How to debunk a quantum mystic?

[QuantumKitty]

One of my managers at work is, like me, fascinated with all things quantum, though for very different reasons. His interests seem to stem from the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. While it may be fun to think about, I just don't buy all the quantum mystical mumbo-jumbo stuff.

We've been having a friendly debate about aspects of QM but he seems to be stuck on a few things...

Entanglement-He interprets it as everything being "connected", whatever that means. What I want to know is how do particles become entangled in the first place and it is something that occurs frequently in nature? And am I right in my thinking that not all particles are entangled?

He's also latched onto the role of the observer, consciousness/thoughts creating or affecting reality, and superposition all rolled up into one.

Can anyone provide info or websites? I really would get a good kick out of setting him straight!

 

[DaveC426913]

I don;t see how you have any chance of "setting him straight". If he were getting facts wrong, sure. But all he's doing is interpreting the ramifications of the science. You can't deny him an interpretation.

 

[QuantumKitty]

Thanks for replying Dave.

I guess you are right in a sense. But I think it's more like him using the vagueness of QM to support and justify what he believes, therefore it's all fact to him. I'm not trying to deny him anything, just trying to get him to see things from a different point of view is all. I'm not saying my way is the only way...I just don't think he really understands the science behind it all. I get the feeling he's just looking for things that can be used to justify what he believes and once he's found them he stops and doesn't go any deeper.

 

[ZapperZ]

One of my managers at work is, like me, fascinated with all things quantum, though for very different reasons. His interests seem to stem from the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. While it may be fun to think about, I just don't buy all the quantum mystical mumbo-jumbo stuff.

We've been having a friendly debate about aspects of QM but he seems to be stuck on a few things...

Entanglement-He interprets it as everything being "connected", whatever that means. What I want to know is how do particles become entangled in the first place and it is something that occurs frequently in nature? And am I right in my thinking that not all particles are entangled?

Tell him that you can show him a paper in which in just ONE single interaction, the "connection", i.e. the entanglement, can be completely lost. Tell him that he only learned about one aspect of quantum entanglement, without understanding how DIFFICULT it is to maintain such entanglement. In QM, we call such an effect as decoherence. There have been many experiments that showed that our classical world evolves out of such decoherence. When that occurs, you've essentially lost the original coherent information, such as entanglement.

He's also latched onto the role of the observer, consciousness/thoughts creating or affecting reality, and superposition all rolled up into one.

Same argument as before. Tell him that if he buys QM, then he has to also buy into how QM was verified to be valid, i.e. via experiments. At almost every step of the way, various QM principles and consequences have been, are being, and will be, tested via experiments. There have been zero valid evidence for consciousness/thought affecting reality, and no mechanism for it has been proposed and tested. So adopting such a position isn't based on any science. Even when we know that QM works, we continue to test it at larger and larger scale. We don't take it for granted that it will work all the time and at all scales, both length and time. Simply extrapolating what works at one scale into another scale without any kind of experimental verification is to speculate without valid justification.

Good luck in your debunking efforts. If he's still stubborn (which isn't unexpected or unusual), send him to my blog! :) :)

Zz.

 

[DaveC426913]

...I just don't think he really understands the science behind it all. I get the feeling he's just looking for things that can be used to justify what he believes and once he's found them he stops and doesn't go any deeper.

Understanding the science will not change anything. He has a mythos about the interconnectness of all things. He had this belief before learning about QM (I'll bet). QM is just fuel for his fire. Setting him straight on QM won't negate the belief.

Good luck in your debunking efforts. If he's still stubborn (which isn't unexpected or unusual), send him to my blog! :) :)

It's not that he's stubborn; he just has this belief in this intangible human phenomenon. No explanation of QM is going to negate his belief in the interconnecteness of all things.

Frankly, QM is a red herring in debunking this guy. You'd need to get at the crux of his beliefs.

 

[QuantumKitty]

Thanks for your reply Zapper.

