Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

Silent3

(15,909 posts)

29. I have no problem with people trying to understand "quantum"

Reply to tama (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:09 AM

Mar 2012

What I have a problem with is people treating "quantum" like it means "magical faerie dust".

You aren't trying to understand "quantum", you're trying to project new-agey hopes and dreams upon the word without a scrap of evidence, claiming only that no one has the evidence to prove you wrong rather than accepting the burden of proving yourself right.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Quantum Biology and the Puzzle of Coherence [View all] xchrom Mar 2012 OP

However, it would be a big mistake... longship Mar 2012 #1

Straight to the point tama Mar 2012 #3

Is coherence selected or a structural by-product? Jim__ Mar 2012 #4

Wider context tama Mar 2012 #8

I'm not sure why you would begin by looking at a wider context. Jim__ Mar 2012 #15

To begin with tama Mar 2012 #16

A couple of thoughts. Jim__ Mar 2012 #33

A clarification tama Mar 2012 #36

Lack of any supporting data longship Mar 2012 #5

The word "decoherence" tama Mar 2012 #6

This is complete and utter rubbish longship Mar 2012 #9

But, but... someone was wrong about something before... Silent3 Mar 2012 #11

I disagree tama Mar 2012 #13

Your endless devotion to vagueness is certainly amusing, however. Silent3 Mar 2012 #17

Why don't you even try? tama Mar 2012 #19

You seem to be getting different posters confused Silent3 Mar 2012 #20

Flattering ad hominem, thanks for that tama Mar 2012 #28

I have no problem with people trying to understand "quantum" Silent3 Mar 2012 #29

You are making up tama Mar 2012 #31

New Age? longship Mar 2012 #32

Pseudoskepticism tama Mar 2012 #45

Thank you. Thank you. And THANK YOU!!! nt Joseph8th Mar 2012 #40

Nice tama Mar 2012 #12

Sorry! Your post makes no physical sense longship Mar 2012 #18

First tama Mar 2012 #24

Tama, I'm with you longship Mar 2012 #30

Well that's clearly wrong bananas Mar 2012 #34

Wonderful take down longship Mar 2012 #35

Quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, superconductors are some other examples bananas Mar 2012 #48

Please! It's bad enough to tarnish QM... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #41

G�del tama Mar 2012 #43

Looking for a ToE ... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #46

Abstract tama Mar 2012 #47

Not sure why I'm bothering, but... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #49

Some good points tama Mar 2012 #50

Heheh... Cantor's Paradise... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #53

LOL - "mathematical theorems ... bear no relation to physics" bananas Mar 2012 #51

Math is not physics... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #52

Physics is NOT illogical or irrational... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #54

I didn't know there were Militant Holists, now... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #38

LOL tama Mar 2012 #39

OMG... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #42

Condencending tone tama Mar 2012 #44

Anybody tama Mar 2012 #7

Hmm. DeWitt. Interesting longship Mar 2012 #10

First tama Mar 2012 #14

Okay, I'm with you on all except the "observer" longship Mar 2012 #21

Well, I think there's more to the "observer" unless you're effectively redefining the term caraher Mar 2012 #22

Touch�, Zurek is above my pay grade longship Mar 2012 #23

I do think we're broadly in agreement caraher Mar 2012 #26

Thanks tama Mar 2012 #27

See post 24 for answer to also this n/t tama Mar 2012 #25

Delayed choice experiment tama Mar 2012 #37

So Stuart Kaufmann is still working.. arendt Mar 2012 #2