “it implies renouncing the kind of realism I would have liked”). Non-local causality is a concept that had never played any role in physics, other than in rejection (“action-at-a-distance”), until Aspect showed in 1981 that the alternative would be the abandonment of the cherished belief in mind-independent reality; suddenly, spooky-action-at-a-distance became the lesser of two evils, in the minds of the materialists.

Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.

                   RICHARD CONN HENRY
                   henry@jhu.edu

                   STEPHEN R. PALMQUIST
                   stevepq@hkbu.edu.hk"

"Quantum mechanics makes no mention of reality (Figure 1). Indeed, quantum mechanics proclaims, “We have no need of that hypothesis."

Your first sentence is correct. Quantum mechanics makes no mention of reality because reality is not a scientific term. It is also not a 'hypothesis', nor is quantum mechanics an anthropomorphic being that can proclaim quotable output. What is the point of writing all this ham-fisted religious shoehorning on an article on a wiki that already rejects it? ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.180.92.37 / talk}

Schrödinger's equation

I've linked up Mr Cat's equation - or at least I think I have. If I've messed up (and there's an excellent chance I have), please fix. Thanks :) Scherben (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I figured the Wikipedia article would be the best bet for the moment - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Smashin' :) Scherben (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

A truly encyclopedic entry, it is. Nerd (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Dancing Wu Li Masters

I am surprised at the slagging off this book receives. I read it c.1981 and found a very clear presentation of Schrödinger's Cat and the Many Worlds Interpretation. I enjoyed it.

By contrast, The Tao of Physics I found unreadable. ^{— Unsigned, by: Michael C Price / talk / contribs}

Quantum matter

As it may become woo-ified will mention [1] (ie the article is sensible, the interpretations are not). Anna Livia (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

“solve the Schrödinger equationWikipedia for a spherically symmetrical potential, then talk about quantum healing.”

Needs further explanation or Brian Cox is just another Quantum Wooer himself. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:56A:DFEB:EA0A:692D:1DB:8CFE:B4DE / talk / contribs}