I've tried before to explain decoherence to him with no luck. Maybe I'll give that another go.

 

[QuantumKitty]

Good point Dave, thanks.

I'm not out to destroy his belief system, I just want him to see the science for what it is, nothing more nothing less.

 

[DaveC426913]

Good point Dave, thanks.

I'm not out to destroy his belief system, I just want him to see the science for what it is, nothing more nothing less.

Well I think that's the key. The science is just the behaviour of the natural world. He is free to use the science as a tool to explain whatever he wants.

eg. There are those who worship the Moon as a goddess. Explaining to them how the Moon stays in orbit - i.e. the science of it is no more or less than that - does nothing to the belief in the goddess.

In both cases, the science is subsumed by our human interpretation of its meaning.



Now, all that being said, educating this guy is a great goal. Removing some of the mystery may cause him to see the world as a little less mysterious.

 

[ZapperZ]

Good point Dave, thanks.

I'm not out to destroy his belief system, I just want him to see the science for what it is, nothing more nothing less.

Ask him if his superficial understanding of QM is sufficient for him to draw the conclusions he has made. If he says yes, then just tell him that there's nothing else that you can discuss with him, and wish him that people do not draw conclusions about him just based on a superficial observation of him.

And end it there. There's nothing else that can be done if the way he draws up his "knowledge" and conclusion are faulty.

Zz.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Understanding the science will not change anything. He has a mythos about the interconnectness of all things. He had this belief before learning about QM (I'll bet). QM is just fuel for his fire. Setting him straight on QM won't negate the belief.



It's not that he's stubborn; he just has this belief in this intangible human phenomenon. No explanation of QM is going to negate his belief in the interconnecteness of all things.

Frankly, QM is a red herring in debunking this guy. You'd need to get at the crux of his beliefs.

This is true of SOOO many things. You need to be able to recognize when someone is dealing with their cognitive dissonance through any means that are at hand. QM is weird, I think we can all agree on that, but we can agree it's an unfinished theory too. This guy is not going to understand what you explain, and if he DID, he'd probably be even MORE commited to his belief. After all, any two particles can share a little "Spukhafte Fernwirking". He'll miss the NATURE of that "connection" just as people want to believe that they can such energy from empty space in their basement.

This is a thorny subject in Physics, but "faith" is a unique phenomenon in human beings as far as psychology and neurobiology is showing. When you find you "just can't get through" to someone, you may LITERALLY not be able to get through to them. The parts of the brain involved in group behaviour (Nucleus Accumbens) lights up like a christmas tree for people fitting this guy's description. He wants to believe, and he gets a sense of what is popular and accpeted and latches on. Actually succeed in disabusing him of this and it'll be Reiki next week.

Personally I just think it's the human condition, but I know some people who essentially think everyone needs their own therapist (think relativity and individual clocks... but with Phd's lol). Sometimes I see their point.

EDIT: To clarify: The Nucleus Accumbens is responsible for a LOT, including it is believed, The Placebo Effect. People have a need for something... call it a crutch, or a viewpoint, or a sense of place and purpose (I don't know), and that may well be biologically and not psychologically based. It's also the classic part of the brain that made the poor little rats press the lever instead of eating until they died of exhaustion. Keep that in mind when you're arguing with someone's faith or crutch vs. their reason. When confronting someone about obvious inconsitant views, you create dissonance and you don't know how that's going to fall. Try not to be under it when it does. ;)

 

[QuantumKitty]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Wondering if anyone could address my questions about entanglement? How do particles become entangled in the first place and is it something that occurs frequently in nature?

 

[peteratcam]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Wondering if anyone could address my questions about entanglement? How do particles become entangled in the first place and is it something that occurs frequently in nature?

Yes it occurs all the time. Any interaction between quantum systems will lead those systems to become entangled (i.e if the initial state is a product state, in the presence of interactions between two particles the final state after any finite amount of time will almost invariably be entangled.). In the classical world whenever one thing has an effect on another thing, the quantum description of the same phenonemon will involve entanglement.

