PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[JayUtah]

...you need to be able to leave your intuition at the door.

[T]he lecturer derived Schrodinger's Wave Equation from first principles. I can still remember how I felt as everything suddenly became clear to me, I think it was the closest I've even come to a religious experience.

There is a point at which mathematics "clicks" for people who study it and become good at applying it to whatever. It's the point where it stops being a cumbersome, dense, opaque notation and starts describing elementary concepts that really have no other way to talk about them. It goes beyond quantum mechanics. It doesn't "click" for everyone, but that's okay because this phenomenon is not limited to mathematics. I've had the privilege of visiting some of the finest art galleries in the world over decades of life, and Cubism only "clicked" for me last year.

Among some -- but not necessarily all -- of those for whom quantum mechanics never "clicked," there arises a specific belief that because "It's all just mathematics," and that it relies upon the branch of mathematics that quantifies and sets boundaries to uncertainty, there must be no corresponding underlying reality that we can know. That is, they imagine the math(s) can be one thing, and the underlying reality -- whatever it is -- can still be something else that behaves intuitively, and we'll never know what that is. It's a fundamental restatement of the underlying causation principles. Yes, it's more intuitive. It's also wrong.

Physicists definitely don't think this way. But here's the thing: physics students don't think this way either, even the ones who squeaked through Introductory Quantum Mechanics with a C-. The world is full of people who've tried and failed to understand quantum mechanics, just as there are people like me who can't figure out what the hell Picasso is trying to paint a picture of. But the people who make a valiant attempt to understand the subject via formal study, but simply fall short, don't adopt the particular approach we're seeing. As I said: there are characteristic ways of getting things wrong.

No, this particular dismissal of quantum mechanics comes from only once source: woo authors and their intended audience. They like to say they're showing you the holes in the theory, and they like to suggest that physicists and so forth would agree with them if they were being honest. But what they're really doing is a selective and simplified presentation of the subject accompanied by ongoing appeals to sentiments favored by the kind of people who prefer activities in which they were told there would be no math. They whiplash between quantum fields and grand unification. What they want you to come away with is exactly the concept that while Schrodinger and others can quantify a description of the observable behavior of the universe, it's possible -- maybe even likely -- that there's something else entirely different going on under the hood that the description alone can't fathom. They need you to know that physics doesn't know enough to dispute their particular brand of woo.

I'll grant that the shops where you buy these books always smell so very nice. But please don't try to learn physics that way.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Over 40 years ago, whilst doing my Maths degree, I attended a lecture in which the lecturer derived Schrodinger's Wave Equation from first principles. I can still remember how I felt as everything suddenly became clear to me, I think it was the closest I've even come to a religious experience. I never quite recaptured that moment of total understanding, but I'm grateful to have had it.

Nominated, for being a little bit beautiful.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And along comes PartSkeptic, who evidently has a special role to play in helping that happen. It's been revealed to him by his god that viruses and cell towers are how he's going to cull the herd. Which, I guess in the long run, teaches the ancient godly virtue of vendetta.

So the proliferation of cell towers and (alleged) EMF sensitivity/Covid-19 is God's will? Boy is he ever going to be pissed at PartSkeptic!

 

[abaddon]

Are you now guilty of antisemitism? (Tongue in cheek.)

Nope. Just observing yours.

You are right about the ills of early Abrahamic religion. If the Jews got it right the first time and that their book (The Torah) had the message correct, then why was it necessary for God to send Jesus to upgrade the message? Did Jesus teach the sins that you have listed?

According to your magic book, yes. You would know that if you read it.

And there is no evidence that a magical Jesus ever existed. What we do know is the Levant at that time was awash with looney apocalyptic preachers.

And if both the Christians and the Jews got it right, why did God send Muhammad to read both books (Old and New), then observe their behavior, and write a new book incorporating the two earlier books and set some things right?

Is it possible they are all wrong?

And God did not send little Mo the child raping warlord, and little Mo was illiterate so he read nothing.

The extremists of all three of those Abrahamic religions are not practicing the tolerance that religions of all mainstream kinds embrace. You all know the historical faults of the Catholic Church, the terror and extremism of ISIL. Any other extremists you care to name?

