New Age mystics are misusing quantum mechanics

[pokerfan]

Always been a pet peeve of mine, the way the woo-woo-ers cloak themselves in science to somehow justify their mystical beliefs.

Keep your hands off my theory!
New Age mystics are misusing quantum mechanics
And physicist ERIC SWANSON takes umbrage

Sunday, January 09, 2011
Daniel Marsula/Post-Gazette

Rhonda Byrne has just released "The Power," a sequel to "The Secret," which was propelled to wild popularity by The Oprah herself. The central message of these books is that you are Meant To Have Everything You Desire.

You get your desirables with the Law of Attraction, which says that visualizing things causes them to happen. Need money? Visualize it! If you have trouble visualizing, you can go to Rhonda Byrne's website and print out a blank check. You are instructed to fill in your name and the amount you want to receive in your chosen currency and then to look at the check and believe you have the money. There is even an iPhone app for the technologically savvy.

What exactly is the Law of Attraction? It's not easy to discern, but has something to do with Actualizing Reality by envisioning it. Ms. Byrne and friends justify the Law by mumbling something about quantum physics.

I grew up in the era of pyramid power and alien visitors so Ms. Byrne's ramblings are nothing new, but it stung to read that quantum physics supports her notions. You see, quantum physics is my physics.

Read the rest: http://www.postgazette.com/pg/11009/1116339-109.stm

[gateley]

1. What do you think of bona-fide theoretical physicists like Fred Alan Wolf who agree?

Not too many years ago, if I'm correct, the entire field of quantum theory was dismissed as hogwash by the mainstream scientific community.

[skepticscott]

2. I call BS

Unless "not too many years ago" means 100 years ago. Care to cite the extensive literature supporting your claim?

And "bona-fide" biologists like Michael Behe still think creationism is a viable theory. A Ph.D. and professional credentials doesn't mean someone is not off in looney-tunes left field.

[gateley]

6. Okay - you win. You make good points. nt

[qazplm]

9. To echo below

I think it stands for the proposition that education does not always equal knowledge or learning. As an attorney, I know a lot of people who graduated law school but let me tell you, I know a few that are dumber than some janitors I know. And I am not even talking street smarts, I'm talking just not smart about much of anything, including the law.

[jimlup]

13. Well that would have been in the 1910 to 1920 period...

And even then it would be wrong to say "dismissed as Hogwash". Einstein who could be characterized as the leader of the "God Does Not Play Dice" movement, took the results of Quantum Mechanics seriously. He is even partially responsible for getting D'Broglie (of the very important D'Broglie wavelength) his Ph.D. Einstein was the guy who recognized D'Broglie's foundational QM idea as important. He just felt that there had to be a deeper theory. This idea we now call "Hidden Variables". We also now know for certain that there are no "hidden variables". A very important theorem has been experimentally verified and it excludes "Hidden Variables". By 1927 or so (after Schrodinger and Heisenberg) QM was on very firm ground within the physics community. Bell's theorem though was not tested until the late '60's I believe.

I'm educated as a physicist and I'll be honest. The inescapable conclusion of Bell's theorem, that yes, "God absolutely does play dice with the universe but the game is still rigged in a very bizarre way" still astounds me. The more you know about QM the less you feel you actually know about the universe.

[tama]

18. Bohmian mechanics

As a physicist you should know that Bell's theorem applies only to redutionistic or local hidden variables, not holistic theory of non-local hidden variables such as Bohm's. Who developed his theory mainly to open new communication lines between Einstein and Bohr communication collapse, not as final word in QM.

In Jim Jarmush' latest movie 'The Limits of Control' the main character assassinates 'controller' Bill Murray living in a heavily guarded bunker and says: 'World is arbitrary'. That makes me think, in relation to QM, that the problem is not really the 'bizarre way' but the expectation that what we "know" about universe means how much we can control it. The fundamental presuppositions of classical newtonian and einsteinian mechanics are fully deterministic causality and predictability, which allow the illusion of fully controllable universe-object - or which rather arise from such a wish-subject.

I take that 'world is arbitrary' to mean that we are all active participants of continuous creation, not subjects of ready made clockwork universe (made by Creator God, Immovable Mover or Big Bang metaphors for the First Cause).

[BadgerKid]

3. Good example of why one shouldn't drink and derive. n/t

[Lint Head]

4. "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better"

Émile Coué de Châtaigneraie (February 26, 1857 – July 2, 1926) I understand that he committed suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Cou%C3%A9

[charlie]

12. And Jane Roberts' (AKA Seth) failing health

made her a basket case before she died.

[BanzaiBonnie]

5. And William Tiller?

[pokerfan]

8. Not familiar with him

[Posteritatis]

11. He's one of the dolts behind What The Bleep Do We Know (nt)

[skepticscott]

7. And let's not forget the guru

of quantum mystical woo-woo: Deepak Chopra

[tinrobot]

10. Something to be said for focusing on a goal.

Printing out a check and focusing on it can help motivate your actions to attain that sum of money.

Staring at the check and taking no action, however, will not do much.

And quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[petronius]

14. Quit whining, physicists! You still get the money and the hotties and all the good drugs, right?

:)

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Well, Leonard had Penny for a while...

[Codeine]

19. Bazinga! nt

[DetlefK]

16. Neither new nor astonishing. The same happened several times throughout history.

You base your world view on what you know.

If you think, that the tiny blinking lights at the sky during the night are spirits, then your religion says so. (-> shamanism)

If you think, that these lights are astronomic objects comparable to sun and moon, then your religion treats them as such. (e.g. Genesis)

If you think, that this totally unknown continent should have been mentioned in your millenia-old holy scripture, then your religion tells you so. (-> Mormons)

If you think, that the universe is guided by the manifestations of probability (-> QM), then your religion tells you so. (-> New Age)




It really twists my guts, when those New Age guys use terms like "energy" and really think that their "energy" is the same as the physicists' "energy".
Well, to me energy is a conserved quantity, the conjugated variable to time, that determines to which degree a state can change over time. (interchange energy with momentum/angular momentum and time with space/angle...)
To them, energy is maybe some sort of colored light that accompanies all living beings but cannot be seen.

[tama]

17. Energy

Yet, physicists don't have copyright for the Greek word, which means litterally 'in work' and which quantum physicist Heisenberg defines simply as 'movement' in his classic 'Physics and Philosophy'.

Notion of movement is of course very different theory dependently, e.g. in Newtonian Mechanics vs. Quantum Mechanics - and in various descriptions and interpretations of QM.

Now,let's suppose that at least some 'New Age guys' (and shamans and ordinary people etc.) really do speak of some sensed "vibrations" or something, ie. direct phenomenological experience of "energies", movements. It may be not necessary to relate those experiences to scientific world views, but on the other hand, many feel that coherent world views that include both those experiences and scientific explanations of them (other than: you're looney, take your pills!, which really isn't very scientific) would be nice.

If and when the (consciously) experienced "energies" cannot be given reasonable explanation in terms of classical physics, at least to satisfaction of those experiencing, quantum theory and movement/energy (of quantum potential?) between two classical states, that is not directly measurable by classical measurements, seems like the next reasonable place to try to relate human experience and physical theory. In lack of well developed and/or generally accepted physical theory of consciousness (movement/energy of attention etc. etc.) and keeping in mind that the hypothesis that mental(ly experienced) phenomena reduce to nothing but classical processes in neural networks is just a hypothesis, not a theory, it is only to be expected that such approaches - even the best and most serious ones - leave many blanks to fill.

It's good to keep in mind that the classical states or 'measurables' are, according to Heisenberg and QT, not objective reality in the sense 'dinge an sich' but merely mental maps of the territory, worldviews as they seem to perceivers like us, not (imaginary) God's view of the totality of the territory that classical state refers to only in a limited way. Hence the 'uncertainty principle'.

To wrap up, to find a coherent link between phenomenological directly experienced "energies" and theoretical description of energy that explains also the experienced "energies", most likely much new physics need to be developed and certainly a physical theory of mental phenomena.

But we might not be that far away from finding and accepting coherent links. Quantum computation in photosynthesis (to find most exergy efficient path between two classical states in hot and moist environment) is physical energy as you define it. And if even plants do it, why suppose humans can't - do, be and sense energies betseen classical states?


PS: remember to breath well to relax your guts, those twists you mention sound painfull.

[DetlefK]

20. Feeling high from a drug is "energy", too.

Witnessing an unknown phenomenon (e.g. aurora borealis) and trying to explain it with limited knowledge of science, is not the same as using scientific terms to build a philosophy/religion from scratch.

The problem is, that those New Age guys use scientific terms, when more neutral terms (for their variables, constants, actions...) would be appropriate. If you start from a physical background (lights in the night-sky), then you can go on with physical arguments.
If you don't know what a word means, please don't use it.

The problem is, that pupils lack the mathematical background to understand the foundations of physics as we know it. (If they did, a 1-month crash course would suffice.)
And if you lack the proper education, you might mistake the QM "observation-determines-reality" for the NewAge "mind-creates-desired-reality".

[tama]

21. Excellent points

I have slightly different attitude towards being a language cop and owning words and meanings.

>>>And if you lack the proper education, you might mistake the QM "observation-determines-reality" for the NewAge "mind-creates-desired-reality".<<<

Keeping that difference in mind is a valid point, which however does not invalidate need of finding a good balance between those two basic relations. How we project and reflect, especially on emotional level, greatly affects also observation events and vice versa. And every projection and reflection and relative movement, is by definition 'energy'. In both aspects, event and potential. :)

At least I enjoy very much observing many similarities and analogies between QM on philosophical level (can't really do the math), and energies and potentialities and actualizing observables in e.g. male and female relations :). In that way philosophies and world-views that QM entails speak to me more than classical physics and their philosophical background (alone). I can relate and level myself and my experience in the philosophical openings that QM has brought to the realm of scientific worldviews. And vice versa, reading and discussing about QM and especially Quantum Mind hypothesis has much affected my self-image as part of my world-image and how I relate in my relations.