I'd probably agree that everything is connected in this sense.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Wondering if anyone could address my questions about entanglement? How do particles become entangled in the first place and is it something that occurs frequently in nature?

Entanglement does occur naturally all the time. Literally all the time. That doesn't mean it's the classic scifi or mystic view of that, but rather a consequence of how pairs of particles are produced through decay and other processess. The idea, and the paradox, is that if you knew some property (spin is often the example) of one particle then you'd other value instantly. This can be a result of natural pair production, or maybe casual interaction (exchanges of momentum) or states induced in a lab.

I should point out that WHAT Entanglement is, depends on which interpretation of SQM you adhere to. The most popular, The Copenhagen Interpretation, doesn't even bother to explain it in any terms other than functional math. Entangled states are interesting, but the global implication for mystical ideas which always seem to hinge on FTL, or some other blatant violation of well respected theories is precisely NONE, from TCI.

Bottom line: Entanglement seems to be both a mathematical and a physical reality, but the explanation of just what is going on depends on your Interpretation, or the more common rejection of local realism. Personally, I think "Spukhafte Fernwirking" is the best label, no matter HOW it works. It's spooky as hell.


EDIT: Peteratcam: Connected, much in the way we're made of stars. It's true, but not meaningful in the way this person wants it to be.

 

[madness]

I don't actually think that what he believes is that bad. Maybe the entanglement and interconnectedness part doesn't follow, but putting consciousness and the observer in a central role seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation to me. Many famous physicists entertained or upheld this idea (Bohm, Schrodinger, Wigner). It also seems more natural to interpret the wavefunction as describing our knowledge of a system than as a physical entity. I'm sure I'll get some angry replies after this one...

 

[Frame Dragger]

I don't actually think that what he believes is that bad. Maybe the entanglement and interconnectedness part doesn't follow, but putting consciousness and the observer in a central role seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation to me. Many famous physicists entertained or upheld this idea (Bohm, Schrodinger, Wigner). It also seems more natural to interpret the wavefunction as describing our knowledge of a system than as a physical entity. I'm sure I'll get some angry replies after this one...

Not angry, but if you're being honest it's just a matter of interpretation again, and right now any interpretation is really an exercise in personal preference. TCI and formalism is all that produces the results needed to continue progress.

 

[peteratcam]

EDIT: Peteratcam: Connected, much in the way we're made of stars. It's true, but not meaningful in the way this person wants it to be.

Well more I meant that you come to know of things by interacting with them, and in doing so entangle yourself with them. It follows that everything (literally all things which you have become aware of through interaction in someway) are correlated/connected.

I don't really know what the quantum mystic thinks from the brief description we got: "Entanglement-He interprets it as everything being "connected", whatever that means."

 

[QuantumKitty]

I don't actually think that what he believes is that bad. Maybe the entanglement and interconnectedness part doesn't follow, but putting consciousness and the observer in a central role seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation to me. Many famous physicists entertained or upheld this idea (Bohm, Schrodinger, Wigner). It also seems more natural to interpret the wavefunction as describing our knowledge of a system than as a physical entity. I'm sure I'll get some angry replies after this one...

It's not that what he believes is bad, it's just I think he's assuming too much from far too little.
The problem I see in giving consciousness or observers a central role is that it seems to give us humans too much emphasis, almost like the science wouldn't work were there no one around to observe it. I also prefer to interpret the wavefunction as a physical entity as opposed to knowledge.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem I see in giving consciousness or observers a central role is that it seems to give us humans too much emphasis...

Yes. But that is not a conclusion he's come to.

It is the premise he's starting with.