We were not discussing extremists, we were talking about foundational beliefs. I could list plenty from all manner of religions. Many you likely never heard of, but still managed to kill/injure a lot of people.

But I am not going to do do. This is just another attempt at a derail.

It does, however, demonstrate your subject matter ignorance.

And how has humanity tried to improve the situation? With God's help, I dare say. Mostly men of religion.

With god's help? Really? Please demonstrate god's participation in developing vaccines. Or computers. Or spacecraft. Or heart surgery. Or organ transplants. Or anything.

And since I want the best for all peoples and all religions, on what basis do you say I want to go back to sinful practices. It is you who are contradicting yourself.

You do not have people's best interest at heart, you want vast swathes of them to perish in nasty ways. Just like the god of the old testament.

 

[jimbob]

Most of modern physics is counter-intuitive, if you're going to get any real understanding of quantum mechanics you need to be able to leave your intuition at the door. That's difficult enough for most people; for someone like PartSkeptic, who takes it for granted that what his intuition tells him is always correct even if decades of careful scientific investigation have shown otherwise, it's obviously impossible. That's why he must hand wave away a core discovery of the most successful physical theory ever developed, and insist that he knows better than some of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

Over 40 years ago, whilst doing my Maths degree, I attended a lecture in which the lecturer derived Schrodinger's Wave Equation from first principles. I can still remember how I felt as everything suddenly became clear to me, I think it was the closest I've even come to a religious experience. I never quite recaptured that moment of total understanding, but I'm grateful to have had it. I can almost feel sorry for PartSkeptic that he will never experience such understanding. Then I remember that it's his own arrogance and intransigence which are standing in his way, and decide that it serves him right.

Yes, even when you actually think about it. For example you can solve Schrodinger's equation analytically for a Hydrogen atom, but not for any more complex system. That requires numeric techniques - yet the universe solves these (as far as I understand - I'm pretty rusty now) instantaneously.

I am not sure I understand what the implications of that are.

Let alone the idea that the universe itself doesn't know both the location and momentum of anything.

 

[JayUtah]

...yet the universe solves these (as far as I understand - I'm pretty rusty now) instantaneously.

I am not sure I understand what the implications of that are.

There aren't any. The universe doesn't solve any equations. The universe just behaves the way it does. We use mathematics to model all kinds of systems. Even very simple systems, such as gravitation involving more than two bodies, have no closed-form solutions in mathematics, requiring numerical solutions. This doesn't mean that three rocks in mutual orbit have any equation-solving capacity, or need to do so in order to figure out where they should be. If we want to predict what will happen in an n-body gravitational solution, we need to solve the models.

Let alone the idea that the universe itself doesn't know both the location and momentum of anything.

The universe doesn't have the capacity to 'know" anything, in the sense you mean. That human scientists figure out how things work doesn't mean you have to anthropomorphize the things.

 

[abaddon]

There aren't any. The universe doesn't solve any equations.

Bugbear of mine. The universe, or science, or mathematics, is not prescriptive. It is descriptive.

It does not tell one how things are, or how they ought to be, it attempts to describe how things actually are.

Of course, this never sinks in with the wingnut community.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Quantum vacuum fluctuations appears to be the "cause"

Quantum fluctuation is the observed result, not the cause

I learned quantum physics at university. E=Mc^2 has not changed since then..

Relativity is not part of quantum physics.

Your lies are obvious to educated people.

 

[jimbob]

Bugbear of mine. The universe, or science, or mathematics, is not prescriptive. It is descriptive.

It does not tell one how things are, or how they ought to be, it attempts to describe how things actually are.

Of course, this never sinks in with the wingnut community.

ai put it in a clunky way. One could conceptually use an analog computer thst solves such equations instantly. though

 

[PartSkeptic]

As did a lot of people. Which is to say, quite a lot of people make the attempt. We've been teaching it in universities for quite a number of decades. And as a result, those who teach it acquire a sixth sense for the handful of particular ways students misconceive the workings of statistical mechanics at the quantum level.

