Silly Scientific Solecisms

[Progenitor A]

Daft Analogy
Space time curvature in the presence of matter - and the fallacy of a 'force of gravity'
Imagine a rubber sheet with a sphere resting upon it. The rubber sheet is deformed by the sphere in just the way that space-time is curved by matter, and that is gravity - the curvature of space time, not some imaginary 'force'

Question
Why does the sphere cause the rubber sheet to deform?

[Progenitor A]

Silly Science
Dawkins speaking in a TV programme:
"We now know 99% aboot the origin of the universe and all that remains is to discover the missing 1%"

Question
If he doesn't know something how does he know that what he doesn't know is only 1% of the total?

[Progenitor A]

Confused Science
"A photon can spin in all directions simultaneously"

Question 1; How can a particle spin in a cw and acw direction simultanously.
Question2: For a particle to spin there must be a force providing that spin (spin is a continual angular acceleration). If a particle is spining in all possible directions simultaneously that implies that it has an infinite number of spins. That means that a photon has infinite force applied to it!
Why bother with 'renewables'?

[Progenitor A]

Confused Science
An electron can be in two places at once. (In fact multiple places at once

Question: If I weigh 80kg and I am in two places at once, I mean, really am in 2 places at once, then my total wieght is 160kg

Does that mean the mass and charge of an electron is also doubled?

[abacus9900]

Space time curvature in the presence of matter - and the fallacy of a 'force of gravity'
Imagine a rubber sheet with a sphere resting upon it. The rubber sheet is deformed by the sphere in just the way that space-time is curved by matter, and that is gravity - the curvature of space time, not some imaginary 'force'

Question
Why does the sphere cause the rubber sheet to deform?

Because energy has the ability to bend space, naymissus, and matter is just another form of it. I suppose you could think of things like planets and stars, etc. as condensed forms of energy, which is why they distort space around them so significantly. Light has this ability a little bit since it is a form of energy.

[abacus9900]

Dawkins speaking in a TV programme:
"We now know 99% aboot the origin of the universe and all that remains is to discover the missing 1%"

Question
If he doesn't know something how does he know that what he doesn't know is only 1% of the total?

Good point.

In another thread I have tried to highlight this by using Godel's Incompleteness Theorem as an example of how things like maths and science only know what they know based on what they already know! In other words, people should be cautious about making sweeping scientific statements because our knowledge is restricted.

[abacus9900]

Sept 20, 2010 13:53:20 GMT 1 Progenitor A said:

Confused Science
"A photon can spin in all directions simultaneously"

Question 1; How can a particle spin in a cw and acw direction simultaneously.
Question2: For a particle to spin there must be a force providing that spin (spin is a continual angular acceleration).

You see naymissus, what is really happening when we make an observation is that we are interacting with 'nature' to produce 'observed' nature as opposed to 'unobserved' nature; they are not equivalent. So, we are very much an integral part of any state exhibited by any particle that is 'observed' in scientific experiments and is a well known problem in physics - it is called 'The Measurement Problem.' The implication of this is that if, one day, we discovered how to choose the right moments make scientific observations we could, in principle, create reality. Perhaps some advanced technologically civilisations have already discovered how to do this which would essentially make them godlike!

[abacus9900]

Sept 20, 2010 13:56:21 GMT 1 Progenitor A said:

Confused Science
An electron can be in two places at once. (In fact multiple places at once

Question: If I weigh 80kg and I am in two places at once, I mean, really am in 2 places at once, then my total wieght is 160kg

Does that mean the mass and charge of an electron is also doubled?

Being in multiple places at once only really applies to tiny bits of matter, naymissus. For there to be multiple 'yous', all the bits of matter that you are made up of would all have to be combined together at the same time, which is highly unlikely, to say the least.

However, 'the many world idea' says that there may indeed be many 'yous' about but in other dimensions, existing in similar and also very different 'earths'. However, it appears we cannot communicate with these other worlds, at least, not yet! In some of these worlds you might be the Queen, say, or a brilliant scientist, etc.

[speakertoanimals]

All of the examples given so far are just -- the many ways to misunderstand physics if you are incapable of understanding physics, or incapable of realising that an analogy isn't the actual physics.

I also note that many of these points have been answered already (like the electron being in many places at once, and what happens to the charge/mass distribution).

The electron spin one is just:

1) spinnig both ways at the same time only daft or impossible in classical terms, but since the whole point of quantum theory is that it is fundamentally different to classical theories, and classical concepts no longer apply.............

2) Even in classical physics, we have conservation of angular momentum, so that is NO forces act, a spinning top continues spinning, and DOESN'T need acontinued force since there is no angular acceleration since the angular speed is CONSTANT.

I have a question -- why should someone who can't handle even the simplest concepts of classical mechanics think that they have anything significant to say about quantum mechanics?

and also, are naymissus and abacus just an instance of one person appearing as two posters at the same time................

[abacus9900]

STA, I would like to emphasis that the views I have expressed are not my personal views but ones that are well known opinions on the part of at least some theoretical physicists. So, please refrain from giving people the impression I am a crackpot. I accept there is no consensus in the scientific community about these ideas since they are not testable, nevertheless, I would like to point out that some of the physicists who express them have a great depth of knowledge about such matters and are, in fact, based on existing models of reality which have been tested. So please, STA, show a little respect, ok?

[abacus9900]

All of the examples given so far are just -- the many ways to misunderstand physics if you are incapable of understanding physics, or incapable of realising that an analogy isn't the actual physics.

STA, how many more times must you be told that nobody understands quantum mechanics? All that can be done is to use mathematical analogies in order to at least attempt to 'model' such phenomena. For goodness sake, isn't it about time you moved beyond Einstein?

[speakertoanimals]

For goodness sake, isn't it about time you moved beyond Einstein?

Get your facts straight -- einstein never much liked quantum theory.

All that can be done is to use mathematical analogies in order to at least attempt to 'model' such phenomena.

First, maths (unlike the rubber sheet) isn't an analogy.

Second, that is what (theoretical) physics is! It isn't some supposed defect that is peculiar to quantum theory.

how many more times must you be told that nobody understands quantum mechanics?

In the way you insist on using 'understand', nobody understands anything -- they just think they do, because some of it accords with their intuitive, commonsense notions, because of the particular way we
happened to evolve.

What Feynman himself said (Probability and Uncertainty, lecture available on Project Tuva) is that:

But the difficulty, really, is psychological, and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself "But how can it be like that!" - which really is a reflection of an uncontrolled, but I say utterly vain desire,to see it in terms of some analogy with something familiar.

I think this is the sense in which he meant that no one understands -- our analogies all fail when it gets to quantum theory, whereas with other bits of physics, they perhaps half work, even (if in the case of the rubber sheet), not realising this can lead you into further problems. And note by analogy here I mean the rubber sheet, NOT maths, since some insist that this is an analogy as well, even that all maths is an analogy, which is utter piffle.