 

[QuantumKitty]

Yes it occurs all the time. Any interaction between quantum systems will lead those systems to become entangled (i.e if the initial state is a product state, in the presence of interactions between two particles the final state after any finite amount of time will almost invariably be entangled.). In the classical world whenever one thing has an effect on another thing, the quantum description of the same phenonemon will involve entanglement.

I'd probably agree that everything is connected in this sense.

Yes, I can agree that in a vague sense everything is connected at the quantum level, but how does this connectedness carry over to and fit into the classical world? Does it have any practical use or inherent meaning? I'd have to say no to that.

 

[QuantumKitty]

Well more I meant that you come to know of things by interacting with them, and in doing so entangle yourself with them. It follows that everything (literally all things which you have become aware of through interaction in someway) are correlated/connected.

I don't really know what the quantum mystic thinks from the brief description we got: "Entanglement-He interprets it as everything being "connected", whatever that means."

I believe what he gets from entanglement is that since everyone is connected we can influence others through happy thoughts or meditation or what have you. Also since everything is connected, we can or do influence or create our own reality.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Yes. But that is not a conclusion he's come to.

It is the premise he's starting with.

That really is the beginning and end of this. You can't reason with faith, but you can argue until you hate him. Just remember that the reasoning behind his beliefs breaks down at some point, and at that point he'll become VERY defensive. I'd leave this alone.

 

[madness]

"It's not that what he believes is bad, it's just I think he's assuming too much from far too little.
The problem I see in giving consciousness or observers a central role is that it seems to give us humans too much emphasis, almost like the science wouldn't work were there no one around to observe it. I also prefer to interpret the wavefunction as a physical entity as opposed to knowledge."

I don't have a problem with giving observers a central role, or giving humans emphasis. I've never been satisfied with materialism as a paradigm. And the it has been shown that quantum theory cannot be both local and real, so the standard interpretation is that science really wouldn't work if no one was around to observe it. Most of the quantum physics I'm learning at the moment doesn't even use the idea of a wavefunction, which is one reason I'm skeptical about interpreting it as physical.


"Yes. But that is not a conclusion he's come to.

It is the premise he's starting with."

This is also true about the materialist interpretation. Everyone needs to have something to start from, and unfortunately I think the reasoning behind everyone's beliefs breaks down if you push them far enough. But if I'm being reasonable, I'd have to admit that it sounds like he's taken a bit more than he should from quantum mechanics.

 

[ZapperZ]

"It's not that what he believes is bad, it's just I think he's assuming too much from far too little.
The problem I see in giving consciousness or observers a central role is that it seems to give us humans too much emphasis, almost like the science wouldn't work were there no one around to observe it. I also prefer to interpret the wavefunction as a physical entity as opposed to knowledge."

I don't have a problem with giving observers a central role, or giving humans emphasis. I've never been satisfied with materialism as a paradigm. And the it has been shown that quantum theory cannot be both local and real, so the standard interpretation is that science really wouldn't work if no one was around to observe it. Most of the quantum physics I'm learning at the moment doesn't even use the idea of a wavefunction, which is one reason I'm skeptical about interpreting it as physical.

One needs to be very careful in extrapolating the QM rules into the rules that we observe classically. After all, we know that when we observe something via "coarse-grained" measurement, we get back the classical observation that we know and love in which the role of the observer isn't critical and doesn't affect the object being observed.

Zz.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I hate to be the one on PF to say, "Ladies and Gentlemen... you are overthinking this one," but it has to be said. You're giving the person the OP is talking about WAAAAAY too much benefit of the doubt. "Quantum Mysticism" is the **** the "Secret" people, and Depak Chopra started selling in the late 80's. This is pure ****, that uses maybe a tertiary rendering of the interpreations of QM, feeds it through a jet turbine, and crams it into their brain.

There is nothing about the mindset that has anything to do with QM. The basic assumption is that the observer does not play a role in waveform collapse... they're saying you DETERMINE the collapse and which persists based on PREFERENCE. These are the geniuses who like to eat mushrooms and talk about "Quantum Immortality", but think that Schrodinger IS the cat. :roll:

These are people to be debunked with standard skeptical methods, which don't resort to actually trying to expalin SQM to them. This is no different than arguing with a religious individual about their preconceptions and faith... it's not going to end well.