You have a blind spot when it comes to all your bluffing. You truly think you can quickly Google stuff, or rely on biased secondary-source summaries, and that no one will notice when you fall into the various pitfalls that await people just then trying to come to terms with a new topic. Or when they try to discuss it among people with more generalized understanding. These pitfalls that are well known and easily recognized by those who are conversant with the topic and in some cases were called upon to teach it.

Your "knowledge" of electromagnetic field energy comes from the anti-capitalist polemical literature. How can we tell? They make specific kinds of errors in interpreting the science. It's like a signature. Your "knowledge" of world history comes from the far-right extremum. How can we tell? They make certain assertions and misrepresentations that are also characteristic, and which you have clearly copied. No one else talks about it that way. Your "knowledge" of quantum electrodynamics comes from woo-ish pseudo-physics. How can we tell? They conceptualize it in a certain specific (wrong) way, with the desire for it to leave the door open for whatever mysterious phenomena they think they can shoehorn into it. The actual purported phenomenon varies, but you'd hardly be the first to try combine quantum mechanics and Aristotle.

Oh, sure, you've thrown out a few buzzwords, as you typically do. And you've gesticulated in a suitable manner around them, without really applying any sort of coherent understanding. And you've made an "argument" around causation that is popular among the woo authors who lament how physics spoil their fun. (Real physicists don't care.) But just as you made fundamental errors in understanding radiation, and fundamental errors in understanding genetics, you're making fundamental errors in understanding quantum mechanics -- chiefly that physics cannot know whether vacuum fluctuations are uncaused. How do we know you're making a fundamental error? Every woo author steps over this principle. And because that's where you're getting your information, it's something you evidently don't know. But it's fairly important.

Here's a tip. When someone starts talking about descriptive statistics and you say it's too laborious or uninteresting for you to pay attention to, you're going to have a really hard time convincing those same people later than you are so proficient in an esoteric field based on statistical mechanics to be able to wave your finger and tell others it doesn't dispel your pseudo-Aristotelian theology.

Your theology is gibberish, as is your attempt to hand-wave around the science that dispels it. You still somehow think we can't tell. Baffling.



Oh, look. You're frantically trying to shift the onus when cornered. What a surprise.

A lot of words and fury signifying nothing. You (and others) avoid details of where I am wrong. Just more put-down from the Word-Master.

I have a really bad flu. When I got home from the Spa the electricity was off and I could not get warm enough. My wife worries I have Covid. So any testing will have to wait - the measurement device is not in proper working order.

And I guess I will have to wait forever for an example of an effect without a cause since you have ignored the challenge. If you knew one you would have trotted it right out for all to see.

You are correct that mathmatics and the laws of physics describe what we observe. They are not in themselves "causes" or "drivers". What I find interesting is that some scientists ARE doing just that. They invent a mathematical theory (such as string theory) and then use that to explain the Big Bang (caused by other universes which are eternal). NOW THAT is a BIG LEAP OF FAITH. Especially since it is probably less provable that God.

 

[Pixel42]

You have been given examples of events without a cause. The fact that you don't understand them is your problem, not ours.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Most of modern physics is counter-intuitive, if you're going to get any real understanding of quantum mechanics you need to be able to leave your intuition at the door. That's difficult enough for most people; for someone like PartSkeptic, who takes it for granted that what his intuition tells him is always correct even if decades of careful scientific investigation have shown otherwise, it's obviously impossible. That's why he must hand wave away a core discovery of the most successful physical theory ever developed, and insist that he knows better than some of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

Over 40 years ago, whilst doing my Maths degree, I attended a lecture in which the lecturer derived Schrodinger's Wave Equation from first principles. I can still remember how I felt as everything suddenly became clear to me, I think it was the closest I've even come to a religious experience. I never quite recaptured that moment of total understanding, but I'm grateful to have had it. I can almost feel sorry for PartSkeptic that he will never experience such understanding. Then I remember that it's his own arrogance and intransigence which are standing in his way, and decide that it serves him right.

I too was impressed during one of the few lectures I attended. It explained a lot of phenomena. The stable orbits of electrons was one. Dual particle and wave was fascinating. Relativity was also interesting. I posed a "thought experiment" to the lecturer. He told me after a few days he did not know the answer. One of my friends who was very bright spent three days working out the answer. Simple concept but very difficult equations. I spent those three days in the cafeteria playing poker, eating chips and gravy and listening to groovy music.