@madness: True... but this isn't a Physicist wrapped up in a particular interpretation... this is a shmuck using QM the way Scientologists use... well... everything, but especially the term "science" and "medecine"

 

[Frame Dragger]

Oh, am I the only one who thought, "How To Debunk A Quantum Mystic..." ... With a frying pan to the head? :)

 

[Vectronix]

Hey, I'm sorry if someone has said this already, but I will say this:

I don't have anything personal against mystics because of mysticism, but many of them speak of incomplete theories, especially those which are thought of by them as being complete, as well as bad interpretations of physical theory. How can every thing be "connected" if not everything is entangled? Hence, quantum entanglement is not a good starting point to prove their ideas of connectedness (that's a word, right? haha) If everything were "connected" via entanglement, then all systems would share the same quantum states at the same time as described by the state vector... correct me if I am wrong here.

Also, as far as I know, it is factual that only the measuring apparatus that disturbs a system, not the mind of the observer. Seems like these "quantum mystics," as people are starting to call them, can't find a quantum of solace (:P) in the physical theory that proves their ideas, because it's not accepted by mainstream science, so then they turn to quantum mechanics, or its interpretations, because that's what's "cool." :P

I disagree somewhat with something that was said earlier... QuantumKitty could still mention the facts about quantum mechanics without trying to deny the person his beliefs... I'm not saying that it's good or bad to destroy someone's belief system (heh)... but the facts about QM will set his manager on the right path, and that path is one that does not incorporate myths about quantum mechanics. It's good to have one's belief system utterly destroyed if it is false, and when the time is right, but that's outside the scope of these forums, I guess. :)

 

[Fredrik]

Tell him that you can show him a paper in which in just ONE single interaction, the "connection", i.e. the entanglement, can be completely lost. Tell him that he only learned about one aspect of quantum entanglement, without understanding how DIFFICULT it is to maintain such entanglement. In QM, we call such an effect as decoherence. There have been many experiments that showed that our classical world evolves out of such decoherence. When that occurs, you've essentially lost the original coherent information, such as entanglement.

I don't think this description is entirely accurate. I'm no expert on decoherence, but as I see it, it's the "coherence" of the superposition that is lost, precisely because the system is getting more and more entangled with the environment. So decoherence seems to support the "everything is connected part" of this guy's beliefs.

I would instead focus on the fact that entanglement can't be used to send even one bit of information, unless you send some information by classical means as well.

There have been zero valid evidence for consciousness/thought affecting reality, and no mechanism for it has been proposed and tested.

This is also a good thing to focus on.

Well more I meant that you come to know of things by interacting with them, and in doing so entangle yourself with them. It follows that everything (literally all things which you have become aware of through interaction in someway) are correlated/connected.

I don't really know what the quantum mystic thinks from the brief description we got: "Entanglement-He interprets it as everything being "connected", whatever that means."

As I see it, the claim that "everything is connected" is essentially true, because it's very hard to isolate a system from its environment. So I wouldn't try to debunk that, and instead explain to him that entanglement can't be used to send information without also sending information by some other means. These things are however difficult to understand, so you may have a hard time learning them yourself, and an even harder time trying to get him to learn them.

If you're going to try to set him straight, you should probably focus on something else. For example, he's probably interested in entanglement because he believes it can explain telepathy and that kind of stuff. Why not just explain that if a person has a paranormal ability, then by definition of "ability", it must be possible to design a test in which a person with such an ability will perform better than people without the ability?