I spent one night learning the textbook and passed the final exam without having to do test questions or learn techniques. I doubt I could do that unless I understood the concepts. Unless God was giving me the answers.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You have been given examples of events without a cause. The fact that you don't understand them is your problem, not ours.

Only one. Radioactive decay.

And I understand what it is and why it happens. You prefer a ghost answer where the particles seems to understand whose turn it is to decay. The random statistical nature of the underlying vacuum fluctuation is an acceptable physical cause.

 

[Pixel42]

Only one. Radioactive decay.

You quoted another one yourself in a wiki extract, though you didn't even realise it.

And I understand what it is and why it happens. You prefer a ghost answer where the particles seems to understand whose turn it is to decay. The random statistical nature of the underlying vacuum fluctuation is an acceptable physical cause.

The highlighted is a complete misrepresentation, and ample proof that you have no understanding whatsoever.

But I'm doing what I said I wouldn't, which is following one or your derails.

So how's the evidence gathering going? Found any to support your hypothesis that poorer areas will have lower levels of Covid-19 than more affluent areas because of their lower levels of cell coverage yet?

 

[jimbob]

Only one. Radioactive decay.

And I understand what it is and why it happens. You prefer a ghost answer where the particles seems to understand whose turn it is to decay. The random statistical nature of the underlying vacuum fluctuation is an acceptable physical cause.

Radioactive decay is the most obvious one. There are plenty of others - thermionic emission, for example. Anything involving quantum tunnelling is going to have a probability of any particular event happening. They all start on the quantum level, but, as in Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, there are ways they can impact the macro world.

There are lots of experiments that demonstrate this.

I would also argue that the only way one can get structure in the universe from a uniform initial condition at the Big Bang is through acausal quantum events early in its history.

Having to posit a maker - as has been pointed out for centuries involves asking what made the maker, and weird theological platitudes about the creator creating itself are indeed circular arguments and not something profound.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

A lot of words and fury signifying nothing. You (and others) avoid details of where I am wrong.

Yet another bare-faced lie.
There are pages and pages of posts on this thread, where numerous members, including myself, have pointed out your errors, and also asked you to supply evidence for your claims.
You have ignored almost all of them, presumably as this allows you to justify this obviously untruthful claim.
If you want to discuss your claims in detail, then stop wandering off on irrelevant side-issues and answer the questions.

 

[p0lka]

I too was impressed during one of the few lectures I attended. It explained a lot of phenomena. The stable orbits of electrons was one. Dual particle and wave was fascinating. Relativity was also interesting. I posed a "thought experiment" to the lecturer. He told me after a few days he did not know the answer. One of my friends who was very bright spent three days working out the answer. Simple concept but very difficult equations. I spent those three days in the cafeteria playing poker, eating chips and gravy and listening to groovy music.

I spent one night learning the textbook and passed the final exam without having to do test questions or learn techniques. I doubt I could do that unless I understood the concepts. Unless God was giving me the answers.

Gosh, that sounds bohring.

 

[JayUtah]

You (and others) avoid details of where I am wrong.

False.

Three people, including me, have pointed out where you misrepresent one of the core concepts of quantum mechanics -- that vacuum fluctuations are the observed effect, not the cause. And I pointed out that your sources misrepresent the degree to which the mathematical expression of quantum electrodynamics is considered representative of its essence. You haven't addressed those details. And that's just this weekend. Previously I pointed out your fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of radiation. Others have pointed our the details of your ignorance of genetics. I've pointed out your ignorance of American business jargon, a skill necessary to understanding the Lai memo.

What you dismiss as sound and fury was the detail of how we've amassed enough of your bluffs to home in on how you create an illusion of erudition, and the evidence you're just faking it as you go. You seem to think your disguises are foolproof. But you're making all the classic beginner's mistakes -- glaring errors --- in nearly every field you pretend to be an unmatched expert in. Then you frantically bluster and flounder to save face, throwing out meaningless counter-challenges and irrelevant anecdotes as distraction. Your boasting of having spent one night with a textbook and acing the exam the next day is utterly non-credible. Try to go one day without bragging about what a genius you are, and how everyone should trust your unevidenced knowledge. No one believes you. Literally no one.

And once again, when you tell people that my posts are too long and detailed for you to read, and you beg me to be more concise, coming back later to say I haven't provided enough detail is pretty darn funny. I'll provide more detail when you show you can deal with the detail that's already been provided.

And I guess I will have to wait forever for an example of an effect without a cause since you have ignored the challenge.

As usual, you leveled the challenge only as an attempt to distract from having your ignorance once again exposed. No one is on the hook to answer your random "challenges" simply because you decide to issue them when you get backed into a corner.

You're on the hook to provide evidence of your claims. Stop derailing the discussion and pretending it's everyone else's job to run around and do your random bidding.

If you knew one you would have trotted it right out for all to see.

We did: particle decay, an example of the fundamental theory of the universe. But since you obviously don't understand quantum mechanics, you can't see how it refutes your claim that everything has a cause. You have to blatantly reverse its core message in order to make it sound like you've gone unrefuted, and then bluster hard enough to hope nobody notices.

 

[JayUtah]

I too was impressed during one of the few lectures I attended. It explained a lot of phenomena.

Indeed, quite a lot. From your description, this one lecture -- presumably one of many comprising the course you say you aced -- is all over the map, discussing many unrelated topics. Not the sort of thing you get in one lecture in a series meant to follow a syllabus. But something you might invent if you skim a Wikipedia article on basic modern physics. Once again you're just reciting a laundry list of buzzwords.

I posed a "thought experiment" to the lecturer. He told me after a few days he did not know the answer.

Tell us what this thought experiment was, that stumped the experts. All your stories seem to revolve around stumping the experts with your brilliance. Please demonstrate it for us.

I spent one night learning the textbook and passed the final exam without having to do test questions or learn techniques. I doubt I could do that unless I understood the concepts.

No. Doing the actual coursework and learning the technique is how you demonstrate that you have mastered the concepts. And when you're finally forced to prove whether or not you understand the concepts, you get them very wrong. I don't believe any part of this story. But if your scenario is that you just bluffed your way through one exam after cramming the night before, then I'd say this typifies the way you seem to think the world works. And you seem to think no one reading your words can tell the difference, or has any reason to know the world really works quite differently than you envision. The very notion that you must think this obviously made-up story paints you in a good light is very revealing. In terms of how skeptics interpret it, it paints you instead very much as the sort of person who believes that his uninformed intuition and cavalier approach is always more valuable than others' hard-earned knowledge and skill. Then you base your subsequent arguments on essentially begging people to accept this "fact" about you.

You claim to have been an engineer. I can assure you that no one can sit the engineering licensing exam after just bluffing their way along as you seem to have. It is exceptionally rigorous and requires mastery of all the techniques taught in the college courses as well as those learned in EIT programs after receiving a suitable degree. I'm going to hire the guy in your story that spent three days solving the problem using proven techniques, not the guy who wasted his time in the cafeteria. This is what you should have in mind before trying to browbeat skeptics to accept your arguments on the premise that you're a genius who's being shabbily treated unless they do.

The stories you tell to try to salvage your laughable claims are becoming increasingly preposterous on their face. They all involve allusions to unverifiable details, boasts of your prowess at this or that skill, claims to have stumped all the experts (but never a detailed account of just how), and an insinuation that you are not receiving the respect you deserve at the hands of justifiably skeptical listeners. Is there any part of your participation in the forum that is not evidently predicated upon rampaging narcissism?

 

[turingtest]

... I posed a "thought experiment" to the lecturer. He told me after a few days he did not know the answer...

...

Tell us what this thought experiment was, that stumped the experts. All your stories seem to revolve around stumping the experts with your brilliance. Please demonstrate it for us.

...

I suspect the "did not know the answer" response was actually phrased more along the lines of "I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

(I gotta admit, I'm also a little curious to know what the "thought experiment" was. On a diet of chips and gravy and groovy music, it was surely something heavy, man, heavy.)