The best way to test an ability is to have the subject answer multiple-choice questions that have been randomized so that all answers are equally likely. You can then calculate the probability to get a certain number of correct answers. Even if the person only claims to be able to answer a certain yes/no question with 60% accuracy, you can make sure that there's a one in a million chance that he will get the required percentage of correct answers by including a large enough number of questions in the test. The number of questions should be decided in advance. The tests should also be performed double blind, i.e. in addition to not telling them the correct answers before they have given you their answers, you also make sure that no one who knows the correct answers is present when the test is done.

The fact that people who claim to have paranormal abilities always fail in tests of this type is a very good reason to believe that they don't have abilities at all. If you can get him to understand that, he should snap out of the nonsense fairly quickly. But my guess is that he will stubbornly refuse to even talk about it. That's how they preserve their beliefs.

 

[QuantumKitty]

Oh, am I the only one who thought, "How To Debunk A Quantum Mystic..." ... With a frying pan to the head? :)

Now there's an idea!

 

[QuantumKitty]

I hate to be the one on PF to say, "Ladies and Gentlemen... you are overthinking this one," but it has to be said. You're giving the person the OP is talking about WAAAAAY too much benefit of the doubt. "Quantum Mysticism" is the **** the "Secret" people, and Depak Chopra started selling in the late 80's. This is pure ****, that uses maybe a tertiary rendering of the interpreations of QM, feeds it through a jet turbine, and crams it into their brain.

There is nothing about the mindset that has anything to do with QM. The basic assumption is that the observer does not play a role in waveform collapse... they're saying you DETERMINE the collapse and which persists based on PREFERENCE. These are the geniuses who like to eat mushrooms and talk about "Quantum Immortality", but think that Schrodinger IS the cat. :roll:

These are people to be debunked with standard skeptical methods, which don't resort to actually trying to expalin SQM to them. This is no different than arguing with a religious individual about their preconceptions and faith... it's not going to end well.


@madness: True... but this isn't a Physicist wrapped up in a particular interpretation... this is a shmuck using QM the way Scientologists use... well... everything, but especially the term "science" and "medecine"

It needed to be said.

By the way, have any of you guys ever seen the What the Bleep Do We Know documentary? (and I use the word documentary very loosely) It's full of pseudo-science, mumbo-jumbo crap. It's where he got a lot of fuel for his arguments.

 

[DaveC426913]

By the way, have any of you guys ever seen the What the Bleep Do We Know documentary? (and I use the word documentary very loosely) It's full of pseudo-science, mumbo-jumbo crap. It's where he got a lot of fuel for his arguments.

I have not seen it because it is mumbo-jumbo. Though, it occurs to me that perhaps I should see it so I can debunk it to the friends & family that recommended it...

 

[Frame Dragger]

I have not seen it because it is mumbo-jumbo. Though, it occurs to me that perhaps I should see it so I can debunk it to the friends & family that recommended it...

Oh man, I tried to watch that and it's not worth it. You'll be so angry and hopless by the end of it, you won't see the POINT in debunking anything. It's Kryptonite for rational people, and Catnip for idiots. It felt a bit like someone was trying to steam-press every ounce of genuine physics out of my head and replace it with... OATMEAL! TA-ta-TUM! *jazz hands*

 

[Count Iblis]

I agree with Fredrik. The best thing is to focus on those paranormal things that the person thinks are supported by QM. I once argued with a believer in astrology and just went along with his reasoning. I only asked questions like "can you determine place and time of birth from certain events in a person's life?" Or how would astrology work for a person born om Mars, in deep space etc. etc.?

 

[Vectronix]

It needed to be said.

By the way, have any of you guys ever seen the What the Bleep Do We Know documentary? (and I use the word documentary very loosely) It's full of pseudo-science, mumbo-jumbo crap. It's where he got a lot of fuel for his arguments.

I haven't watched it; reading the poor reviews of the movie were enough to turn me off and make me shake my head in disgust. :P

No need to watch it to debunk it, I would just read and/or send them a link of one of the bad reviews, since someone has done the debunking already.

here's one here: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html

and another: http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/bleep/